This is why I'm against gun control.

[Remudamom]

This is a graphic description of disturbing news. Don't click on it if you are easily upset.

 

http://cbs2.com/national/police.child.beating.2.748845.html

 

If good people carried guns this child might still be alive. I wish some "good old boy" had driven up on this scene.

[sleepy]

horrific.

[beansprouts]

If good people carried guns this child might still be alive. I wish some "good old boy" had driven up on this scene.

 

My dh told me recently he was considering getting a permit to carry a hand gun. I told him I might be interested in learning to shoot, but don't think I could ever use a gun for defense.

 

Than I read stories like this...

[jmgconner]

Oh my, this is one of the most horrific things I've heard. A punch to the gut to read it.

[lvbnhome]

when I took my concealed carry class, the officer who taught it said that is what his best friend said, until someone broke into their home and killed their daughter. The man feels differently now. I think in all it is a good skill to have, and God forbid that we would ever be faced with the situation.

 

My dh told me recently he was considering getting a permit to carry a hand gun. I told him I might be interested in learning to shoot, but don't think I could ever use a gun for defense.

 

Than I read stories like this...

[beansprouts]

when I took my concealed carry class, the officer who taught it said that is what his best friend said, until someone broke into their home and killed their daughter. The man feels differently now. I think in all it is a good skill to have, and God forbid that we would ever be faced with the situation.

 

Well, I know it is foolhardy to pull out a weapon unless I am ready to pull the trigger. So I keep asking myself - "Could I do it?" or would I hesitate and end up far worse off. But this story hit me hard. I honestly think I could have shot the bastard.

 

I would definitely want all the proper training.

 

But I also have questions about how effective a weapon would be considering all the safety measures required with keeping a gun in a home with children. It's not like I can just open a night stand drawer and be armed. Nor am I likely to have it sitting loaded in my glove compartment.

[Jenny in Atl]

Just no words.

[Debbie in OR]

If good people carried guns this child might still be alive. I wish some "good old boy" had driven up on this scene.

 

I read the first 5 words and got sick to my stomach...couldn't read the whole thing and skipped to the end. Totally with you on this...and now I am going to go hug my dc and call my dh and tell him I'm glad he is someone who would have been that "good ole boy"..

[Nicole not in CA]

This is so heartbreaking. Typing through tears here...

[Fourmother]

As someone said, reading this story is a blow to the gut. It sounds like a person under the influence of methamphetamines, which can cause extreme violence and paranoid delusions. However, I do not share the view that relaxed restrictions on gun control would prevent situations like this. Gun proliferation does not make me feel safe, far from it. I don't want to live in a society where every "good ole boy" is authorized to shoot bad people at will. That idea is just as frightening to me as this horrible tragedy.

 

I will be keeping that baby's family in my thoughts for a very long time.

[Phred]

Yes... it's horrible. But someone able to use a gun would have been able to use a crowbar too. And, for the one story like this there are all these:

 

Two-year-old David Pacheco was killed last Sunday by a stray bullet on his way to Easter Mass.

 

The funeral for 10-year-old Kathina Thomas, killed by a stray bullet, will be held Monday.

On Monday, 3-year-old Taylor Ricks of Norfolk was fatally wounded by a stray bullet that struck her in the head as she looked through a bedroom window, curious about the fireworks-like noise outside.

 

Child Killed, 2 wounded in a spray of stray bullets

 

Do a search for "child killed by stray bullet"... the list goes on and on and on and on...

 

There seems to be this romantic vision of a society where people don't commit crimes because of the fear of other people with guns. We tried that already. 1850's west. Don't you read history? The towns were cleaned up by making people leave their guns at the city limits. Only the sheriff had a gun. Otherwise the way things happened was the guys who wanted to commit the crime just shot first. Gunslingers who racked up a lot of kills didn't do it like the movies... standing in the middle of the street. They waited quietly and shot the guy they wanted in the back.

 

Those who will not learn from history are doomed to repeat it.

 

[hillfarm]

We live on a small farm and own a number of different types of guns for different purposes. Our 9yo dd just finished a thorough archery course through 4-H and will begin a handgun course in the fall, when she is 10.

 

Out here we use guns as tools. We shoot injured wildlife, coyotes trying to prey on our sheep, and food animals that we are preparing to butcher. I would not hesitate to shoot a human predator trying to harm me or one of my family. I am sorry if some don't want to live in the same world with me. Would they prefer that the injured deer I shot last winter die a slow and painful death by freezing and starving? That our lambs be torn to shreds by coyotes and other predators? That my family do without the protein we get from farm animal we raise ourselves (particularly now that store-bought food is so expensive)? Or that my dd be murdered (and most likely me too)?

 

Owning guns is not something to be forced on everyone. But those who choose not to do so should not presume to make the choice for the rest of us. I would caution them, however, that in both the human and the animal world, the predators seek out the defenseless and prey on them at will. Is that the world where you want your children to live?

[Remudamom]

Bad guys will have the guns. They already get guns illegally, they will always be able to get guns. People need to be able to defend themselves against the bad guys.

 

Guns terrify me. I worry about safety with them. I am afraid of them. I still want one in my hand if someone comes into my house after one of my children, and I still think a gun in the back of some good old boy's pickup would have saved that child. A fine little fella that I used to babysit for was gunned down in DC, as part of a gang initiation. Carrying a gun would not have helped him, but it would have helped in many other situations.

 

Hitler was into gun control.

[Rich with Kids]

I just can't agree. Bad guys will have the guns. They already get guns illegally, they will always be able to get guns. People need to be able to defend themselves against the bad guys.

 

 

 

:iagree:. Can I agree with not agreeing? :D

[Michelle T]

I'm glad the police shot the man. But I really can't imagine how some "good old boy" coming across the scene with a gun would have been sure that they were going to hit the man, not the child. Moving targets are hard to hit.

 

For every awful crime like this one, there are probably a hundred others where someone intentionally shot and killed another person while committing a crime, not self protection.

Michelle T

[beansprouts]

:iagree:. Can I agree with not agreeing? :D

 

Depends with whom you are agreeing and whom you are not. :lol:

[Phred]

As a society we have to make a decision. Are we going to be ruled by fear and emotion... or are we going to be a society that is ruled by reason? Firearms, guns, are tools. I've said this myself. But the proliferation of guns in our society is ridiculous. Do we make it so easy for a thug to get a weapon just so we can have them too? At what cost? How many lives are enough? We currently have armed conflicts in our streets. Gangs shooting it out against other gangs. But most Americans look the other way and figure that as long as they're killing each other... well...

 

I just can't agree. Bad guys will have the guns. They already get guns illegally, they will always be able to get guns. People need to be able to defend themselves against the bad guys.

Fallacy #1. Yes, bad guys will get guns... but not like you think. Look at the UK, at the Netherlands. If you remove guns from a society there aren't guns to steal from honest people to give to the bad guys. Most of the supply just dries up.

 

Guns terrify me. I worry about safety with them. I am afraid of them. I still want one in my hand if someone comes into my house after one of my children, and I still think a gun in the back of some good old boy's pickup would have saved that child. A fine little fella that I used to babysit for was gunned down in DC, as part of a gang initiation. Carrying a gun would not have helped him, but it would have helped in many other situations.

Fallacy #2. You're far more likely to be shot by someone you live with than by an intruder... or to shoot someone you love. 22 times more likely. (Kellermann AL. "Injuries and Deaths Due to Firearms in the Home." Journal of Trauma, 1998; 45(2):263-67.) Is it worth the risk?

 

Hitler was into gun control.

Ooooo... that's always good, if you can throw Hitler into a conversation. Pretty much ends things right there.

 

Anyway... the myth that the Second Amendment provides a right to own guns separate from a well-regulated militia has been fostered, in large part, by a campaign of misinformation supported by those opposed to common sense gun laws. As former Chief Justice Warren Burger said, "[The Second Amendment] has been the subject of one of the greatest pieces of fraud, repeat the word 'fraud,' on the American public by special interest groups that I have ever seen in my lifetime."

[newbie]

As a society we have to make a decision. Are we going to be ruled by fear and emotion... or are we going to be a society that is ruled by reason? Firearms, guns, are tools. I've said this myself. But the proliferation of guns in our society is ridiculous. Do we make it so easy for a thug to get a weapon just so we can have them too? At what cost? How many lives are enough? We currently have armed conflicts in our streets. Gangs shooting it out against other gangs. But most Americans look the other way and figure that as long as they're killing each other... well...

 

 

Fallacy #1. Yes, bad guys will get guns... but not like you think. Look at the UK, at the Netherlands. If you remove guns from a society there aren't guns to steal from honest people to give to the bad guys. Most of the supply just dries up.

 

 

Fallacy #2. You're far more likely to be shot by someone you live with than by an intruder... or to shoot someone you love. 22 times more likely. (Kellermann AL. "Injuries and Deaths Due to Firearms in the Home." Journal of Trauma, 1998; 45(2):263-67.) Is it worth the risk?

 

Ooooo... that's always good, if you can throw Hitler into a conversation. Pretty much ends things right there.

 

Anyway... the myth that the Second Amendment provides a right to own guns separate from a well-regulated militia has been fostered, in large part, by a campaign of misinformation supported by those opposed to common sense gun laws. As former Chief Justice Warren Burger said, "[The Second Amendment] has been the subject of one of the greatest pieces of fraud, repeat the word 'fraud,' on the American public by special interest groups that I have ever seen in my lifetime."

 

Deja vu.

 

There are always going to be stories on both sides. But , Fallacy 2 pretty much sums it up for me.

 

Jet

[beansprouts]

Anyway... the myth that the Second Amendment provides a right to own guns separate from a well-regulated militia has been fostered, in large part, by a campaign of misinformation supported by those opposed to common sense gun laws. As former Chief Justice Warren Burger said, "[The Second Amendment] has been the subject of one of the greatest pieces of fraud, repeat the word 'fraud,' on the American public by special interest groups that I have ever seen in my lifetime."

 

So how do you feel the second amendment should be interpreted?

[Kathy in MD]

We live on a small farm and own a number of different types of guns for different purposes. Our 9yo dd just finished a thorough archery course through 4-H and will begin a handgun course in the fall, when she is 10.

 

Out here we use guns as tools. We shoot injured wildlife, coyotes trying to prey on our sheep, and food animals that we are preparing to butcher. I would not hesitate to shoot a human predator trying to harm me or one of my family. I am sorry if some don't want to live in the same world with me. Would they prefer that the injured deer I shot last winter die a slow and painful death by freezing and starving? That our lambs be torn to shreds by coyotes and other predators? That my family do without the protein we get from farm animal we raise ourselves (particularly now that store-bought food is so expensive)? Or that my dd be murdered (and most likely me too)?

QUOTE]

 

I have no problem with using guns as tools or for hunting. In fact, if you can get permission, I've got a lot of deer for you to hunt.

 

But if a particular DC tourist had had a hand gun in the Metro one day, I have no doubt my dh would have been shot. Not for anything my dh did, but because the tourist and his dw stopped, I repeat STOPPED, at the foot of the escalator. There was no way around them, and we couldn't back up te escalator because it was packed. I, not my dh, bumped into the tourists wife. The tourist, scared and knowing his wife was being "attacked", punched my dh. And my dh wasn't even the one who bumped his dw. All because the tourist did something stupid.

 

So the combination of guns and fear terrifies me.

 

I'd much rather that people be allowed to bring their dogs with them for protection. It's difficult to use your own dog against you, a good dog is usually more sensitive to things not being "right" than a person, and can often deter problems by growling or taking a defensive stance. Also an initial dog attack is rarely fatal. And a sensible dog can stop if he's wrong. So why don't people try to expand the places a well-trained dog can go ???????

[3littlekeets]

Yes... it's horrible. But someone able to use a gun would have been able to use a crowbar too. And, for the one story like this there are all these:

 

Two-year-old David Pacheco was killed last Sunday by a stray bullet on his way to Easter Mass.

 

The funeral for 10-year-old Kathina Thomas, killed by a stray bullet, will be held Monday.

On Monday, 3-year-old Taylor Ricks of Norfolk was fatally wounded by a stray bullet that struck her in the head as she looked through a bedroom window, curious about the fireworks-like noise outside.

 

Child Killed, 2 wounded in a spray of stray bullets

 

Do a search for "child killed by stray bullet"... the list goes on and on and on and on...

 

There seems to be this romantic vision of a society where people don't commit crimes because of the fear of other people with guns. We tried that already. 1850's west. Don't you read history? The towns were cleaned up by making people leave their guns at the city limits. Only the sheriff had a gun. Otherwise the way things happened was the guys who wanted to commit the crime just shot first. Gunslingers who racked up a lot of kills didn't do it like the movies... standing in the middle of the street. They waited quietly and shot the guy they wanted in the back.

 

Those who will not learn from history are doomed to repeat it.

 

 

Thank you! And, as a college professor, I have heard students' arguments since VaTech and NIU for bringing weapons on campus. Trust me, I'd be far more afraid of the stray bullet, angry student who never "intended" to use his or her gun, and the freak accidents in class than I am a few disturbed citizens.

[SFP]

California gun law states:

 

SHOTGUNS AND RIFLES

 

Nonconcealable firearms (rifles and shotguns) are not generally covered within the provisions of California Penal Code section 12025 and therefore are not required to be transported in a locked container. However, as with any firearm, nonconcealable firearms must be unloaded while they are being transported. A rifle or shotgun that is defined as an assault weapon pursuant to Penal Code 12276 or 12276.1 must be transported in accordance with Penal Code section 12026.1.

 

 

 

so I don't see how gun control prevented any good old boys from loading and taking aim in this particular case.

[Colleen]

Phred and Fourmother expressed my thoughts nicely. Of course it's a tragedy ~ sickening to even think of it. Sickening to think of the folks in NC who tied their 13 year old son to a tree and ultimately caused his death. Bad things happen.

 

If good people carried guns this child might still be alive. I wish some "good old boy" had driven up on this scene.

 

Yep, maybe. Or maybe if the people who happened upon the scene had collectively been more forceful, the child might be alive. But maybe, just maybe, they weren't as forceful as they could have been for fear the guy had a gun and would turn it on them. I'm not castigating those who tried to help, to no avail. I have no idea what means of intervention they enacted but I guarantee you that if my 6'3", 280 pound brother would have happened upon this scene, he would have released an uncontrollable amount of physical malice toward this guy ~ sans gun. Maybe we could remove any controls on gun ownership but the people who happened upon the scene wouldn't happen to be gun owners anyway. Maybe they would be, but they'd inadvertently shoot the child.

 

Maybe, maybe, maybe. We can go round and round, but I don't play guessing games. I don't allow fear and "maybes" to dictate my stance on gun control. So, tragic story, no question, but it doesn't alter my position on this issue.

 

(Oh, btw, Hitler was into the fine arts, too. Music, art, architecture ~ the works. Horrid stuff, that.)

[beansprouts]

Yep, maybe. Or maybe if the people who happened upon the scene had collectively been more forceful, the child might be alive. But maybe, just maybe, they weren't as forceful as they could have been for fear the guy had a gun and would turn it on them. I'm not castigating those who tried to help, to no avail. I have no idea what means of intervention they enacted but I guarantee you that if my 6'3", 280 pound brother would have happened upon this scene, he would have released an uncontrollable amount of physical malice toward this guy ~ sans gun. .

 

You know that bothers me too. The article says the man was able to just push away those that tried to restrain him, but I have a hard time believing my own 280# dh would have been pushed off so easily. Or for that matter 3 or 4 organized 150 pounders would have done the trick, even if they armed with sticks or large rocks. I try not to picture people hiding safely in their cars with their cell phones, but unwilling to take on any personal risk to help this poor child. I know this is an unfair judgement.

[Sahamamama]

I have been in a life-or-death situation, and I obviously lived through it, BUT...

 

If I were in a similar situation today, and had a gun, yes, I could and would pull the trigger. There are some things that are worse than death, and there are some things that are worse than killing in self-defense. I know.

[elegantlion]

We don't own a gun and I question whether "I" would be willing to use one. However I keep a Louisville Slugger beside my bed and a big heavy pipe under the driver's seat of my car. I would have no qualms about using either one to defend myself or aid someone else in need.

[Phred]

So how do you feel the second amendment should be interpreted?

As it has been interpreted until very recently. The Second Amendment protects only a right to keep and bear arms in furtherance of a well-regulated militia. The 1939 decision United States v. Miller... well, here is some of the decision:

 

link:

 

 

 

On May 15, 1939 the Supreme Court, in a unanimous opinion by

Justice McReynolds

, reversed and

remanded

the District Court decision. The Supreme Court declared that no conflict between the NFA and the Second Amendment had been established, writing:

 

In the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a 'shotgun having a barrel of less than eighteen inches in length' at this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument. Describing the constitutional authority under which Congress could call forth state militia, the Court stated:

 

With obvious purpose to assure the continuation and render possible the effectiveness of such forces the declaration and guarantee of the Second Amendment were made. It must be interpreted and applied with that end in view. The Court also looked to historical sources to explain the meaning of "militia" as set down by the authors of the Constitution:

 

The signification attributed to the term Militia appears from the debates in the Convention, the history and legislation of Colonies and States, and the writings of approved commentators. These show plainly enough that the Militia comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense. 'A body of citizens enrolled for military discipline.' And further, that ordinarily when called for service these men were expected to appear bearing arms supplied by themselves and of the kind in common use at the time.

 

Me again. Nowhere does it say that we have the right to carry upon our persons a weapon at all times. Nor does it guarantee us the right to carry uzis or handguns. We should have an informed debate... but we should not lose sight of the fact that the second amendment does not guarantee us the right to be an armed society at will.

[elegantlion]

You know that bothers me too. The article says the man was able to just push away those that tried to restrain him, but I have a hard time believing my own 280# dh would have been pushed off so easily. Or for that matter 3 or 4 organized 150 pounders would have done the trick, even if they armed with sticks or large rocks. I try not to picture people hiding safely in their cars with their cell phones, but unwilling to take on any personal risk to help this poor child. I know this is an unfair judgement.

 

That part confused me as well. Perhaps there is more to the story. I know my dh would have risked his own life to save a child.

[Colleen]

You know that bothers me too. The article says the man was able to just push away those that tried to restrain him, but I have a hard time believing my own 280# dh would have been pushed off so easily. Or for that matter 3 or 4 organized 150 pounders would have done the trick, even if they armed with sticks or large rocks. I try not to picture people hiding safely in their cars with their cell phones, but unwilling to take on any personal risk to help this poor child. I know this is an unfair judgement.

 

Yes, I admit I'm wondering how this scene played out. Of course the man beating the child was the guilty party ~ no question there. I don't want to imply that anyone else is culpable for what happened to this poor child. And again, I have zero info other than that bit shared in the article. Hindsight is 20/20 and so on and so forth. I just...gosh and golly, I am genuinely wondering how many people happened upon this scene and what it is they did to try and intervene. Regardless, I feel for them, having witnessed such an atrocity. But I do wonder, nonetheless...

[Colleen]

The Second Amendment protects only a right to keep and bear arms in furtherance of a well-regulated militia....Nowhere does it say that we have the right to carry upon our persons a weapon at all times...we should not lose sight of the fact that the second amendment does not guarantee us the right to be an armed society at will.

 

Absolutely, positively.

[beansprouts]

These show plainly enough that the Militia comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense. 'A body of citizens enrolled for military discipline.' And further, that ordinarily when called for service these men were expected to appear bearing arms supplied by themselves and of the kind in common use at the time.

Me again. Nowhere does it say that we have the right to carry upon our persons a weapon at all times. Nor does it guarantee us the right to carry uzis or handguns. We should have an informed debate... but we should not lose sight of the fact that the second amendment does not guarantee us the right to be an armed society at will.

 

I think the "All males" part is interesting. Maybe it is time for an update :D

[dragons in the flower bed]

Yes... it's horrible. But someone able to use a gun would have been able to use a crowbar too.

 

Yeah, or you could put your own body between yourself and the child. It wasn't lack of a gun in the bystanders hands that killed that child. It was lack of courage.

 

I'm not against arming oneself or the right to bear arms, but I am aware that many people are killed with their own guns in their own homes because they bought one to protect themselves, not realizing that one needs to be in a certain mental state to protect themselves, not own a particular weapon.

 

 

There seems to be this romantic vision of a society where people don't commit crimes because of the fear of other people with guns. We tried that already. 1850's west. Don't you read history?

 

Oh, don't be silly, Phred. History's in the past. I know this won't be a problem in the future, because I read Heinlein. ;)

[beansprouts]

It wasn't lack of a gun in the bystanders hands that killed that child. It was lack of courage.

 

Um, no... It was the man who WAS BEATING HIM TO DEATH that killed him.

 

But one can't help but wonder if the baby might have been saved if the right person - whomever that might be - would have been present.

[Phred]

Originally Posted by Phred

It wasn't lack of a gun in the bystanders hands that killed that child. It was lack of courage.

Um, no... It was the man who WAS BEATING HIM TO DEATH that killed him.

 

But one can't help but wonder if the baby might have been saved if the right person - whomever that might be - would have been present.

Ummm... you attributed the quote to me but I didn't say that.

[beansprouts]

Ummm... you attributed the quote to me but I didn't say that.

 

Your quote was embedded within someone else's and I deleted the wrong tag. Sorry!

[KathyJo]

Since the purpose of the Bill of Rights is to protect the people from the excesses of the government, it is preposterous to me that we should allow that same government to begin "interpreting" the Bill of Rights for us. It's bizarre to me that as a people, we seem to accept that our legislators can sometimes make unconstitutional laws, but we don't seem to accept that our courts can make unconstitutional decisions.

 

This puts us in a rather scary place-- exactly one court case away from having any of our rights "interpreted" away from us.

 

Frankly, I'm not interested in anyone's "interpretation" of the second amendment except for our Founding Fathers, because they're the ones who were actually qualified to tell us what they meant. Luckily, they left plenty of writings behind. I've been listening to the anti-gun crowd for years now tell me that in their opinion, the second amendment does not give individuals the right to own guns. But so far, no one has ever backed that up by showing that a majority of the Founding Fathers felt the same way.

[Parrothead]

IMHO Gun Control = hitting what you are aiming at. And I'm all for that.

[Mrs Mungo]

I'm not in favor of disallowing the public to own guns. I'm not even in favor of registration of all guns, I think mostly it would be fat too costly for something that would only affect those who abide by the law, anyway.

 

I would be fine with outlawing certain guns and/or ammunition. I would be fine with requiring a gun safety class before you could buy your first gun and a refresher before you could buy any additional handguns (which kill far more people on accident). This requirement could create a waiting period of sorts.

 

That said, you could go back and forth all day posting news articles that could argue for *or* against gun ownership. Did you all see the article last week where a 4 year old took a gun out of her grandmother's purse while in Sam's Club and shot herself in the chest? That's pretty horrifying too.

 

My husband received his first gun at 10 years old. He's an excellent shot as a result. That can be important in his line of work.

 

There are plenty of options to keep guns safely in your home. We don't own a handgun, I won't allow it with kids in the home.

[Phred]

Before colonial times in England it was the duty of those that were of a certain status to have ready for the king a certain number of armed men at the ready. The definition of these men changed through time. At various times it was nobles only, then only Protestants could be armed... then only Catholics... then everyone of a certain age had to have a sword.

 

This mindset carried over to the Americas. In that time you had professional soldiers and militia. Militia were the civilians who were called up in times of emergency to defend their homes and lands. Ordinary citizens were expected to take part in the common defense. You didn't have a right to bear arms... you had a duty to do so. You were expected to have a weapon and be somewhat well trained. You'd get together with your town for drills. You'd teach your kids so they could join the militia when they were old enough. It's not a right... it's a duty.

 

So how exactly does that translate to today? And no matter how it translates... how does that justify the manufacture of one of these:

$120 retail.

[dragons in the flower bed]

Um, no... It was the man who WAS BEATING HIM TO DEATH that killed him.

 

But one can't help but wonder if the baby might have been saved if the right person - whomever that might be - would have been present.

 

Well, yes. It was a turn of the phrase.

[Jumping In Puddles]

Hitler was into gun control.

 

Godwin's Law

:leaving:

[Mrs Mungo]

So how exactly does that translate to today? And no matter how it translates... how does that justify the manufacture of one of these:

$120 retail.

 

Are those sorts of clips no longer illegal? Did they fall under the expired ban? As I said, I have *zero* problem with outlawing certain types of weapons and/or ammunition. I'm against high capacity clips. There's no reason for it.

[Colleen]

Frankly, I'm not interested in anyone's "interpretation" of the second amendment except for our Founding Fathers, because they're the ones who were actually qualified to tell us what they meant.

 

Well, since you put it that way...I don't know that I'm particularly interested in your "interpretation", either.:) If you'd care to explain the applicability of the past standards and expectations Phred noted below to today's so-called gun laws, though, I'm all ears.

[dragons in the flower bed]

Luckily, they left plenty of writings behind. I've been listening to the anti-gun crowd for years now tell me that in their opinion, the second amendment does not give individuals the right to own guns.

 

I'm not sure if your response was in the wrong place or if you really meant to respond to the particular post strand in which I participated. I agree with you about the second amendment. I don't believe the courts should mess with it.

 

But, while I do believe that people need to be armed against their government (and those huge clips pictured in another post would have a place in that sort of thing), I don't think that owning a gun makes a person safer outside of that political context, in day to day society. Even within a revolutionary context, even feeling the need to own a gun just to preserve the right to own guns, my household is composed of the revolutionaries who are practicing non-violent resistance: dumping tea overboard, passing out leaflets filled with uncommon sense, sit-ins and flag burning and such like this.

[Alexandra]

Godwin's Law

:leaving:

 

logic would step in. I did not know the name of the law. Thanks. Excellent.

[Colleen]

nt

[Fourmother]

Out here we use guns as tools. We shoot injured wildlife, coyotes trying to prey on our sheep, and food animals that we are preparing to butcher. I would not hesitate to shoot a human predator trying to harm me or one of my family. I am sorry if some don't want to live in the same world with me. Would they prefer that the injured deer I shot last winter die a slow and painful death by freezing and starving? That our lambs be torn to shreds by coyotes and other predators? That my family do without the protein we get from farm animal we raise ourselves (particularly now that store-bought food is so expensive)? Or that my dd be murdered (and most likely me too)?

 

Yes. Guns, like knives, are tools used in very different ways depending on where one lives. Of course, I would never wish any of the negative things you described on your family. However, my reality is not the same as yours. I'm sorry if you feel that my opposition to gun proliferation is threatening to your way of life. It isn't intended to be. But I have a family whom I love, and property that I try to protect as well.

 

I live in Los Angeles, motherland of Crips and Bloods. In 2007, over 900 people were murdered in Los Angeles county - the majority being black and hispanic males. A large percentage of these killings are committed with guns. (See the Los Angeles Times Homicide Blog.) Many or these guns are stolen from law abiding citizens like you and me. No one is hunting deer in LA. No one is using handguns to slaughter livestock in my neighborhood. In my vast city one killing begets another, then another, then another. The cycle of violence is never-ending. Stray bullets kill innocent bystanders and thugs alike. And the saddest part is that most of the killings are ignored as long as one of "them" is killing another one of "them." Nobody cares. (But let me tell you, if 900 dogs were shot in LA county last year the people surely would rise up and put a stop to it.)

 

 

Owning guns is not something to be forced on everyone. But those who choose not to do so should not presume to make the choice for the rest of us. I would caution them, however, that in both the human and the animal world, the predators seek out the defenseless and prey on them at will. Is that the world where you want your children to live?

Geography and culture are definitely factors in this debate which cause people to talk at cross purposes. Like you, I am frustrated because it seems that those who live far away from big cities do not understand how urban gun violence affects us. It cannot be dismissed with let "them" kill each other, or my kids are safe because I have a gun. It's so much more complicated. I simply stated in this thread and others that I don't enjoy living in a society in which I am surrounded by guns. They do not make me or my children one bit safer. That's a fact I feel rural gun advocates ignore. I do not presume to make any choices for anyone other than my family. I do choose to speak out on the issue, and to refrain from adding more guns to the deadly equation.

 

Believe me, I am well aware of the kind of world I live in, and I am dogmatic about preparing my children for it. Although we are fortunate to live far from the worst pockets of violence, my boys still run the risk of being mistaken for gang bangers by actual gangsters and by the police. They are in danger of being shot on all sides. So, I can assure you that my eyes are wide open, and my children are being taught the cold reality of gun violence in our world.

[newbie]

Yes. Guns, like knives, are tools used in very different ways depending on where one lives. Of course, I would never wish any of the negative things you described on your family. However, my reality is not the same as yours. I'm sorry if you feel that my opposition to gun proliferation is threatening to your way of life. It isn't intended to be. But I have a family whom I love, and property that I try to protect as well.

 

I live in Los Angeles, motherland of Crips and Bloods. In 2007, over 900 people were murdered in Los Angeles county - the majority being black and hispanic males. A large percentage of these killings are committed with guns. (See the Los Angeles Times Homicide Blog.) Many or these guns are stolen from law abiding citizens like you and me. No one is hunting deer in LA. No one is using handguns to slaughter livestock in my neighborhood. In my vast city one killing begets another, then another, then another. The cycle of violence is never-ending. Stray bullets kill innocent bystanders and thugs alike. And the saddest part is that most of the killings are ignored as long as one of "them" is killing another one of "them." Nobody cares. (But let me tell you, if 900 dogs were shot in LA county last year the people surely would rise up and put a stop to it.)

 

 

Geography and culture are definitely factors in this debate which cause people to talk at cross purposes. Like you, I am frustrated because it seems that those who live far away from big cities do not understand how urban gun violence affects us. It cannot be dismissed with let "them" kill each other, or my kids are safe because I have a gun. It's so much more complicated. I simply stated in this thread and others that I don't enjoy living in a society in which I am surrounded by guns. They do not make me or my children one bit safer. That's a fact I feel rural gun advocates ignore. I do not presume to make any choices for anyone other than my family. I do choose to speak out on the issue, and to refrain from adding more guns to the deadly equation.

 

Believe me, I am well aware of the kind of world I live in, and I am dogmatic about preparing my children for it. Although we are fortunate to live far from the worst pockets of violence, my boys still run the risk of being mistaken for gang bangers by actual gangsters and by the police. They are in danger of being shot on all sides. So, I can assure you that my eyes are wide open, and my children are being taught the cold reality of gun violence in our world.

 

I grew up in not so hot areas and can remember being mugged at 5. What you said really hit home.

 

Being around it I am glad you have not taken the stance that you have to carry one to protect your family or keep one in your home just in case.

 

Bravo on not adding to the violence.

 

Jet

[LND1218]

Fallacy #1. Yes, bad guys will get guns... but not like you think. Look at the UK, at the Netherlands. If you remove guns from a society there aren't guns to steal from honest people to give to the bad guys. Most of the supply just dries up.

 

The UK has seen a rise in crime since then. I have family in the UK - violent crime has risen as have crimes with a gun.

 

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/1440764.stm

 

http://rebirthoffreedom.org/freedom/guns/uk-gun-ban/

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_politics_in_the_United_Kingdom

[Mrs Mungo]

Geography and culture are definitely factors in this debate which cause people to talk at cross purposes.

 

This is *exactly* why it should not be a federal issue. It should be a state and local government issue. Except, like I said, I don't oppose banning certain types of weapons and/or ammunition (neither do most of the gun owners that I know).

 

I have to agree with Steph about the UK. Since citizens are not allowed to own guns there are a lot more home-invasion style robberies (when people are home) than there are in the US.