Guests may browse all the site, but only registered users can post in the main forums.
Unregistered users may post in the Free Range Talk Forum

Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Gun Rights and Violence
#1
I'm going to stick my virtually pretty little neck way out there and hope it doesn't get shot.  It appears a number of forum members have a strong interest in firearms.  From what I can tell, the membership includes avid hunters, gun collectors, NRA members and those, such as myself, with an occasional interest in shooting.  This leads me to believe there is probably a wide range of opinions about the role of firearms in American society.  I'll toss my opinion out there and see what kind of reaction occurs.

There are thousands of gun deaths annually in this country.  One can find breakdowns that distinguish between homicides, suicides and accidental or negligent shootings (although I would tend to agree with the member who stated there are no accidental shootings, instead just negligent ones)  but these statistics are often laden with personal agendas and motives.  It is probably enough to say most of us agree, no matter your stance on gun rights, the number of annual firearm deaths is alarmingly high.  It is disheartening to me that, year after year, little to no progress is made towards lessening that number.  Why is that?  I do not wish to place blame.  I wish to ask questions.

We all know guns are not going away.  You cannot put the toothpaste back in the tube nor the genie back in the bottle.  That ship has already sailed.  Guns are ingrained in American culture and the American way of life and always have been since Day One.  Why, though, does that mean we must be resigned to the violence and misery they can cause?  Tragedies such as Sandy Hook, Columbine, Aurora, the Gifford shooting, the Naval Yard, the Cal-Irvine shootings, etc are sensational and each one refocuses our collective attention on the ongoing problem.  Occurring in between each of those events were virtually countless instances of gun violence that did not command that level of national attention.  It is as if we just accept it.  Why is that?

I like to shoot.  I do it rarely, but once in a while on a trip back home, I will join in the target practicing with friends and other family members.  I am not against firearms.  I am also not against registering them.  The objection I hear most often against registration is the concern that the government will have a readily available list of who owns what kinds of weapons and in what number.  Frankly, I find that laughable.  List or no list, if the government were to take up arms against its own citizenry and enforce tyranny with the mightiest military the world has ever known, your personal arsenal will not be effective.  So why is there so much objection to giving law enforcement one more tool in the uphill battle against gun violence?  Why do people balk so much at weapons registration?  Do people really think the government is out to disarm them?  I think that is ludicrous. 

Does anybody have any thoughts as to why there is so much gun violence in this country and why we seem so resigned to it?

 
Reply
#2
I guarantee you won't get that pretty little virtual neck shot here as the gun owners on this site are responsible.  That is obvious by their commentary

I really think the issue is not gun control, but rather a societal disorder.  Gun restrictions will not prevent the Columbines and Sandy Hooks.  Prohibition NEVER works.
 
Civil disobedience is patriotic 
Reply
#3
Look, here's the deal from my viewpoint -and I'm as vacant as a parking lot on this stuff: I'm a common foot hunter for the usual suspects -deer, upland game, wildfowl. I'm no sociologist and have no idea what to do about all this gun violence. We could start by getting the illegal hand guns out of the inter-cities. Does that make me a racist? And, how we gonna do that, anyways?
Moving on, I don't give a rat's rump about CC. I think it's dumb and unnecessary. But, if it blows other's dresses up, so let it be.
Fifty days to dove season.



 

 

 
Go away.
Reply
#4
(07-05-2014, 10:10 PM)'Jlaw' Wrote: We all know guns are not going away.  So why is there so much objection to giving law enforcement one more tool in the uphill battle against gun violence?  Why do people balk so much at weapons registration?  Do people really think the government is out to disarm them?  I think that is ludicrous. 

Does anybody have any thoughts as to why there is so much gun violence in this country and why we seem so resigned to it?

 
 


I'm against gun registration but in effect we already have it. The background check to buy a gun is a record of who purchased it. From there the government can trace it. I'm against any background check, I'm against any federal involvement in firearms regulation. I'm very libertarian about it. 

Many, many more people are killed by automobiles, driving is a privilege, gun ownership is not. Seems the desire would be to further regulate automobiles? People use guns, knives, hammers, clubs, poison, and anything capable of killing to do so, we can't outlaw rocks.

To have a free society with minimal government influence/regulation the citizenry must have a common moral foundation otherwise the experiment in liberty becomes chaos. We have citizens that have never worked a job, their parents have been on welfare their entire life, they feel entitled to what others have earned. Their are people in this country that live in the woods, pickup their EBT cards, go fishing or hunting, work off the grid and cheat the system, they feel entitled to what others have earned. They've lost the compulsion to work for an honest wage, they've lost shame. There are exceptions, but on a whole much of the violence is a result of working outside of legal means. Selling drugs, prostitution, gambling, and any myriad of activity that makes money and is not reported.

Want to minimize violence, take away the power base of gangs and thugs. Legalize drug use, legalize prostitution, abolish income taxes and property taxes, institute usage fees for government services, transfer most of what government does to private corporations, and costs would go down. Take away most of the cheating, take away the prohibitions, and let states run it. Put gangs out of business and violent crime drops dramatically. 

Just a few radical ideas, most important, and here it is; return to God. Quit mocking Him, quit attacking His followers, and maybe His teachings might return some morality and ethics to this nation. 


The violence could be much, much, much worse. (My soapbox rant)

 
Reply
#5
Liked the brutal honesty of your rant, Number Two.  I obviously don't agree with everything you say, don't disagree with everything either.  But I respect your voice.  You've certainly earned that right.  
 
Ask not what your country can do for you but what you can do for your country.  
Reply
#6
I suppose I'm the oddball here.  I don't own a gun, I don't really want one, I'm not in the NRA, I don't Tea Party, but I the constitution gives me the right to own a gun or a rifle.  I'll fight nose to nose with anyone that thinks we should have more senseless restrictions on gun ownership not because I want a gun, but because I won't surrender any of my rights.  If some day, I want to buy a rifle, I want to buy the semi-auto version of the weapon issued to me when I joined the army.  Why would you hand me a full-auto version then but won't let me own the semi-auto version now?  That's silly.

I don't remember hunting with pappy, so I have no attachment to a 30.06, but I learned to love my M16.  An AR15 is what I want, but it's not nearly as powerful as pappy's deer rifle was.  You may not recognize or care about the connection, but I do.

I've said this before, I'm not against additional laws to keep guns out of the hands of criminals and people with dangerous mental disorder, but I'll fight every law, including laws I like, if the democrats propose them.  The democratic party wasted their chance at making real change in gun ownership restrictions and instead went after expensive toys that looked a certain way with the stupid AWB.  I don't trust any democrat concerning guns.  Neither do I trust a gun owner to be a democrat. 

When republicans control the government, they can pass sensible new laws - and I expect each of them to hold their nose while they do it.  

Gun violence.  Is that different from knife violence, rock violence or swung-cat violence?   A gun or a rifle is an inanimate object, just like a rock.  A cat, not so much unless it's dead.   Gun violence isn't the problem.  Violence is the problem.  Passion, fear, gods and greed breed violence.  Guns don't know what those are.  They don't understand the concepts at all.

We have a problem.  Look harder and you will see it isn't guns.








 

 

 
Winner.
Winner.

Chicken Dinner.


Reply
#7
Quote:Just a few radical ideas, most important, and here it is; return to God. Quit mocking Him, quit attacking His followers, and maybe His teachings might return some morality and ethics to this nation. 

We mostly agree, and this veers off a little.  But that is failure.  Religion teaches morality and doesn't understand ethics.  Morality is the enemy of ethics.  I need no god to tell me to restrain myself from violence and I have no morality.  I honestly try to not do anything but defend people that follow gods, but the god himself is fair game.  If he can't handle what I have to say, it's too bad for him. 
Quote:Americans are amateurs when it comes to violence against our own.

That's a little off.  Americans have little taste for actual violence, but we have shown ourselves to be a cruel nation when it was necessary.  What we did to Japan was cruel - but it had to be done.   The civil war was probably among the most cruel wars ever fought.   

Investigating war crimes.  That's an admirable service.  You must have some knowledge on the matter, so tell me this - was Sherman's march to the sea a war crime on American soil carried out by the United States?  Do you think stealing food from children and burning down homes used by no enemy soldier was cruel?




 
Winner.
Winner.

Chicken Dinner.


Reply
#8
Moral relevence is a specious argument particularly regarding events in different era's. 

Sherman's march to the sea destroyed the south's will to continue to fight. He broke civilian support for the opposition. I admire Sherman, but we can't compare what happened then to today. Lincoln destroyed the United States and forced a federal system that is to powerful upon the people. Government became more powerful than the people. Sherman's march was necessary to end the war and could be argued that it saved lives by not prolonging the war. Same argument for Japan, although the a-bombs may or may not have been needed. Firebombs were more destructive.

American soldiers and citizens typically don't tie up women and children and make sport of executing them. We have had a few isolated incidents since WWII and we weren't innocent in that war but on the whole we behave. Of course the indiginous people were "cleansed" but it was a different era. 

As for religion, I disagree, ethics come from external sources and are too flexible. Example: Nazi judges were acting "ethically" when they condemned jews and others to death camps. The Nurenburg trials shows that ethics failed to protect the innocent and redefined right. Individuals through religion are exposed to beliefs that shape their morality, where ethics do not.
 
Likewise, Islam is a religion and muslims are acting morally in Jihad and in the maltreatment of non believers. In Christianity maltreatment is not morally acceptable.
Reply
#9
Quote:American soldiers and citizens typically don't tie up women and children and make sport of executing them.
Sherman stole their food and burned their houses down.  That's a drawn out way of executing people.  Humans can only take so much cold and starvation before dying.
Winner.
Winner.

Chicken Dinner.


Reply
#10
(07-11-2014, 12:10 PM)'Liberty' Wrote: Sherman stole their food and burned their houses down.  That's a drawn out way of executing people.  Humans can only take so much cold and starvation before dying.
 
Do you hold Pres. Clinton responsible for the deaths of tens of thousands of Iraqis during the sanctions/embargo of the 90's? Do you hold Sadam responsible?




 
Reply


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)

Our Amazon Picks


Donate With PayPal