Gun opinions

[Latter Days Guy]

 

LDG: "10K plus deaths from firearms a year does seem to be a problem that no one in the US seems to want to sort out, and to me that is very sad."

 

NT: "Did you honestly just accuse everyone in the US of not wanting to deal with 10k deaths in our own back yard?" 

 

LDG: "Not at all, I'm an outsider looking in, and all I see is those who look for some kind of solution to the gun problems you have being squashed under the weight of the gun lobby."

 

Thanks for backing down from your earlier statement that "no one in the US seems to want to sort out" the problem.  I see you now saying there are people in the US who look for a solution, but they are squashed by "the gun lobby".  I'm guessing you see this group as people who fight against gun restrictions out of greed or some other nefarious reason.  Please correct me if I'm missing something.

 

I have vocally opposed firearm legislation in the recent past.  Here in Colorado in the last year or two, I supported the early recall of two state senators because they passed gun legislation we despised.  We forced the resignation of a third.  This news out of Colorado had a chilling effect on the rest of the nation, and other states quietly dumped a lot of the legislation they were considering.

 

I wonder - do you think I qualify as part of "the gun lobby"?  

 

I wonder - what nefarious reason do you think I might have to squash such legislation?   Or perhaps you assume I'm merely a dupe of the gun lobby, swallowing their party line unthinkingly, unable or unwilling to do my own research and form my own conclusions?

 

"When appalling incidents like Dunblane happened in the UK the public outpouring of outrage that this should never happen again was universal.  I don't see that happening in the US, even after many such incidents happening over a long period of time"

 

As others have mentioned, you either haven't been paying attention, or you could use a better source of news.  You can do a google news search for "Sandy Hook Shooting" or "Virginia Tech Shooting" or "Aurora Theater Shooting" or any of the other high-profile events to see how the US reacted.

 

"Why would  a law abiding and well educated person want to own something that has one sole intended purpose, to kill."

 

I think I qualify to answer that question.  My wife and I helped put a guy behind bars for 5-life.  He knows where we live.  He's been inside our house before.  My wife and I prepared for his release date in many ways.  Some of those ways were to get trained and proficient and permitted in a handgun.  In case he came here looking for payback.  In this case, the purpose of the firearm was not to kill.  It was to stop.  Stop any potential or actual attack.  (I'd suggest you do some thinking and reading on the difference between shooting to kill, and shooting to stop.)

 

"I do have 35 years martial art training in armed and unarmed combat, fought full contact for much of that time too."

 

If I lived in a country with such low rates of gun ownership (legal or illegal), I'd feel pretty safe with that too.

 

But when you talk along the lines of 'introducing a gun ups the ante', please realize that bad guys here all have guns.  When you talk of disarming intruders with hammers, please realize that bad guys here have firearms.

 

I've backed down on nothing, the fact remains that nothing is done, even after repeated shooting spree's.  Why is that?  From what I see its simply the majority of people put gun ownership first over the life of others, which is the opposite of what happened in the UK.

As for doing a news search, I did, and after a brief public outcry the NRA swoops in brandishing its "you have the right to own guns" line and it all goes quiet.  

Shooting to kill, shooting to stop?  The end result is the same, someone dies.  

Now your getting into the chicken and the egg scenario, the bad guys have guns so we need guns argument, which of course can be reversed to the good guys have guns so the bad guys need guns to catch up.

I can only talk from my own experience and knowledge.   I see low gun ownership and low gun crime/deaths in the UK, I see large gun ownership and large gun crime/deaths in the US.  From that I reason that living in a country with strong gun laws and relatively low gun ownership is far safer than living in a country where gun ownership is a legal right.  There will probably always be gun crime, but when its as plain as the nose on my face that where there are fewer weapons there are lower deaths, which is the point at the end of the day, the ending of needless death.

[NeuroTypical]

LDG: "10K plus deaths from firearms a year does seem to be a problem that no one in the US seems to want to sort out, and to me that is very sad."

 

NT: "Did you honestly just accuse everyone in the US of not wanting to deal with 10k deaths in our own back yard?" 

 

LDG: "Not at all, I'm an outsider looking in, and all I see is those who look for some kind of solution to the gun problems you have being squashed under the weight of the gun lobby."

 

NT: "Thanks for backing down from your earlier statement that "no one in the US seems to want to sort out" the problem."

 

LDG: "I've backed down on nothing, the fact remains that nothing is done, even after repeated shooting spree's.  Why is that?  From what I see its simply the majority of people put gun ownership first over the life of others, which is the opposite of what happened in the UK."

 

Ok.  So, when you said "no one in the US seems to want to sort out", you meant "the majority of people put gun ownership first over the life of others".   So I ask you again.  Did you honestly just accuse the majority of people in the US of putting gun ownership first over the life of others?  Yes or no?  Have the courage of your convictions, man.  If you're going to judge a people, don't back down when you get called on it.  Stand by your statement.  So, do we stand judged in your eyes or don't we?  Do you honestly believe most of us value cold steel over human life or don't you?  Say it and stand by it, or stop saying it.  We can't really have a conversation, if you're going to keep dancing around what you believe.  Pick one, please. 

 

----

 

LDG: "Shooting to kill, shooting to stop?  The end result is the same, someone dies."

 

Take a look: Do 100,000 people get shot every year in U.S.?

 

According to this article, 11,493 deaths by guns in 2009.  73,505 non-fatal injuries by guns in 2010.  So no, the end result is NOT that someone dies every time someone gets shot.  When you come here spouting such obvious errors, it really makes it hard to have a meaningful conversation with you.

 

----

 

LDG: "Now your getting into the chicken and the egg scenario, the bad guys have guns so we need guns argument, which of course can be reversed to the good guys have guns so the bad guys need guns to catch up."

 

Bad guys don't need guns to 'catch up'.  Bad guys will have guns in the US no matter what the good guys do.  And, they specifically target unarmed people.  Pretty much every mass shooting in US history (defined as 3 or more deaths), happen in an area where possessing a gun is restricted in some way.  Public schools (firearms not allowed).  Aurora theater (some theaters allow guns in Colorado and some don't - the shooter left his home and drove past several theaters that did allow guns, to the one in Aurora.)  Military base (open carry not allowed, conceal carry not allowed, base personnel follow armory rules.) Public spaces in areas banning conceal carry or otherwise restricting gun ownership. 

 

You see LDG, the armed bad guys here, when they're not shooting up each other, target the weak and the unarmed.  They avoid the strong and the armed.  This isn't a chicken and egg scenario, it's the nature of evil, present since the beginning.

 

Do you know where violent handgun crime is pretty much never initiated in the US?  Gun stores.  Businesses in areas permitting conceal-carry.  Public areas that allow conceal carry.  

 

---

  

"I can only talk from my own experience and knowledge."

 

Actually, you can do a great deal more than that.  You can be open to opposing viewpoints, instead of forming conclusions out of ignorance, based on half the story, and then dig in.  You can do additional research and follow where it leads you, instead of simply painting some nonsense picture about how people in the US care for their guns more than they care for human life.  Have you looked at the arguments of John Lott?

 

---

 

"I reason that living in a country with strong gun laws and relatively low gun ownership is far safer than living in a country where gun ownership is a legal right.  There will probably always be gun crime, but when its as plain as the nose on my face that where there are fewer weapons there are lower deaths, which is the point at the end of the day, the ending of needless death."

 

Actually, I agree with everything you're saying here.  You're more likely to be a victim of handgun violence in the US than in the UK.  (Not much more likely, but a little more likely.)  And yet somehow, I remain firm in my convictions.  Don't you wonder why that is?  I notice you didn't comment on my earlier statements - please do so:

 

"I wonder - do you think I qualify as part of "the gun lobby"?  

 

I wonder - what nefarious reason do you think I might have to squash such legislation?   Or perhaps you assume I'm merely a dupe of the gun lobby, swallowing their party line unthinkingly, unable or unwilling to do my own research and form my own conclusions?"

Edited February 17, 2015 by NeuroTypical

[Latter Days Guy]

Yes I believe that people in the US put their right to own guns before the rights of others to live.  If that wasn't the case then the first time a school shooting happened and children died the result would have been such a public outcry that said weapons would be banned.  

The problem as I see it is that gun ownership in the US is the norm and any attempt to ban would not work due to the high proliferation of weapons in the country.  That it was allowed to get to such a state in the first place is scandalous.

[Guest]

Okay responsible Americans.  My advice to you - go get intensive firearms training in addition to your Jiujitsu/Krav Maga/whatever training (more than McDojo, please)... make sure you practice on your primary firearm and be proficient at it.

 

Because... when ISIS and any other Terrorists rise up in Britain and just a hop and skip away from America (they're in North Africa now), you will be the ones having to defend them... with both governments as they are now (Marines removed from Yemeni embassies without their firearms, etc.), it will come to you - individual citizens - to save tons of behinds...

 

Because you know... Terrorists are law-abiding citizens and wouldn't dare bring a firearm into a British pub.

 

But really... when whoever is in the Downing and the White House becomes the enemy with command of the military... the Brits and most of Europe will be busy looking for baseball bats...

[mrmarklin]

I think you're all missing the point of the second amendment. The principal reason it was placed in the constitution was to protect ourselves from a tyrannical government.

All else, such as hunting, self defense, etc. is a side benefit

Americans largely accept the trade off that freedom is worth the price of a relatively few nut jobs misusing firearms.

[Guest]

I think you're all missing the point of the second amendment.

 

Speak for yourself.

[Vort]

Latter Days Guy, you seem like a nice guy. But you're embarrassing yourself in your line of "argument". You are contradicting yourself, showing amazing ignorance about the topic, and talking far afield of anything you have either expertise or even experience in. I suggest you cut your losses.

[Latter Days Guy]

Latter Days Guy, you seem like a nice guy. But you're embarrassing yourself in your line of "argument". You are contradicting yourself, showing amazing ignorance about the topic, and talking far afield of anything you have either expertise or even experience in. I suggest you cut your losses.

 

Not in the least, I'm sorry if you disagree that one needless gun death is a death too far.  I don't agree with private gun ownership as a right and am fortunate to live in a country that agree's with that.  I firmly believe that someone's right to life is far more important than someone right to own a firearm.  I also firmly believe that only the military and the police should have access to firearms, the military as they are the protectors of the nation and the police as they are the protectors of the public.  

[Latter Days Guy]

Okay responsible Americans.  My advice to you - go get intensive firearms training in addition to your Jiujitsu/Krav Maga/whatever training (more than McDojo, please)... make sure you practice on your primary firearm and be proficient at it.

 

Because... when ISIS and any other Terrorists rise up in Britain and just a hop and skip away from America (they're in North Africa now), you will be the ones having to defend them... with both governments as they are now (Marines removed from Yemeni embassies without their firearms, etc.), it will come to you - individual citizens - to save tons of behinds...

 

Because you know... Terrorists are law-abiding citizens and wouldn't dare bring a firearm into a British pub.

 

But really... when whoever is in the Downing and the White House becomes the enemy with command of the military... the Brits and most of Europe will be busy looking for baseball bats...

 

I think ISIS is doing a great job for their political masters in the CIA, creating a new enemy for the citizens of the US to go to war against yet again.  And talking about terrorists and British pubs, I lived through the Northern Ireland troubles with its bombs and shootings in mainland Britain.  How many millions of dollars and armalite rifles were given to the IRA by concerned American citizens?  To much and very little done to stop it.

[Traveler]

Not in the least, I'm sorry if you disagree that one needless gun death is a death too far.  I don't agree with private gun ownership as a right and am fortunate to live in a country that agree's with that.  I firmly believe that someone's right to life is far more important than someone right to own a firearm.  I also firmly believe that only the military and the police should have access to firearms, the military as they are the protectors of the nation and the police as they are the protectors of the public.  

 

I have two thoughts - first I want to come to some defense of our friend Latter Days Guy.  We know in the Book of Mormon that there are good individuals that would rather die themselves than take any one ease's life for any reason.  And that their stand was a matter of covenant with G-d.  One of the reasons I personally served in the army was to protect and defend those that believe such.  It is their G-d given right.

 

The second thought has to do with trust of those that serve in government.  We also know from the Book of Mormon that there is an element that is pervasive in human society that we identify as secret combinations that intend to take power and end the liberties of free citizens.  In essence we have been warned that the only peace on earth in the last days will be in Zion - not in governments.  As we have learned by sad experience throughout all of human history - governments can be very helpful in protecting individual rights - but only as long as those in power execute their authority benevolently.  There was sorrow among the righteous among the Nephits when their society voted to shift the responsibility and rights of protection from the citizens to the government.  At the same time we have learned that those that live by the sword will die by the sword.  

 

I applaud Later Day Guy for his personal commitments.   At the same time I realize that even a single unnecessary death is tragic.  But I would remind the forum (including Later Day Guy) that there are far more unnecessary deaths that occur through the careless ownership of automobiles than guns.  And in the USA there are more unnecessary deaths of children that occur through the careless ownership of swimming pools that guns.  However, singling out gun owners for unnecessary death can be somewhat a display of hypocrisy for someone that owns an automobile.

[Latter Days Guy]

Traveller, I would agree with 99% of what you say in your last post.

[Pa Pa]

Hi Bini,

Just wanted to acknowledge the validity of your opinion. I'm surrounded by them and carry one on occasion, and I wish I wasn't around them too.

Not exactly a practical opinion (which is what I think is what's setting people off), but an opinion nonetheless.

I remember when my youngest got his carry permit and gun. I would not allow him to carry it until he had fired 1,000 rounds and go through gun safety.

[Latter Days Guy]

What I find truly ironic is that I'm a gamer and I love FPS's!  But I can't stand the idea of actually owning a gun!

[Pa Pa]

I have two thoughts - first I want to come to some defense of our friend Latter Days Guy. We know in the Book of Mormon that there are good individuals that would rather die themselves than take any one ease's life for any reason. And that their stand was a matter of covenant with G-d. One of the reasons I personally served in the army was to protect and defend those that believe such. It is their G-d given right.

I served as well and I am in awe of those in the BoM, but I do not believe in or feel I have the right to leave my wife without support or my children and grandchildren without husband, father and Papa when I could prevent a criminal from doing so. Maybe it is the Police in me that feels this way...I don't know. Maybe I would have the courage to do otherwise. But for the Lamanites, it was their friends a brother and not a criminal seeking to steal or kill.

[Vort]

The Anti-Nephi-Lehites were a very, very special case. They were murderers who rejoiced in their murders, but were then brought to repentance. In return for their forgiveness for their many murders, both of Nephites and of their own people, they covenanted that they would stand by and watch their own families be slaughtered, including themselves, and never raise a finger in self-defense. And they did so; it was not until many years later, when they were watching their Nephite protectors being mowed down, that they considered reneging on their covenant, which idea was promptly quashed by Helaman.

 

tl;dr summary -- Don't hold the Anti-Nephi-Lehis up as non-aggression pacifists. They were nothing of the sort.

[mrmarklin]

Speak for yourself.

Just observing the jist of the argument.

[mrmarklin]

Not in the least, I'm sorry if you disagree that one needless gun death is a death too far.  I don't agree with private gun ownership as a right and am fortunate to live in a country that agree's with that.  I firmly believe that someone's right to life is far more important than someone right to own a firearm.  I also firmly believe that only the military and the police should have access to firearms, the military as they are the protectors of the nation and the police as they are the protectors of the public.  

 

Very typical European attitude.  We Americans should realize that someone who has not grown up with the 2d Amendment tradition would have a very difficult time understanding it.  Even here, as the US becomes increasingly urbanized, there are many who have never owned a firearm and don't understand those who do.

 

Nevertheless, gun ownership is a right here in the US, although I live in a State of the union where many would take it away, and in fact have done so for many types of firearms.

[Traveler]

I would comment again.  I grew up with guns.  We seldom bought meat at the store and for the most part what meat we did not raise we hunted.  I learned to enjoy all aspects of the hunt but I also learned and enjoyed the adrenaline rush that comes with the kill.  I did not notice it so much as a youth but more so as an adult having served in the military.  For me it got to the point that I felt there was too much joy in killing that one day I returned from a deer hunt with a deer but also having killed several jack rabbits just for fun.  I cleaned my rifle and gave it away and have not gone hunting of any kind since - with one exception with my boys that did not turn out so well - another story.

 

I am no longer young but I remain very concerned.  I will not go into all the details but I have lived with the impression (for many good reasons) that I would serve in combat and fight in a war.  It has always been my effort to be prepared for whatever I may be called to do.   At this point I would gladly give my life than consider taking another life.  I realize that to use a gun in defense means that you must be ready and willing to use it correctly - without hesitation - if the situation  calls for such defense.  I am concerned that without backup and by myself that such an effort would not be beneficial.  I would rather die than to kill.  But that is not to say that if necessary I would not use a gun for defense.  I do know enough to realize numbers are critical and important - to not stand alone - but to assist or work with someone(s) else is another matter.

[Guest]

Traveller, I would agree with 99% of what you say in your last post.

 

The difference you and I have is the understanding of "intent".  What the tool is "intended" for.

 

In your opinion, a firearm has only one intent - to kill.

 

Rat poison also has one intent - to kill.  But it's okay because rats are "ok to kill" (unless you don't agree that rat poison should be legal) even if rat poison is also used to kill people (and has killed people - which is more than your one person tolerance for killing).

 

In my worldview... guns are like rat poison.  It has one intent - to kill... But it's okay because deer is okay to kill if you want to eat (I'm against trophy hunting)... people are "ok to kill" if they're trying to kill you or if you're at war.

 

Now, this worldview is developed after growing up under Philippine Martial Law.  The first thing that Marcos did to establish his dictatorship is to control the press.  The 2nd thing that he did is to ban firearms.  The 3rd thing that he did is to bring the military under his command.  And that was all it took.

 

So that, my principles are set so that freedom of the press and freedom to own firearms is necessary to life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness.

 

Now, the interesting thing is... Marcos got ousted after over 20 years of dictatorship by an unarmed populace.  We had a freeway filled with unarmed people facing the military with tanks and rifles and machine guns.  And in between the two are Catholic nuns wearing their habits and rosaries wrapped around their waists praying and passing food to both military and people.  Marcos left the Philippines without a single gun being fired... WHY?  Because Marcos was a devout Catholic - he couldn't bring himself to command the military to fire through the nuns...

 

So that... firearms do not kill people.  People kill people.  If they can't use a firearm, they'll use rat poison.

 

But differences in opinion is okay...  that's what makes the world go round... just try not to paint Americans (or Filipinos for that matter) as less righteous because they have a different way of solving problems than the Brits do.

Edited February 17, 2015 by anatess

[mordorbund]

Nope but I do have 35 years martial art training in armed and unarmed combat, fought full contact for much of that time too.   

 

I don't know why martial arts are allowed. They only have one purpose - fighting. Why would any society want to encourage such violence? When I read about the bullying problem over there in the UK, it shocks me that the citizens value such "entertainment" (as if a civil person could find such barbarism entertaining) over the safety of victims. Combat lobbyists have been pushing their agenda for decades, and gotten the populace to buy into it with some sort of Bruce Lee fantasy.

 

I don't think I'll ever understand your culture.

[Latter Days Guy]

I don't know why martial arts are allowed. They only have one purpose - fighting. Why would any society want to encourage such violence? When I read about the bullying problem over there in the UK, it shocks me that the citizens value such "entertainment" (as if a civil person could find such barbarism entertaining) over the safety of victims. Combat lobbyists have been pushing their agenda for decades, and gotten the populace to buy into it with some sort of Bruce Lee fantasy.

 

I don't think I'll ever understand your culture.

 

Maybe because in law in the UK I can restrict the outcome of what techniques I use to fit with reasonable force, where as a gun has one probable outcome and that is death which would be viewed as unreasonable force.

 

I guess I won't ever get your gun culture either.

Edited February 17, 2015 by Latter Days Guy

[NeuroTypical]

I firmly believe that someone's right to life is far more important than someone right to own a firearm.  I also firmly believe that only the military and the police should have access to firearms, the military as they are the protectors of the nation and the police as they are the protectors of the public.  

 

My story:

 

My wife and I helped put a felon behind bars for five to life.  At one parole hearing, my wife gave information to the judge, with the guy in the room, that kept him behind bars for another year.  Dood was not happy and made his thoughts clear on the matter, to the point where the judge ordered him to stop looking at my wife and face forward and stop talking.  

 

We tracked his likely parole date, painfully aware that he might very well come looking for some payback as soon as they let him out.  It happens.  He knows where we live.  He's been in our house before.  He knows we have two daughters, and what they look like.  

 

We live out in the middle of nowhere, a 10 minute drive from the nearest town.  Away from the main interstate and nearest city, where the County Sheriffs spend most of their time.  If dood shows up, he'll have plenty of time to do whatever he wants and get away before the protectors of the public can show up, no matter how fast they drive.

 

So, we did our homework on this legitimate, valid threat, and we learned, and we set out a 4 step plan.  First step was to deter the threat.  We made sure our home was well-lighted, well-locked, and had a dog that made lots of noise whenever something moved.  We talked openly about our plans to arm ourselves and not be sitting targets.  We mentioned this to people we knew he'd interact with when he got out.  We trained in situational awareness and took martial arts classes, intending not to be an easy target.  

 

Second step was to avoid the threat.  After that last court meeting, we kept our heads down, didn't stir up trouble with him.  We didn't interfere with his parole.  Didn't have any contact with him or his people at all.  As far as he was concerned, we disappeared off the face of the earth. 

 

Third step was to plan to evade.  If we learned about him jumping parole, or someone saw him heading our way, or in our county, my wife and I have a code word we'd use, when we hear the word, we grab kids and some pre-packed stuff and run to a pre-planned hotel, where we meet and work with the authorities until the threat is over.  We trained our kids in a philosophy of "80 ways not to be there in the first place, 15 ways to run the heck the other way and hide, and 5 ways to fight back."  In that order. 

 

Forth step, if none of that works, and he still shows up, is to stop the threat.  I read up on violent encounters, how they work, and what works when you want to win one.  Read countless stories and anecdotes from cops, military, private citizens.  (This is how I met Mirkwood, btw.)  We evaluated tasers and pepper spray and bats and whatnot.  Handguns were the clear choice as our best bet.  My wife has health issues, I'm a 40 yr old fat guy, and my daughters are young teen and younger.  His release photo showed a hardened felon in prime physical shape in the prime of his life.  We both got conceal carry permits, issued by our County Sheriff.  The permits came with a very nice letter from him, thanking us for being responsible citizens in his county.  We got matching Glocks.  I had already taken courses, my wife took a course.  We go to the range and practice.  Develop and maintain the necessary mind set.  Got used to carrying safely.  Hope and pray he'd be content to leave us alone. 

 

He's been out for a few years now, and it's looking like our first two steps worked so far.  I still carry on occasion.  With or without him as a threat, there's still all the other reasons people are talking about in this thread.  Plus, if I get stuck in a snow drift on the way home, I can use it to scare off bears and signal for help.  

 

LDG, absolutely nothing you've had to say, anywhere in this thread, even remotely makes me think I made the wrong choice anywhere.  

 

http://extras.mnginteractive.com/live/media/site36/2013/0921/20130921_014523_CD0922PAROLEES.pdf

Edited February 17, 2015 by NeuroTypical

[Vort]

NT, your reasoned argument and personal witness are wasted. LDG has the purity of spirit that comes from knowing he is absolutely right and that his position is unassailable, and thus he need not think about anything. Reasoned dialog bounces off him like bullets off of Superman's chest.

 

Best of luck to you and your family, though, and God bless you and keep you safe from monsters.

[Guest]

Maybe because in law in the UK I can restrict the outcome of what techniques I use to fit with reasonable force, where as a gun has one probable outcome and that is death which would be viewed as unreasonable force.

 

I guess I won't ever get your gun culture either.

 

Wait, what?

 

Using a gun does not have only death as a probable outcome.  It's the same as in martial arts - my 13-year-old son can kill you with a choke hold... but he won't unless he intends to do so... if he intends to only maim you until the police gets there, he can do that too.

 

A lot of times - all you need to do is show your weapon and the idiot will stop whatever it is he is doing.  Nobody gets hurt.  If the idiot is also armed - you are better off defending yourself with your own weapon than being at the mercy of an idiot with a firearm... so you say, "but see - if guns were illegal, you wouldn't have idiots with firearms!"  Au contraire... idiots don't care to abide by laws... so, all you're really doing is disarming the good guys.

 

But when death is the intended outcome - there's no such thing as an unreasonable force.  If you want to kill somebody, you kill him dead with whatever force is necessary.  If you hesitate, you will be dead.  If you don't want to kill anybody in ANY situation, don't get a firearm.  You don't have to have one in the good old US of A.

[mirkwood]

I also find it interesting how many countries interfere with their citizen's God given right to self defense.

 

NT, I forgot that is how we started conversing more then just the occasional thread comment.