Gun control....

[akmom]

I agree. That pretty much summed it up for me too.

 

[singledad]

Ok, I'll start by apologizing for getting a bit heated yesterday. This is an emotional topic for me. I will now post my last thoughts and will probably then step out of this thread before it gets to me again.

That would be putting the burden of proof on the accused. The burden of proof lies with the prosecution. You don't have to prove your innocence; it is presumed. Instead, the prosecution is the one who has to prove your guilt, and the standard is "beyond a reasonable doubt."

He's not an "accused", he's an "applicant". We aren't trying to establish guilt, we're trying to establish fitness. There won't be probable cause, because if there is, we'd be prosecuting him, not investigating his fitness to own a gun. It's like applying for a job where you will work with sensitive data - you have to go through a background check/security clearance, and if you fail that it doesn't mean you're guilty of anything, it simply means you're too high a risk. I don't think that not being able to own a firearm can by any stretch of the imagination be compared to a prison sentence. If you can't get a gun, what's the worst that will happen? You can't go target shooting with your kid? Can't go hunting with your buddies? Won't look like "The Man!"?

As someone who lives in a country with one of the highest crime rates in the world, believe me, the occasions where people guns are stolen (after being used on them) by far outnumber the occasions where people successfully use a gun to defend themselves. Unless you're sitting with it loaded in you lap, waiting for the assailant, it's useless. And of course, those stolen guns add to the problem because they become illegal guns, in the hands of criminals.

And you don't seriously believe you'll rise up against a despotic government with your handguns, do you?

Foster parenting is not a Constitutional right in the U.S., so the background checks, home inspections, interviews and investigations are tolerated. If you don't like it, then you don't apply to be a foster parent. But owning firearms here is a right, so you don't have to go out of your way to prove fitness. Rather, the government has to go out of its way to prove unfitness. I think guns are important for so many reasons that I'm glad it's this way.

I think this is the wall I will always run up against. I don't understand how it can be a right, but I get that it was a decision made at a specific time in history, driven by specific historical events. I also think it's outdated and a little ridiculous, but I guess my opinion on that doesn't matter since I'm not American

And mass shooting are relatively rare.

Would you say that to the parents of one of the Sandy Hook Victims face to face?

Relatively rare, perhaps. But one is too many.

If we were to force citizens to prove their fitness on all matters involving danger, we'd never be able to keep up. The DMV (government entity that issues driver's licenses) issues licenses to any one who is old enough, passes a written test on traffic laws, and demonstrates competency on a road test.

There's a huge difference. Try living a normal life without a driver's license...

On the other hand, millions of people manage to live perfectly happy and successful lives without guns.

Actually that means we agree. We just disagree who the "few" and who the "many" are. We are saying we don't want to take away the rights of the "many" to serve the "few" . You are saying we should sacrifice the rights of the "few" to serve the "many". We are saying the same thing with a simple perceptive shift. We view the "many" as all Americans You are defining the "many" as the victims of our lack of gun control. We are defining the "few" as violently mentally disabled. And you are defining the "few" as gun owners.

No, I define the "few" as those who failed to be approved, including the mentally ill. I define the "many" as society at large, because when someone dies, it's not only that person who suffers. But perhaps it comes back to the fact that I don't think it's unreasonable to expect someone who wants to own a gun, to make his medical records available.

I honestly don't think that guns should be banned. It's not practical, even here, let alone still in the US where guns are such a large part of the culture. I just believe that people should be vetted more carefully. A few years ago, our government approved new gun laws with much tougher criteria. You also have to pass a test on competency (proving you can actually shoot) and safety (how to be a responsible gun owner). The laws about how and where a gun must be stored are very strict (you even have to attach photos of your safe), and if you fail to conform to that and your gun gets stolen, you are in deep trouble. Like prison kind of trouble. And if you don't report it stolen and it is used to commit a crime, you are in even worse trouble. It places the responsibility for keeping a gun out of the hands of criminals on the owner of the gun, and I fully agree with that. Perhaps, if such laws were in place, Adam Lanza's mother would have been more careful about keeping her guns out of Adam's reach.

My point is that there are a lot of realistic changes that can be done right away without government intervention. Spend some of that campaigning money on ad's and resources to inform and educate on mental illness and guns. Make it hard to ignore the fact that you have kids and no safe. Or a family member with illness and access to guns. If we don't accept our share of responsibility and act on that. I am afraid someone will.

I like all these suggestions. Perhaps a good place to start would be to hold gun-owners legally responsible for what is done with their guns.

/SD out.

 

[akmom]

If you can't get a gun, what's the worst that will happen? You can't go target shooting with your kid? Can't go hunting with your buddies? Won't look like "The Man!"?

You could get mauled by dogs. Someone could break into your house to attack, rape or kidnap you. Are there statistics showing a decrease in gun crimes after South Africa instituted tougher criteria? Sometimes these kinds of legislation are knee-jerk reactions, rather than sound policy decisions based on research.

 

[cybele]

Those things happen with guns too though? It's nit like you can just say to a dog "Hey there, get off me so I can just reach for my gun"

Also as someone who lives in the country with the strictest gun control, we aren't all dying everywhere from dog bites and home invadors. They happen, of course, but I cannot find any evidence suggesting these have increased since guns have been banned.

 

[akmom]

We aren't all dying everywhere from mass shootings either. They're rare. My community experiences a lot more dog attacks than gun crimes. Animal control - where it exists - is flooded with nuisance dog calls.

I'm a little confused about your perception about dogs. Have you never been attacked by one? They don't just come out of nowhere. They tend to show aggression before they bite. I don't know why someone would wait until it was actually biting them before grabbing their gun.

I cannot find any evidence suggesting these have increased since guns have been banned.

Have you found any statistics on it at all? Maybe your area doesn't keep track. Failure to find it doesn't say one thing or another.

 

[akmom]

Did any one realize that South Africa ranks #1 in gun crimes? http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_mur_wit_fir-crime-murders-with-firearms[/URL]

The U.N. Office on Drugs and Crime (2000) reports firearm-related homicide rates per capita, and there doesn't seem to be much correlation between a country's statistics and legal access to firearms. It isn't presented as a graph, so I can't determine it visually - just reading numbers. I certainly don't have the drive to plot values onto one myself. But it appears pretty randomly distributed around gun rights, if you leave out the extreme outliers, like Colombia and Guatemala. I'm sure there are other social/political/economic factors at play, though I'm sure it would take a lot more research to tease them out. Unfortunately, South Africa isn't represented in that table.

 

[bssage]

If you can't get a gun, what's the worst that will happen? You can't go target shooting with your kid? Can't go hunting with your buddies? Won't look like "The Man!"?

I personally feel "being a man" is defined by how you handle responsibility. I dont target shoot because it plays any role in the definition of who I want to be. I target shoot because its fun. Its sharpens the skills. And a side effect is that it has be an excellent way to connect with my boy. But women and girls also have a large participation. I am aware the connection the Anti gun lobby wants to make is a stupid redneck male drinking beer and shooting guns. Just simply not the case. Almost all the pro gun responses you have received here are from women.

I think this is the wall I will always run up against. I don't understand how it can be a right, but I get that it was a decision made at a specific time in history, driven by specific historical events. I also think it's outdated and a little ridiculous, but I guess my opinion on that doesn't matter since I'm not American

First: Your opinion does matter. If it did not we simply would not respond. You dont have to be a US citizen to have an opinion. I think at some point some of the responses to the thread have had the air of simply being anti American. We probably do get a little offended by that. Even then: we admit fault. Second: you are an educated guy. So what happens when we ignore history?

Would you say that to the parents of one of the Sandy Hook Victims face to face?

Not much. But that is because I cant think of words that could bring comfort to them. Because I know a tragedy like that would devastate me. The same as if their tragedy had another cause. I just dont have the words to express comfort to them.

Relatively rare, perhaps. But one is too many.

Fair enough. I agree. Do you believe that if we had even complete gun control that this would never happen again? Even one time?

There's a huge difference. Try living a normal life without a driver's license...

On the other hand, millions of people manage to live perfectly happy and successful lives without guns.

Apples and oranges. Let me ask you this. Which one of these things take more young american lives? Driving is not a right. It is a privilege. The two get confused from time to time. I personally would concede that maybe some sort of competency demonstration should be involved in the legal acquisition of a gun. This does not change the fact that the majority of the actors in these cases do not have a legal right to the guns they are using.

No, I define the "few" as those who failed to be approved, including the mentally ill. I define the "many" as society at large, because when someone dies, it's not only that person who suffers. But perhaps it comes back to the fact that I don't think it's unreasonable to expect someone who wants to own a gun, to make his medical records available.

I think the suffering of society as a whole in the case of a individual death is infinitely debatable. But I will concede that there is room in my mind to improve the vesting process even when it involves a right. I see only a few reasons a MD could not be part of the vesting process without releasing personal details. Maybe not approving or disapproving but rather being able to flag a candidate for further investigation. I can see how a doctors own views on gun control could become an issue. Even with that knowledge. I think they could be part of the process without violating rights. This IMHO is one of the points Gun rights advocates need to acknowledge. It could be a simple remedy. And can IMHO be done while preserving our right to privacy.

I honestly don't think that guns should be banned. It's not practical, even here, let alone still in the US where guns are such a large part of the culture. I just believe that people should be vetted more carefully.

Absolutely.

A few years ago, our government approved new gun laws with much tougher criteria. You also have to pass a test on competency (proving you can actually shoot) and safety (how to be a responsible gun owner). The laws about how and where a gun must be stored are very strict (you even have to attach photos of your safe), and if you fail to conform to that and your gun gets stolen, you are in deep trouble. Like prison kind of trouble. And if you don't report it stolen and it is used to commit a crime, you are in even worse trouble. It places the responsibility for keeping a gun out of the hands of criminals on the owner of the gun, and I fully agree with that. Perhaps, if such laws were in place, Adam Lanza's mother would have been more careful about keeping her guns out of Adam's reach. .

I really dont have a problem with any of that. Well maybe the prison part: but otherwise OK. (I dont think non-violent crimes should put people in prison)


IMHO the problem we have right now. Is that we cant get both sides to the table to even discuss the possibility that the other side might have some merit to their argument. There can be no compromise without discussion.

AK You should probably explain better where you live. I know only because of the healthcare discussion we had. Where I live wildlife and dogs are really for the most part a non-issue. I have killed a couple of raccoon that were wandering around the property during the day. Mainly to protect my dogs. (AK will probably tell you raccoon's in the day are bad news. It generally means they are rabid or injured.) I personally was attacked by a dog when I was around 10. Lived in the country: wild dog: our pet dog was in heat which brought this dog to the house. My head and back got chewed up pretty good. We had no guns. And I dont think one would have helped because I was just returning from school and no adults were around. This was in rural Illinois. Not Alaska where more, bigger, and meaner critters reside.

But IMHO our right is only in question because we allow it to be. Our concern should be the balance of rights. Specifically the "Right to bear arms" and the "Right to life liberty and the pursuit of happiness" IMHO they were not intended to be contradictory rights. Rather complementary rights.

What we need to do is make it more difficult for them to fall in the wrong hands. Make it more difficult for those hands to get to the front doors of our homes and schools. Will any of this eliminate these tragedies? I say no: they will not. But what they will do is allow us to focus more on root cause rather than the tool involved.

 

[singledad]

Are there statistics showing a decrease in gun crimes after South Africa instituted tougher criteria?

It's early days yet. The re-application process only ended last year (millions of gun-owners had to re-apply and be vetted. In a country with limited resources, that takes time). It will be a while before we see any results. The two biggest goals with this was 1) Obviously, to prevent unstable or incompetent or careless people from owning a gun, and possibly shooting someone in a fit of rage or whatever. 2) To slow down the rate at which legal guns fall into the wrong hands, feeding the black market. It will be a slow process, but it should, over time, cut down the number of illegal guns being used in robberies and heists.

I personally feel "being a man" is defined by how you handle responsibility...

Sorry. That was perhaps a bit out of line. I'm just struggling to understand why it is so very, very important...
btw - thanks for the apology. It does seem, sometimes, as though one isn't allowed voice an opinion about American policy or foreign policy that is in any way critical...

So what happens when we ignore history?

I'm not suggesting we ignore history. I just don't see how walking around with a 9mm or even a shotgun will keep a government in line. Isn't the right to vote a much more powerful tool? And if that fails and you are forced to go into a full-blown revolution... well, there will always be countries/organisations willing to supply weapons for that. No one is going to care if a revolutionary's weapon are legal or not... being a revolutionary is already illegal!

Not much. But that is because I cant think of words that could bring comfort to them. Because I know a tragedy like that would devastate me. The same as if their tragedy had another cause. I just dont have the words to express comfort to them.

Actually, I was asking AKMom if she'd be willing to repeat her assertion that we shouldn't change anything, because mass shootings are rare, while looking the mother of one or more of the Sandy Hook victims in the eye. I'm still waiting for an answer, btw.

Do you believe that if we had even complete gun control that this would never happen again? Even one time?

No I don't. Even if you were able to destroy every single firearm that exsists, I still don't believe it will never happen again. Someone will use explosives or set fire to a school or whatever. But it will be near impossible to convince me that the fact that Adam Lanza had easy access to multiple firearms and had been tought to use them, didn't contribute to what happened in Sandy Hook. Just like one shooting is one too many, if one is prevented, it is a triumph. Every life that is saved matters.

Apples and oranges.

My point exactly.

I think the suffering of society as a whole in the case of a individual death is infinitely debatable.

Maybe not society as a whole... but there is always collateral. The deceased is never the only victim. That is my point.

But I will concede that there is room in my mind to improve the vesting process even when it involves a right. I see only a few reasons a MD could not be part of the vesting process without releasing personal details. Maybe not approving or disapproving but rather being able to flag a candidate for further investigation. I can see how a doctors own views on gun control could become an issue. Even with that knowledge. I think they could be part of the process without violating rights. This IMHO is one of the points Gun rights advocates need to acknowledge. It could be a simple remedy. And can IMHO be done while preserving our right to privacy.

Absolutely. A doctor cannot approve or reject someone. But he can and should be able to bring his opinion on whether or not that person is fit to handle the responsibility, to the table. I believe a system can be worked out that won't necessarily be discriminatory. It will just require some thought.

I really dont have a problem with any of that. Well maybe the prison part: but otherwise OK. (I dont think non-violent crimes should put people in prison)

I don't believe that prison time is the minimum sentece - it would depend on exactly how negligent you were. As AK pointed out (not sure why she did, though...) we have the largest occurance of gun crime in the world. We are trying to change that. Part of the effort, is a massive drive to keep legal guns from becomming illegal gun in criminal hands. It is up to the gun-owner to ensure that he keeps his gun out of the hands of criminals. If you are attacked and your gun is taken from your hands, or if it is stolen from a legal gun-safe, you are fine - you did not do anything wrong. But if you leave it lying around, you are contributing to the problem, and should be held responsible.

For the record - I don't believe that non-violent criminals belong in prison either, but that's a different debate.

What we need to do is make it more difficult for them to fall in the wrong hands. Make it more difficult for those hands to get to the front doors of our homes and schools. Will any of this eliminate these tragedies? I say no: they will not. But what they will do is allow us to focus more on root cause rather than the tool involved.

With this, I agree completely. No single sollution will illiminate the problem. In the end, we (I say we, meaning both the US and SA) need to focus on the root cause. Why do these people do what they do? How can we prevent it?

 

[akmom]

Actually, I was asking AKMom if she'd be willing to repeat her assertion that we shouldn't change anything, because mass shootings are rare, while looking the mother of one or more of the Sandy Hook victims in the eye. I'm still waiting for an answer, btw.

Since you insist, my answer depends on the circumstances. I would not seek out a grieving family to share my opinions on gun control, but if we happened to be at a table where all were willingly present for that purpose, then yes. And by that, I mean we shouldn't infringe upon the right to bear arms. School security is another issue.

 

[singledad]

Since you insist, my answer depends on the circumstances. I would not seek out a grieving family to share my opinions on gun control, but if we happened to be at a table where all were willingly present for that purpose, then yes. And by that, I mean we shouldn't infringe upon the right to bear arms. School security is another issue.

Wow. Just... wow.

I rest my case. You are clearly willing to sacrifice anything. No point in debating with you then...

 

[akmom]

Would you tell parents, whose child was killed by a first-time drunk driver, that we should ban cars or significantly change the application process for a license?

 

[singledad]

Would you tell parents, whose child was killed by a first-time drunk driver, that we should ban cars or significantly change the application process for a license?

<sigh> I thought we've established that comparing guns with cars is ridiculous... but anyway.

I would NOT tell them that we should not be hysterical because drunk drivers killing kids happen rarely, or that the law should go easy on him because it was his first time. I would not claim that any of my rights, regardless of my condition, is more important than their child's life.

I would probably agree with them that stricter enforcement of EXISTING drunk driving laws are required (see, unlike with gun licenses in many US states, the legislation already exists).

I've believed for many years that the application process for a drivers license is inadequate, but that doesn't really have anything to do with drunk driving. More with incompetent drivers...

 

[akmom]

This isn't about me or any other gun owners or gun rights advocates. We had nothing to do with the Sandy Hook shooting, and don't owe those parents an explanation for our views any more than we did six months ago. Not that any of those parents even expect one, and as far as I know, none of them have taken any public positions on gun rights, and are just as likely to be gun owners themselves. It isn't the first mass shooting in history, and our country has debated the benefits and risks of firearms for centuries. It isn't that we don't sympathize with victims or even fear the same repercussions; it's just that we prefer the right to bear arms over the alternative, for all the reasons so tediously stated. Unfortunately, some of the most sensible suggestions for change happen to be ones that wouldn't have prevented this particular tragedy. Mental health screenings wouldn't help, since those guns were registered to Lanza's mother, not himself. Gun safes wouldn't help, since she was adamant about giving him access to them. Not even gun safety training would have helped, since this kid clearly had a lot of practice. So what exactly could we say to the Sandy Hook parents, besides an outright ban?

This final appeal to emotion ("Can you look those parents in the eye?") is both short-sighted and I believe an insincere attempt to villainize the opposition. Clearly you have an axe to grind, and it isn't because of the Sandy Hook shootings. It's because of your own experiences, and perhaps your location (where gun crimes are more than triple the U.S. rates). All of that is relevant to the discussion, and certainly gives you a perspective worth sharing, but it doesn't mean that those with different views are incapable of debating it, or owe anyone an apology over a tragedy they didn't have anything to do with.

 

[singledad]

This final appeal to emotion ("Can you look those parents in the eye?") is both short-sighted and I believe an insincere attempt to villainize the opposition. Clearly you have an axe to grind, and it isn't because of the Sandy Hook shootings. It's because of your own experiences, and perhaps your location (where gun crimes are more than triple the U.S. rates). All of that is relevant to the discussion, and certainly gives you a perspective worth sharing, but it doesn't mean that those with different views are incapable of debating it, or owe anyone an apology over a tragedy they didn't have anything to do with.

Edit. I posted a response this morning, but I have thought about it again, and I am changing it.

Yes, I have an axe to grind. And it is about much more than Sandy Hook. Sandy Hook was one incident that is a symptom of a much bigger problem. I was trying to get you to acknowledge that guns in the wrongs hands is a problem, and that something can and should be done about it. Sadly, I have failed.

I don't expect you to apologize to the victims at Sandy Hook. It's just that statements like "It doesn't happen often", referring to tragedies that have happened multiple times over the past decades, never fail to get my back up. There has only been one or two serious terrorist attacks in the US soil (that I'm aware of), and yet you won't find anyone saying "yes, but it is rare" about that. No one would dare. Perhaps it is because you feel personally threatened by them, I don't know.

I think I will refrain from adding anything more to the topic of gun control. I have made my point - guns should be kept out of the hands of people who cannot be trusted to handle them responsibly, for whatever reason.

For the record - one of the most common features of cases where children kill their parents, along with abuse and and the child being unable to get help, is that the child had access to a firearm in the home. It is extremely rare for a child to deliberately acquire a weapon.

I will not come back to this thread. It isn't doing me any good.

 

[akmom]

Fair enough. I can appreciate that the gun control topic is exhausted, but since you mentioned this

There has only been one or two serious terrorist attacks in the US soil (that I'm aware of), and yet you won't find anyone saying "yes, but it is rare" about that.

I have to rebut. Many Americans disagree with the measures taken to prevent terrorism, and the TSA (Transportation Security Administration) is one of the most controversial topics among Americans. In fact, I think it's a great example of "over responding" to a threat, without actually increasing security. Our airports used to just have metal detectors and no-fly lists for suspicious persons. Now we have have invasive body scanners and intrusive patdowns, for all ages and backgrounds. And yet, the last would-be terrorist who made it onto a plane was reported by his own father to be dangerous, and yet got past security. Others like him can still smuggle explosives via body cavity. So much for increased security. It covers a few more bases, at great expense and inconvenient to society, and leaves us no less vulnerable. TSA is a great example of how NOT to respond to rare tragedies.

 

[NancyM]

There has only been one or two serious terrorist attacks in the US soil (that I'm aware of), and yet you won't find anyone saying "yes, but it is rare" about that. No one would dare. Perhaps it is because you feel personally threatened by them, I don't know.

Are you kidding? How many attacks do we need to have made upon us for it to be satisfactory to other countries. And we certainly had plenty more than one or two! look it up.

Why do you say 'NO ONE WOULD DARE" say something like that, LOL there are a few people including youself who have 'dared' to say plenty derogatory statements about America.. it happens all the time here.
And truthfully, I think we've been pretty darn nice about it so far.

Somehow you went from gun control to America's lack of suffrage.
I just wonder why you even brought that up?

 

[cybele]

I think you've missed SingleDad's point.

His point as I understood it was that after 9/11 the government sprang into action and is now almost hyper-vigilant.

But there have been multiple school shootings, two in just as many months only recently, but the argument seems to be 'it doesn't happen all that often" well, why isn't this treated the same way? It's still a threat to innocent lives, isn't it?

 

[NancyM]

I think you've missed SingleDad's point.

His point as I understood it was that after 9/11 the government sprang into action and is now almost hyper-vigilant.

But there have been multiple school shootings, two in just as many months only recently, but the argument seems to be 'it doesn't happen all that often" well, why isn't this treated the same way? It's still a threat to innocent lives, isn't it?

Thank you Cybele for your interpretation, I don't think I misunderstood but I appreciate your input.

Actually we do treat mass murders the same way. On the rare occasion where they don't kill themselves,(I can't think on any) they are prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law.

Mass murder can be defined as Terrorism as long as very particular criteria is in place, it isn't simple. I do know that we are working to include this type of murder as a terrorist crime, which will make it possible to punish these killers the same way we punish terrorist, and might deter others from copying them.

 

[singledad]

Ok, it seems I am unable to stay out.

Are you kidding? How many attacks do we need to have made upon us for it to be satisfactory to other countries. And we certainly had plenty more than one or two! look it up.

Why do you say 'NO ONE WOULD DARE" say something like that, LOL there are a few people including youself who have 'dared' to say plenty derogatory statements about America.. it happens all the time here.
And truthfully, I think we've been pretty darn nice about it so far.

Somehow you went from gun control to America's lack of suffrage.
I just wonder why you even brought that up?

First - calm down, for goodness sake! Cebele is exactly right.

I have NEVER and will never criticise America for taking terrorism seriously.
I have NEVER and will never criticise America for trying their best to keep their citizens safe against terrorist attacks.
I disagree with SOME of the steps they have taken to do so, and it is my OPINION that these has been SOME occasions where they've used it to justify things that really has little to do with fighting terrorism, but surely I am as entitled to my opinion, and to voicing my opinion, as anyone else? I don't believe that anything I said was ever derogatory. Unless you see disagreeing with someone as derogatory. If there is a rule on this forum that people are never allowed to criticise America, it should be added to the rules, and the name should be changed to "American Parenting Forums". I was under the impression that this is an International site where everyone is welcome, and no one is an outsider. If non-Americans aren't welcome, or are required to conduct themselves like guests towards the American members, please make that clear, so that us "outsiders" can excuse ourselves and leave you to it.

But you know what? Actually I should thank you for making my point. See - if I really said that America shouldn't take action to prevent further terrorist attacks, your reaction would have been understandable. Mild, even. Why, then, does it take an outsider to have a similar reaction to people not taking <U>repeated</U> acts of mass murder by Americans seriously? Why does the reaction to mass murder not come anywhere close to the reaction to terrorism? Both are senseless acts of killing large numbers of innocent people. But the one that occurs more frequently, is dismissed with "yes, but it really doesn't happen that often"...

Mass murder can be defined as Terrorism as long as very particular criteria is in place, it isn't simple. I do know that we are working to include this type of murder as a terrorist crime, which will make it possible to punish these killers the same way we punish terrorist, and might deter others from copying them.

Right. Because harsher sentences will deter people from committing mass-murder and <U>SUICIDE</U>. Did you think that through?

<SIZE size="75">And people accuse Africans of be reactive instead of pro-active...</SIZE>

 

[Mom2all]

Singledad.. I think your question of why people can dismiss the problem with that it doesn't happen that often, because its not directly affected them.

Most of our American laws were made because of a victim. Most of the changes made with how we do things here can be traced back to one victim's family turning grief into a drive to push for something that could have prevented their loss. Without the devastation they suffered, they'd of never became an activist for it. So.. with that being said, without the first hand knowledge of the suffering, people aren't willing to go to any lengths to make someone else safe. People are increasing worried about their rights, without considering the damage those rights cause.

I am on the fence on how much we should do with the gun control. I believe in the 2nd amendment. I do not, however, understand why anyone would try and convince me that they need a weapon to fire 30 bullets in 30 seconds to defend themselves. (which has been the argument at work because 2 of my co-workers feel like they need that for self defense) and my point is, if you need 30 shots to hit an intruder, you really should go back to the range and learn to shoot. If their aim is that bad, by God, they really shouldn't have a gun to begin with.

And although this thread is not about the high jacking of planes and slaughter of 3000 innocent souls, it is about terrorism. No one person should have the capability to kill hundreds of people at one time. No law or amount of security will stop everyone. I get that. But if my walking through a semi-invasive security measure will make it harder for the next terrorist, I'm willing. To do something is better than nothing at all.

And SDad.. you shouldn't take it personally that anyone from this country gets defensive. Here, the right to bear arms creates a lot of hostility. Even among friends. I have a 2 coworkers tell me that I had no understanding of guns or the right to carry them 3 nights ago. I believe their exact words were "because it didn't effect me, I had no right to an opinion".

I carried one for years and it protected us from my Mother's domestic partner. An 18 gauge Charles Daily shotgun took off her face when he finally killed her with one. I understand the need for weapons... I also understand the devastation of one in the wrong hands.

Whats the answer for gun control? I don't know. BUT I DO KNOW.. it doesn't lie in doing nothing.