Emotional Stability

If we don’t know how we are going to act when we are challenged – then should we have a gun on our body?

1. George Zimmerman – Did he act out of his prejudice seeing a young black man with a hood. If he had not have a gun on his body then this young man would still be alive?

2. Jovan Blecher – If he did not have a gun, then would his child’s mother be alive and he himself?


The question is – when we have so many unstable people then why are we making it so easy to have and own a gun.

Yes, murder does happen with other instruments, but in most cases the victim will survive if they were stabbed or hit over the head with a blunt instrument.

If we are not trained like the LAW enforcement – then why do we carry arms that are so dangerous that we take the life of the innocent?

There are many other ways to protect yourself why does it have to be a GUN then?

Combine combat skills in defence will protect a woman from being rapped, plus you get exercise at the same time when you train in this from of combat.

Is it just made to easy and yet it is so devastating to all family when innocent life’s are taken.

Is not a life more worth it – than the right to bear your arms?

This is 2012 not 1812

Have we not progressed in this life of so called civilization 2012?


Diamond2020 Diamond2020
61-65
6 Responses Dec 8, 2012

this is the stupidest ****** post I have ever read. I'm gonna shoot you.

One note... I have a cervical fusion that has pretty much decided the outcome of any fight for me if some linebacker sized criminal assaulted me. I can no longer shoot a bow, play golf and somedays I can hardly move at all. I have a carry permit and do carry a pistol. I also collect and shoot military rifles from the 1800s to present.

I also could walk into a hardware store and build a gun in an hour..
A firearm is a tool... Nothing more.

Everyone says Guns is an issue it dos not matter how they died? If you had a gun but no bullets and killed them by beating them using a gun as a blunt object it's still death if you take a bullet and use a slingshot and you kill someone with that bullet. guns don't kill people by themselves it takes human interaction to have that "projectile" to be fired and enter another human body stop blaming guns because if we were still using swords and knives and spears we would be killing each other with those.

But if we did not have guns, we could not use them!

"We could not use them" makes my point a gun needs to be used to kill another human do they put the gun on trail or the human that used it or the projectile that actually did the damage to the body that caused death

If guns were better controlled and not so readily available,there would be less tragedies,I know there are other weapons that can main and kill,but guns seem to be the most often used and the most efficient ones,of course now because of terrorism bombs are far more devastating.

Not only are the weapons getting bigger but the people who use them are less and less remorseful of the harm they cause.Sadly we are becoming more desensitised to violence.

1 More Response

I have a number of posts regarding 2nd amendment rights. Our founding fathers were among the first in history to arm civilians by protected law.

I think you're focused on the negative effect of us as a society using them on each other, but clearly missing the point in which we may well need them to use against our leadership when the fascist police state grows out of hand.

Just a thought.

What you say,is a bit far fetched.To me it sounds like one of the regular excuses put forward to stop amendment to the gun laws in your country.What makes you think there is a threat of a fascist police state taking over? The bigger threat now are the unstable people who have access to guns and take so many innocent lives.

Governments take lives on a much larger scale

I guess it is he culture in America to own a gun,and this will not change overnight.But there are regular shootings there at least one a month if I trust what the international news say.I know one cannot stop criminal getting hold of guns and using them,but I still maintain guns are too available in America, where disturbed people with a grudge or a mental illness which make them paranoid can get hold of them,like that young man who shot his mother and then proceeded to kill all those children.Had there not been a gun in the house he could have got hold of,that tragedy would not have happened.

Recent shooting husband and wife - as they asked a man to stop texting while watching a film. The anger of this individual - to shoot when asked to stop texting. Is the very reason I asked the question about emotional stability, these mad people get a gun. I rest my case.

I heard it on the news, the man who was shot was sending a message to his four year old daughter,now that little girl has lot her loving father and her mother is in hospital grievously wounded.He life is shattered, will never be the same again,because someone with a lot of repressed anger owned a gun.

Wait who got shot, the guy texting or the guy who told him to stop?

The man that was killed was texting his young daughter. I got it mixed up. The point is still that guns are dangerous to have. When people can’t talk over their problems with one another in a normal fashion.

That a gun is used as it is available tool, we have voices, use the voice not a gun to handle life problems. Please reply with authenticity, support, and respect

Well if the guy who got shot had a gun that would increase his chances by 50%

I'm saying if you try to eliminate guns you'll only be disarming law abiding citizens. Cops and criminals will still have access. I don't trust either.

If everyone is armed then everyone stays polite. Whole lot less victims.

It does not work like that,I am afraid.

We will have to agree to disagree *yawn

Yes indeed!

When was the last time we had to use guns against our leadership?

Is not the USA - The Land of The Free - The Land that so many like the South Americans try to get into. So then you are not all free? Only free to own a GUN if you are crazy or not. What a joke.....

10 More Responses

<p>I live in a country where ordinary citizens are not allowed to carry guns,hunters get a gun licence and of course the police carry guns.We had a terrible tragedy at Port Arthur in 1996,when an unstable man shot and killed 35 people for the hell of it! then the gun laws became stricter and people who had guns had to hand their firearms over to be destroyed.Of course guns still come in the country illegally and are used mostly by criminals engaged in hold up robberies.But America is riddle by tragedies caused by frequent shootings by unstable people. "Bearing arms" has become a mind set in America where the sale of arms is a big money spinner and the gun lobby a very powerful organisation without a conscience!</p>

The right to bear arms has been part of the American mindset for as long as the United States has existed. Our Bill of Rights, including the famous 2nd Amendment, was adopted to limit the power of the federal government to take away the peoples' right to bear arms. The general idea is that every person has an inalienable right to self-protection and, and the government does not have the right to deprive its citizens of the ability to defend themselves.

So, "bearing arms" is hardly a new mindset in the U.S.; it's certainly not the result of a heartless "gun lobby" pushing an agenda for money. Placing blame on the "gun lobby" is a distraction tactic--it's a cynical story spun to ignore the millions of well-meaning people who support the right to bear arms and replace them with a faceless and greedy entity so that it's easy to disagree with their position.

What's actually going on is that there exists a long-term trend of people in general becoming more accepting of and dependent upon on the state (e.g., police, military) for protection. Meanwhile, our government and media have become increasingly vocal and outspoken against individual gun ownership while our police forces have become more and more militarized.

If you are wholly trusting of your government, none of these trends is probably very worrying at all. So long as police are protecting us from "bad guys" and you're sure you aren't a "bad guy" then it probably barely registers as a thing to be concerned about.

But consider just for a moment how you would define the term "police state" and the type of emotions you might associate with that idea. A lot of Americans are very resistant to the idea of allowing government and police a monopoly on force simply because the only thing separating that scenario from a totalitarian police state is the decision to use force against citizens.

To a lot of people the idea of the U.S. government turning on its people probably sounds crazy. As long as it does sound crazy that means the 2nd Amendment is still working. However, there have been plenty of troubling developments since the "war on terror" like the Patriot Act, spying on U.S. citizens, denial of due process to suspected terrorists, torture, etc. These can give the strong impression that the government doesn't trust us and the idea of gradually increasing use of force against citizenry may not be so far-fetched after all.

I hope this helps to explain why a "powerful gun lobby" exists and why there is so much resistance to stronger gun laws in the U.S. It's not all about "money" or gun owners being reluctant to give up their toys, but about a heartfelt belief that maintaining an armed populace is the best course to protect freedom in the long run.

I don't mean to be dismissive of the problem of unstable people using guns; it's troubling and even people who are heavily in favor of gun rights are equally passionate about finding ways to reduce violence. However, it's extremely difficult, perhaps impossible, to predict who is unstable enough to go out and harm a bunch of people. While it's true that guns are one tool that can enhance such a person's ability to do harm, it's also true that someone bent on inflicting mass casualties will use whatever means at their disposal to accomplish that goal (box cutters on 9/11, fertilizer and fuel oil in Oklahoma City, fireworks and pressure cookers in Boston, dynamite in Bath School massacre, etc.). Banning or further restricting access to guns sounds good, but taking guns away from non-criminals isn't going to prevent any crime, and making guns more difficult to obtain legally only means criminals will obtain (or even manufacture) them illegally.

I agree 100%

According to what you tell me it appear that lot of American citizens do not trust their government and you have cited why in your reply.And it seems that people are also also afraid of control by the police in your country.It appears there is along history of violence in America and it is well known that parts of certain towns like new-York and Chicago just to give some examples are not safe to wander into.(sadly the same thing is happening in London now) Americans it seems, certainly have a different culture and mind set than say in Australia where we do not feel unsafe under our government and our police force.I still believe that the money the sale of firearms generates in America for the manufacturers and shops who sell them is astronomical and is a great factor in the strong resistance to the amelioration of the gun laws to protect the ordinary citizen against deranged people who have so far gone on a rampage so frequently in your country and destroyed so many lives.Think of those children who died, they were such little children with their entire lives ahead of them and think what they could have accomplished for the world had they been allowed to grow up.And think about the parents' shattered lives.There is more involved in the whole sad situation regarding the availability of guns to all and sundry than meet the eyes.I recently heard a speech given by a gun lobby advocate and you would not believe what he said,I am sure it would shock you and would make you think twice about the kind of people that are a force behind the gun lobby.

And guns whether obtained legally or illegally will always be BAD NEWS in the hands of criminals.

Regarding the children who died and their parents' shattered lives, there's no reason that should be a divisive issue. Of course that's a heart-wrenching tragedy! I've lost a close friend to violence, but I can't even imagine the heartache of losing a child to something so senseless.

Unfortunately, following any such tragedy that involves a gun, the media and politicians always blame the gun, and in doing so turn that tragedy into a divisive and emotionally charged issue about guns. The gun becomes a scapegoat, and maybe a convenient focal point for the outrage people feel and cannot direct at the shooter, who in most cases never lives to face any consequences.

The implication is that if we just got rid of the guns we could get rid of the violence and stop these tragedies, but there's not much beyond emotion and hope to back that up. It's wishful thinking. Those bent on doing violence will simply reach for some other means.

It's such common practice to scapegoat the guns that it's hard not to sound callous when questioning why the gun gets the blame. But it's a valid question, because it's a double-standard not applied to any other mechanism that disturbed people use to act out senseless violence. Nobody blamed fire when a suicidal man in China incinerated a bus last month, killing 47 people. Those people had friends, families and futures cut short, too.

The important question ought to be, what is it that compels some people to inflict as much harm as possible on innocent? What can we do about that, to restore some compassion, trust and humanity toward one another? I think it's a hard question to answer, though, because it's a hard problem to understand--I certainly can't relate to why someone would want to murder children, so I can hardly guess at how to talk them out of it.

Briefly, on the topic of government mistrust, the degree of mistrust / fear of government &amp; authority will vary depending on who you ask (and the loudest, most outspoken people always seem to get the most airtime). At the very least, I think there's a healthy caution about some of the trends in government and police power, and a desire to avoid enabling potential abuse of power by relinquishing arms.

After all, police are just people, too. For a recent example of why some people fearing police having all the guns, look at what happened in Los Angeles earlier this year when officer Chris Dorner went on a shooting rampage. Not only was Dorner himself a public threat, but officers in pursuit of him opened fire on two innocent women delivering newspapers in a pickup truck that didn't even match the description of Dorner's vehicle (as well at least one other vehicle in yet another incident). If you're not familiar with this part of the story or have not seen pictures of the truck, I've copied a link below.

http://www.theatlanticwire.com/national/2013/04/women-mistaken-chris-dorner-and-shot-lapd-will-get-42-million/64513/

More troubling (for me at least) than the shooting itself is that the officers involved were never named, and I don't know that any disciplinary action was ever taken apart from "administrative leave" mentioned in the news. It's one thing to worry about being the victim of government abuse, because statistically that's almost certain to never happen, but it's very troubling if there are double standards or lack of transparency / accountability when these incidents do happen.

*Whew*, heavy topics. And I hope I'm not taking over Diamond's page here. Thanks for the polite discussion, and have a wonderful day in Oz!

speleofool.
I tried to message you but was unable to get through,here is the video I mentioned to you about the speech made by a gun lobby advocate.I saw your link about Christopher Dorner,It is thought provoking.

http://youtu.be/B28lWug0bvU

Thanks for the share. While it seems to me that radio DJ was trying to make the point that bringing victims of gun violence and their families into the middle of every discussion about guns creates an emotional distraction that impedes rational discussion, his own callous tirade wasn't any better. In fact, I agree with you that it was both tasteless and inappropriate; it added nothing positive.

There are grating voices on both sides, but there are some sensible ones as well. Here's a refreshingly rational discussion from a 15 year old girl explaining why, well-meaning as they may have been, proposed gun laws in the state of Maryland were misguided:

http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=L_-N9_tnWBo

If we can get beyond the inflammatory rhetoric and superficial catchphrases and drummed up controversies, maybe we (I mean "the U.S." here, not you and I) can finally have a productive discussion about how to reduce crime and violence. That's my hope, anyway. I've been closely following guns in the news and learning more about them for the past 6 months, and while I've found myself unmoved by arguments in favor of stricter gun laws, it's because it seems to me that what has been proposed so far does too little to reliably help and offers too little consideration to unintended consequences. Poorly conceived laws rushed through quickly and passed in the dead of night (see NY SAFE law) do nobody any favors.

After watching that young girl's speech,and listening to other for and against arguments,I realise that guns will never be banned in America, it is a well established cultural trait,people in America have accepted the bearing of arms as part of their lives and for a well developed and wealthy country America is sadly riddled with crime and corruption,I can understand why people would be so afraid and would wish to be able to defend themselves.So if America cannot solve the problem of guns being in the wrong hands,( as they say it is not the guns that kill people but the person using the gun),massacres will continue with monotonous regularity.There are more gun massacres in the affluent country that is America than anywhere else in the world and with far more frequency than in any other countries.So what is to be done to urgently stop guns being in the wrong hands? I feel more stringent background checks would be of great benefit there,but the gun lobby it seems, will not have a bar of it! why?? Education? The reduction of poverty? There is such poverty in America for such an affluent country,but the wealth is centered on a few only,President Obama tried to make medical care available to the poorest of citizens,he was impeded on every front by people like the big insurance companies afraid to loose money, saying that it would start a "welfare state"! we have medicare here in Australia, low income earners go public and their fees are covered by the government,doctors also bulkbill the low income earner and pensioners,people do not have to sell their homes to pay for surgical operations and medical care that insurance companies will not cover or find excuses not to cover or cover only partially,this does not happen here In Australia and we are NOT what you would call a welfare state, but no one who is in need of medical help is left high and dry and empoverished.Billions,Trillions are spent on war,I know we need to stop the spreading of terrorism,but if so much money can be spent doing that surely more money could be spared helping the needy.Poverty breeds anger and resentment. But there seem to also be a corporate mentality which only considers the making of more profit and no one want to give an inch.The way things are now,guns will inevitably end up in the wrong hands again and again.

I'm glad you're starting to get the picture of the deep cultural roots guns have here. For *some* people, anyway. The average American's exposure to "gun culture" tends to be all-or-nothing, which is a major reason why the debate about guns gets so heated.

There are parts of this country where guns are an accepted normal part of every day life, children are taught gun safety, firearms are handed down as heirlooms. In small-town America it's not uncommon for neighbors to all know one another &amp; look out for one another. Violent crime is practically non-existent because the sense of community is strong.

Elsewhere, people may have never seen a real gun except for the police carrying one, and everything they know about guns comes from movies, television where much of what is portrayed is wildly inaccurate or unrealistic. Their only exposure to real guns is from the media, which only reports shootings and violent crimes where guns are used. Innocuous gun use (like target shooting at ranges) is never covered unless part of a story to drum up fear about "look at how many people are buying and shooting guns!" Even defensive gun uses, especially where someone prevents a crime simply by virtue of being armed but never has to pull or fire their weapon, do not make the news because they're not dramatic enough (and there are enough stories that are). It's only natural for people with only negative exposure to guns to develop negative perceptions of them, and to be ignorant about gun laws, safety, etc.

My path has been somewhat unusual in that I grew up in a non-gun (pacifist, vegetarian) family, but we moved and I grew up in a "gun state" where I've had an up-close &amp; personal exposure to gun culture that has gradually changed my perception. So I've seen &amp; lived both sides. There's no denying that the first time I saw someone in front of me at the store with a pistol in his waistband it was pretty unsettling, but now that I understand guns and gun culture better that doesn't really surprise or upset me anymore.

Anyway, great question on background checks! Thanks for asking why they got shot down! Exploring that is pretty telling:

First, let's dispel some of the misinformation about when background checks are actually required. The term "gun show loophole" has been widely used to sell the idea of "universal background checks," but that's a misleading term. The *only* gun sales that do not legally require background are private transactions between residents of the same state. That's because the federal government controls interstate commerce. All gun transactions that cross state lines require a federal (FBI) background check. That also includes internet sales. The only internet "sales" not subject to mandatory background checks are advertisements by private citizens selling their personally owned firearms.

I've been to several gun shows, and the reality is that most of the vendors are licensed dealers, and any purchase from them requires a check. There are usually a few booths with private citizens selling their collections, and these sales may not require checks, but the stuff they're selling (at least what I've seen) is typically old collectible cowboy six-shooters &amp; whatnot (not really the type of gun you'd expect to see used in a crime). Some attendees do walk around with privately owned guns of every kind for sale (they wear signs to advertise). So, it is certainly possible to buy privately owned guns at a gun show and maybe avoid a background check, but: (a) there are police everywhere, (b) it is still illegal to knowingly sell to someone who is not legally allowed to own a firearm, and just because background checks are not legally *required* doesn't mean that sellers won't use a licensed dealer to broker the sale and run a check, (c) it would be easier and more private for a shady person to attempt to buy a gun through private sale by answering or placing a newspaper / online "classifieds" ad.

OK, so with that clarification, yes it is still possible / sorta-legal for a "prohibited person" to buy a gun from a stranger without a background check if the prohibited person lies about their eligibility or the seller doesn't bother to ask. And, personally, I don't think it's unreasonable to require checks in these cases. When Obama talked about "90% of people support background checks," that number probably reflected this scenario. Unfortunately, the background check laws that were proposed did not.

The problem was that the language in the "universal background check" bills was overly broad and went far beyond the simple case stated above. For example, the legal definition of "transferring" a firearm was broad enough to create a criminal act out of common and innocent uses of firearms, such as sharing a gun with a friend at the range or on a hunting trip.

Worse, though, were problems with the language of the bill that allowed for gross violations of its publicly stated purpose. Here is a good breakdown of technical issues with the legal language by David Kopel (law professor, Democrat and gun control opponent):
http://www.volokh.com/2013/04/15/the-pro-gun-provisions-of-manchin-toomey-are-actually-a-bonanza-of-gun-control/

So, the real answer to why "universal background checks" failed is that the bill itself was not the simple compromise on an issue that 90% of Americans agree upon that the President and the media said it was. It failed because it was poorly written.

It's also worth noting that the efficacy of background checks has been called into serious doubt, as well. Notably, Adam Lanza (Newtown shooter) obtained his guns by killing his mother, who passed her own background checks. Furthermore, Jared Loughner (Tucson shooter), Seung-Hui Cho (Virginia Tech shooter) and James Holmes (Colorado theater shooter) all passed background checks. The Columbine shooters obtained their guns from friends who bought the guns on their behalf (called "straw purchases," which are illegal). So, in all of these high-profile shootings, background checks were either passed or thwarted anyway!

One more fun fact: there's an organization called Fix NICS (NICS is the FBI background check system, National Instant Criminal Background Check System). Complaints are that the checks sometimes are not very fast, the number of prosecutions from failed checks are minimal, and the checks themselves have been ineffective at preventing crime as noted above). The FixNICS effort is sponsored by the NSSF, National Shooting Sports Foundation, a gun group.
http://www.fixnics.org/

So, there really are a lot of facets to this problem. And a whole lot of politics.

Sadly, I think you're right that it's only a matter of time before something else bad happens. No set of laws is enough to deter someone willing to end their own life in the course of breaking laws to commit violence, and determined enough to find a way.

Maybe education will help. Certainly compassion and respect for one another couldn't hurt. Culturally we should eliminate the stigma of depression and suicide and encourage more people to seek help. Socio-economic policies and poor law enforcement are a problem with gang violence.

This is where the "only a good guy with a gun can stop a bad guy with a gun" sort of loses me. Logically it makes sense, as sort of a last resort, but it also feels deeply pessimistic toward humanity to me. I'd rather focus on the good things we do, and maybe see what difference I might make through volunteering or something. To that end (amazing / good accomplishments of humanity) here's a cool video I ran across the other day of a booster-camera from a space shuttle launch. Just so we can remember not to get too bogged down in the dark side of hman nature in this discussion. :)

http://youtu.be/2yXsxUO40vE

I can see that it is a very complicated issue,perhaps one that might never be resolved in many ways, but something must be worked out to reduce the amount of gun related killing rampages which happens in America at such frequency.Some of those pro gun lobby advocates who happen to hold quite a lot of power in decisions making regarding gun ownership and with politicians, seem to care more about preserving their gun ownership than the lives lost because of it.You saw the video about that unbelievable speech! It made me feel sick that these people can vent such things,dismissing the lives of children as compared to their right to own a gun.(incidentally had he made that speech in Australia,he would have been in real big trouble with the public here!).
You are right not enough is being done for people who need psychological support.Seung-Hui Cho (Virginia Tech shooter) was known to have been depressed and I believe had threatened to go on a shooting rampage,sadly no one took any notice or appeared to have given him any help at the time,it seems people often do not care, they are centered on their own lives, their own families or they tend to put things in the too hard basket,or they think "oh,he will get over it" and yes there are still too much prejudice against mental illness and suicide,depressed people are judged as weak,they are afraid to go on antidepressant in case their friends or employers find out about their depression and think of them as inadequates,they might even be afraid to lose their jobs or be passed over for promotion because of it,so they "medicate" themselves with alcohol,which only worsen their condition,alcohol being a depressant.Here we are trying to do away with that stigma by educating people via the media,one of our politician has opened up to suffering with depression and created "beyond blue" an organisation which helps and assist depressed people so they know they are not alone in their struggle.
As for suicide there is also a big stigma attached,they are judged as being "selfish" towards their loved ones, not thinking of the pain they would inflict on them,but a person taking their own life is not in their right mind and is going through undescribable psychological pain.All these misconceptions have to be addressed by educating the public and by showing that people do care.Our society sadly is centered on material gains,consumerism and the corporate mentality is getting more accepted in society: profit and more profit.Also celebrity worship which shows that society is becoming shallower and real need passes unnoticed.This is the big problem.
Thank you for that stunning video.

Thanks, Speleo, for speaking with such clarity on this subject. I am one of the people who, from birth, lived in a house which had loaded shotguns and rifles propped by the door, and who was taught to shoot as soon as strong enough to handle one, and who was entrusted, at that young age, to go to the timber and bring back food. Guns were our companions just a cell lphones are folks' companions today (and it might be that the phone is the more dangerous, since none of us was scared of getting cancer from guns and none of us even got an injury from them.)

You have come to my aid. After reading this I don't feel so much the sting of the bitter attacks on those of us who are not against guns but instead are against criminal acts. Thank you.

neladell.
I realise that owning a gun is part of the fabric of American society and part of the culture.So guns will never be taken away at least not in our lifetime.But considering the tragedies that keep happening,measures should be taken to educate and help some people understand responsible gun owership,even if it costs money to implement it,it only takes one misguided person,to take many lives and that can be done far quicker with a gun as opposed to other weapons.It is indeed a very difficult and complicated situation,and I believe education and helping to reduce poverty in America are effective ways to help amend the situation.

The media doesn't make a big deal of people who are saved by normal citizens with guns. ( n. b. Detroit's mayor recently stated that people needed to protect themselves)

I am more than grateful that I had a gun at hand when my children and I were attacked. Martial arts would not have saved us. Talking would not have saved us. A gun did.

I certainly will not argue with you if you are saying that it would be nice to have a world without drugged people -- and without guns in the hands of drugged-up people and without guns in the hands of criminals -- and without media with an agenda.

10 More Responses

Why don't you know how you will act when you are challenged? Have you never considered what you might do if you were?<br />
<br />
I agree that if you can't answer those questions then you probably shouldn't carry a gun. But I also think that if you examine those questions thoughtfully and seriously that it's at least easier to understand why people choose to own and carry guns.<br />
<br />
The very fact that guns are capable of taking life makes them one of the most effective and useful tools for self defense that anyone can own. However, you must recognize that just because you *can* use a gun to take a life doesn't mean you *need* to do so. You can "use" a gun to stop a threat to your life without ever firing a shot, or even drawing your weapon, if the knowledge that you possess a firearm is enough to deter your would-be attacker. And if it is not? If someone corners you in your own home and doesn't back off under threat of getting shot, then isn't your life in mortal peril at that point?<br />
<br />
Personally, I think it's more humane to use a gun to scare off an attack than it is to beat someone with a blunt ob<x>ject, stab them with a knife or use "combat training" and hope that's enough to stop them. There are also a whole range of options you can and should try before resorting to a gun, starting with walking away. When the better options fail, a gun is the last resort that's most likely to protect you or another innocent person from someone determined to do harm and undeterred by even the threat of getting shot.

My question is that how do you stop people who are unstable form owning a gun?

When they are upset they do not have the stable mind to question their behaviour. They go for something handy like a gun to resolve their issues. This is the reason I question the ownership of GUNS. (Family suicide)

Another instance is that many are taken by surprise and the assailant can take the gun from them and in turn use it on them.

Do you live in the USA? If so then you are so entrenched backward thinking that you see this as a normal way to live. The Wild West ended at least 120 years ago.

Yes, I live in the USA. In the Wild West, in fact. Plenty of people here carry firearms. When you're entrenched in the reality of your fellow citizens being free to carry guns, and when it is not unusual to encounter people carrying guns in your every day life, it *is* normal.

That doesn't mean everyone here likes and accepts guns, though. I didn't grow up with them, and my parents hate them. I eventually formed my own opinions as exposure to guns and "gun culture" gradually wore away the mystery of why people like and own guns. Is it more backward to trust your neighbors to own guns than it is to ban everyone (well, the law-abiding, anyway) from owning them for fear of harm that may come? Honestly, neither approach is without its faults, but I do appreciate the freedom to make up my own mind about owning guns.

Anyway, on to your hard question, which I must answer with a counter question: how do you prevent someone with a troubled mind from harming themselves or others? A close friend of mine committed suicide a couple years ago, and despite the ready availability of guns here, he chose "every pill in the house" as his method of exit. It's nice to hope that making guns less available might prevent tragedies like suicide, but my own life experience makes it hard for me to believe that.

I wasn't sure if your comment about family suicide was meant as a theoretical example, or whether you've personally lost a family member to suicide, but if the latter then I'm truly sorry for your loss as I know what it feels like to lose someone close to you. I'll never understand why, and I wish he had come to me, but in the end I can't change what happened and have to live with it.

I can also honestly say I don't know how to tell when someone is "unstable." I think we need to do more to dismiss the idea that mental illness is a form of personal weakness, though. Maybe if there was not a social stigma then more people would be open to seeking help. Meanwhile, if my last mistake happens to be trusting the wrong person with a firearm, then I suppose I'm prepared to go out for trying to trust too much. I'd rather live in a world where trust and respect for one another are the norm and the likelihood of being gunned down is so rare as to be unworthy of fear. And, honestly, that's pretty much how things are here.

I do appreciate your feedback on this subject.

So is the thinking that they will get me or my family –therefore I should be prepared and ready.

My question has the gun lobby been very effective in the scare mongering that has your population so to fear one another. That the only way to feel safe it to get a gun and many of them?

I do know that marketing of many products that we don’t really need – fear is used as the motivator too shell product that we can live without, yet the fear factor is the motivator to sell and sell.

So normal is the normal to fear? We then don’t question the motive. (The news is full of fear)

We then think that it is normal, then if someone does a gun, that if they don’t then they are not normal.

You're welcome. Thanks for the thought provoking question and the polite discussion.

Gun ownership isn't really about fear. That's spin from the news and from groups opposed to guns.

For people who own guns for self defense, it's more about a sense of personal responsibility for the protection of self, loved ones and anyone else who might need help. Nobody owns a fire extinguisher because they expect a fire to happen or live in fear of fires. People own fire extinguishers so that they can put out a fire if one does happen. A person doesn't need to be unrealistic about the odds to prefer to have a fighting chance if forced into a life or death situation.

Still, that assumes that people only buy guns for self defense, which is not the case. Some people buy guns for recreational (or competitive) target shooting. Some collect them out of personal interests. Some own guns only for hunting. These are a lot of reasons people might own guns that have nothing at all to do with fear.

Also, one reason that some people own "many" guns is simply to enjoy the variety of shooting experiences that different guns offer. Semi-automatic pistols work and shoot differently than revolvers. Shooting a precision rifle is an entirely different experience from shooting a carbine or a shotgun. Even among similar types of guns there are many styles and caliber differences. It's not unusual for people who enjoy guns to own several different kinds for plenty of reasons not based in fear.

Anyway, "normal" here is not all or nothing. It's normal for some people to own and carry guns, and it's normal for others to be opposed to them. It's actually not very common to advertise guns with fear, although I have seen ads like that. It's much more common to use imagery like soldiers, hunters and marksmen to sell products by suggesting that if they're good enough for experts they're good enough for you.

1 More Response