Tragic Times For The Second Amendment

What a bummer. The president enacting gun laws? What the hell is going
on? I wish I would wake up to find it was just a nightmare, guess not though.
Why aren't more people wanting action against criminals, not guns? Don't
people realize they're only hurting the good guys? Criminals don't care if
their gun is legal or not. Also I suppose they think there was no murder, rape,
robbery etc. before guns? Keeping people safe, huh? Infringing on the right
to keep and bear arms only makes things easier for the criminals and
mentally deranged. If more people exercised their gun rights, someone
could stop these tragic massacres before they got as far as they have. Even
if you could wave a magic wand and make all guns disappear(God forbid),
that would still help more bad people than good people. How would the
elderly, weak, or untrained protect themselves from an attacker? How would
anyone protect themselves from a group of criminals? The thing to do is
make violent criminals disappear, not guns. SeanPat
Seanonymous Seanonymous
41-45, M
5 Responses Jan 17, 2013

Oh, come on! If anyone tried to ticke our gun control away here in Britain, I would fight them tooth and nail! Making it too easy to get guns just starts you on a slippery slope of worsening gun violence.

Wow - I have to thank you Sean for the great original story. But I also read all the responses from BizsuitStacy - cudos to both of you. We need more people like you !!! Thanks for all the information - some I was not aware of.

You are precisely correct. What needs to be addressed is mental health care and to brace up purchase and background checks. That's it! The rest that has been proposed is all window dressing and political bull$hit!

So true, and thanks.

Your points are spot on. There are already numerous gun control laws in the U.S. At times, the laws have been more extensive...for instance the assault weapons ban between 1994 and 2004. Gun violence increased during that period. Since the assault weapon's ban expired in 2004, gun violence has dropped. Other gun control measures have been enacted in various localities...Chicago, DC, etc. While the objective of these laws is to reduce gun violence, the opposite occurs.

Einstein defined insanity as trying the same thing over and over, expecting different results. Personally, I think Einstein was being politically correct. Instead of insanity, he should have defined it as stupidity - particularly when considering the political agenda involved.

The only time we see gun control advocates rear their ugly heads is when there is a mass shooting that gets heavily hyped by the media. And of course, the main stream media also supports gun control as well. They are more than willing to politicize a mass shooting, but we rarely hear stories of someone defending themselves and their family members during a home invasion. In fact, gun control advocates will often go on the offensive demand evidence of someone successfully defending themselves with a gun.

What I find really interesting is that gun control advocates play on emotions, not facts, data or information. Supporters of the 2nd amendment, on the other hand, use critical thinking to support their argument - as you have done above.

I read a study of a gun control survey published by the mainstream media. It was produced right after shooting at the movie theater in Colorado. The results of the survey, and the headline of the study...51% of Americans support more gun control. BUT...if you dug further into the data, it was apparent that this study was a crock.

Most of the questions were asked right after a mass shooting, and were addressed this way: "Do you support more gun control?" Notice...nothing too specific about what kind of gun control...the questions were a bit vague and somewhat open ended - and would tend to prompt an emotional response based on the recent tragic event. The typical reponse was about 51/49 - a slight edge to those saying they wanted more gun control, or changes to the gun control laws. But the main stream media screwed up by asking a critical thinking question. Two of the main stream media outlets asked this question..."Do you think additional or stricter gun control laws would have prevented the mass shootings?" 82% of the responders said no. About 14% said yes. And 4% weren't sure.

So the majority of the same people who said, "yes, we need more gun control" also said, "no, I don't believe additional or stricter gun control laws will prevent these mass murders."

And there is plenty of data out there that supports their reasoning. Common sense will tell you...criminals, by definition, don't really care about laws. Nut cases, who want to commit mass murder (especially the ones who plan to kill themselves when the authorities arrive at the scene) don't care about laws.

The stupidest law of all is the latest from NY. They've reduced the number of bullets allowed in a magazine from 10 to 7. You can still own the 10 round just cannot legally keep more than 7 bullets in it. Carrying 8 or more bullets is a misdemeanor! Oooooh! Someone willing to commit a violent crime with a gun is already facing a felony, and a long prison sentence. Do you really think they care about the misdemeanor? And if I lived in NY, and it required 8 bullets or more for me to stop a perpetrator, I'm willing to face what ever penalty is dished out.

A college professor I know of used to have a saying. "What is the issue you are trying to resolve." He repeated this in the business classes he taught because it is such a common businesses failure to apply solutions without correctly identifying the issue first.

With respect to gun control, I don't even believe the politicians are trying to put a stop to mass murder. They know it won't work. I believe the anti-gun politicians want to outlaw guns altogether. They will approach the issue as if they are trying to solve the mass murder problem. But, as there will undoubtedly be more mass murders in the future, the politicians will then say..." seems that the gun control measures didn't do enough. We need more." And so it will continue...little by little...until one day, the public is completely disarmed. I'm not saying that is what will actually happen. I am saying that this is the approach that the radicals in this country will take in their attempt to disarm the American public.

You have made many good points, but it sounds as though you are happy to leave things the way they are.
It seems as though you are fearful of change, and would rather be able to say "see ....i got him....i stopped him in his tracks, told you we should all be armed ". Rather than saving the lives of the innocent that will inevitably be shot by a madman who got his hands on a gun and ammo far to easily.
I am so glad i don't live like this. Less guns can only be a good thing.

With all due respect...I wish you were right. I wish that enhanced gun control would prevent the inevitable violence. I wish that no criminal or nut case would be able to get their hands on a gun to commit murder. I wish that less guns was the answer. Unfortunately, this is not the case.

The facts and data simply do not support your conclusion that "less guns can only be a good thing." In virtually every instance in the U.S. where various gun bans, and increased controls have been implemented, gun related violent crime has increased. This issue is not unique to the United States either.

Violent crime has increased dramatically in Australia since the gun bans and subsequent confiscation took place. And the facts and data supporting the conclusion above is widely available and easy to find. You may feel safer, but the data suggests otherwise.

There is one point you make of which I agree completely. You said, "criminals will always have access to the weapons they want..." That is also the case in the United States. And it also supports the author's point, and mine below.

If someone plans to commit a violent crime on individuals...are they more likely to attack someone that could be armed, or someone they know willl not be armed?

One of the Unites States founding fathers, Thomas Jefferson said it best more than 200 years ago..."Laws that forbid the carrying of arms..disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes. Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed one."

Yet we don't have the problem of mass shootings anymore.
We have some drive by shootings, but that relates to one group if idiots shooting at another group of idiots, they only target each other.
Armed hold ups during a robbery still occur as usual,but they are not common in peoples homes.
People taking a gun to a public place such as schools and cinemas is not something we live in fear of, and those of us that own guns for hunting or sport are still happy with the way the law works. We all win.

That good to hear regarding mass shootings Australia. Mass shootings are actually on the decline in the US as well. Unfortunately, the news media doesn't report that fact.

Honestly - we both want the same thing - no violence. We just have two different philosophies on how to approach it. Guns are essentially banned in Japan, and it seems to work for them. The murder rate is quite low. But there are also more than 50 countries with murder rates higher than in the US that also have bans on public gun ownership. Switzerland has an extremely high gun ownership rate, and yet very low violent crime. The issue in the US is not the guns, it's really about the fact that we haved a deteriorating culture and still live in the dark ages regarding mental health. If politicians take on those two problems, it will go far in reducing violent crime.

I agree with you. The problem is , mental health is harder to monitor than gun ownership and gun storage.Most people with mental health issue don't seek help, or dont even know that they need it.Unless someone else reported them, they just get worse, and they can still refuse treatment. Limiting the chances of them getting to guns , and ensuring that those who already have them, get them confiscated at the first sign of domestic violence , mental health problems etc, can be the only way to limit the damage they could do .

2 More Responses

In Australia we have sensible gun laws and restrictions.
And none of us live in fear , or feel the need to have guns for personal protection.
Even those of us that have guns, don't ever consider them to be an option when it comes to protecting ourselves or our property.
Of course criminals will always have access to the weapons they want , but usually , they are only a threat to each other. They can all shoot each other and save us the trouble of locking them up , as far as i'm concerned.
Having tighter gun control prevents too many people from getting their hands on guns when they have snapped and wish to take it out on the innocent ones.
It also ensures that children can't get their hands on guns in the house and accidently shoot someone, or take revenge on a friend who has upset them.
We also don't have the issue of home owners accidently killing members of their own family when they sneak into the house unexpectedly at night , or killing neighbours who were walking in their yard, in the dark, looking for things like a lost cat.
It is far too easy to pull the trigger......and impossible to take it back once it's done.

I don't understand, Australians with guns wouldn't use them for self-defense? Why
not? What about to protect your child or some other family member? And your
criminals there mostly just shoot each other? Really? I've been a gun owner
myself for twenty five years and I haven't shot anyone, accidentally or on purpose,
yet. It is easy to pull a trigger and if I ever have to do so to protect my family or
myself, I'll be glad of that fact. And I won't want to take it back either! Thank
you for your comments, SeanPat.

My husband owns guns, that are locked in a safe , that only he can get to.
This is the law.
We would do what ever we had to to protect our family , but still the guns don't come into it.
We once had an incident where a group of drunks were hooning passed our house all night and due to to bend in the road out front of our house, we were likely to have the car come through our bedroom window.
My husband stormed out as they came passed and ran out to yell at them to f*** off.
They freaked out and lost control, ending up in the park across the road.
They took off , came back stopped at our house and screamed at us before taking off.
We rang the police.
10 minutes later they came walking back , with bottles and fence posts in hand.
They stood out front , 4 of them, and yelled at us to come out so they could smash our heads in.
We rang the police again, who were sending a car.
We didn't come out, so they threw a bottle at the front door and smashed the window.
They walked away after about 5 minutes , got in the car and screamed away, only to be pulled over by the police around the corner.
Long story short, we were scared, but still, we never would have pulled out a gun.My husband was in the army reserves for 20 years, he has used all the weapons , yet still didn't feel the need to go that far.
We are not stupid, and we don't put up with crap, we just don't thnk like you guys do , when this situation occurs.

I'm sorry to hear that happened to you, and I'm not saying your husband or
yourself should have went outside with a gun in that situation. However if it
was me I would certainly have been armed and ready within my house while
I was waiting for the police. It sounds as if it took them a while to get there,
what if the bad guys had forced entry into your home?

We would have used baseball bats ! These are also a weapon that you can not carry or have in your car unless you have a good reason. My husband and son play baseball, which is not so common here, so we would not have an issue if we took them out, but we still don't feel the need. Our Pawn shops can't even sell second hand bats , because they are a weapon of choice, for idiots.The police do their best , 2 of my brother inlaws are in the police force, but we get no special treatment, and still don't live in fear, and feel the need to be armed. Maybe you should consider moving ?

I would only consider moving if it was to somewhere with sensible gun laws. No
offence, but Australia certainly doesn't sound like that type of place. Laws against
baseball bats? That strikes me as extremely unreasonable. What about walking
sticks or canes? What about pocket knives? I shudder to even imagine what
other senseless restrictions you folks down there must have. The right to keep
and bear arms is very important to myself and many other Americans. It is one
of the first rights guaranteed under our Constitution, and for good reason. I could
post dozens of good quotes by our founding fathers, but I'll limit myself to one
for now. "Timid men prefer the calm of despotism to the tempestuous seas
of liberty." Thomas Jefferson He has many good quotes bearing directly on
the second amendment, that's a good multi-purpose one that I can recall now
without having to look it up. Anyhow, I feel the right to defend yourself or someone
else to the best of your ability, including the use of any weapon if necessary,
to be a cornerstone of civilization. Otherwise you're at the mercy of thugs, or
your own law officers (when it comes to being protected) and government. How
many policemen would it take to keep everyone safe, if citizens are denied the
right to protect themselves? Anyway, thanks for your comments, and have a
nice day. SeanPat

We don't have a ban on bats can buy them in any sports store.
We simply don't make them available cheap, so that they aren't just floating around in the hands of idiots so easily.
You do have to be over 18 to buy cans of spray limit kids painting public and private property.
You have to be 18 to buy hunting and pocket knives.
None of this is a problem to us.
Our laws are pretty sensible.

I think we'll have to agree to disagree. Have a nice day. SeanPat

4 More Responses