I say yes. What do you think?
I say yes. What do you think?
considering the gun laws we have now are not followed by the ones that are doing these shootings, how is it really going to be better to take guns away from law abiding citizens? I hunt, I've taken optional gun courses, I'm not going around shooting people. Guns and Gun Owners are not the problem.
I think we need to get rid of these wacko Stand Your Ground laws.
It reminds me of the Tom Lehrer Hunting Song that the VT local radio station used to play every hunting season:
BTW, Vermont has almost no gun laws, and gives the right to bear arms explicitly in its Constitution which predates the US Constitution. (Article 16 in the Constitution of 1777)
Vermonters think this song spoofs the kind of folk who come up to VT to hunt out of their cars, a practice frowned upon there.
Open Season for every paranoid person to shoot other people for no reason.I always will remember,
'Twas a year ago November,
I went out to hunt some deer
On a mornin' bright and clear.
I went and shot the maximum the game laws would allow,
Two game wardens, seven hunters, and a cow.
I was in no mood to trifle,
I took down my trusty rifle
And went out to stalk my prey.
What a haul I made that day.
I tied them to my fender, and I drove them home somehow,
Two game wardens, seven hunters, and a cow.
The law was very firm, it
Took away my permit,
The worst punishment I ever endured.
It turned out there was a reason,
Cows were out of season,
And one of the hunters wasn't insured.
People ask me how I do it,
And I say, "There's nothin' to it,
You just stand there lookin' cute,
And when something moves, you shoot!"
And there's ten stuffed heads in my trophy room right now,
Two game wardens, seven hunters, and a pure-bred Guernsey cow.
don't get me started on the "shoot from the roaders"...
2 year old shoots & kills himself in Colorado
9 year old kills his grandfather accidentally while on a hunting trip in FL
3 year old kills his father with a .45
2 1/2 yr old shoots and kills his mother
None of these people were killed by a bad person. Their deaths resulted from combining small children and unsecured guns in the same place.
Another point worth making is that the gun lobby has deliberately confused the issue by implying that the only solution worth pursuing is one that is 100 percent foolproof. They say criminals will still get access to guns. True, but perhaps not as many of them will succeed. That could mean your son or daughter making it home a the end of the night. I like to compare our arguments about guns and other subjects to the choices families have to make when a loved one needs serious medical care. Do we only consent to treatment if there is a 100 percent guarantee of success? Or do we opt for the form of care that gives the greatest opportunity to heal? If the first treatment does not work out, do we throw up our hands and give up, or do we keep trying? Right now we are not trying at all.
As for Switzerland and guns per capita, despite being 4th, they have a far lower rate of gun deaths than us. No comparison really. Same for Canada and many other western nations. There is a cultural difference at play there. Also, while I am not certain, I assume that we still have greater access to high capacity guns than many other western nations.
Last edited by jcoates; 07-24-2012 at 10:24 AM.
True, about Switzerland having lower gun deaths, as does Finland, for that matter.
But the issue is what kind of guns:
Who has guns, and what qualifications do they have to have to have them?
Not a felon?
Not a child?
Not a person with psychiatric issues?
It isn't the number of guns, it's how they promote responsible gun ownership.
Plus it's a wealthy country.Despite the lack of rigid gun laws, firearms are strictly connected to a sense of collective responsibility.
From an early age Swiss men and women associate weaponry with being called to defend their country.
There are problems, however, primarily with the firearms suicide rate. However, a call to house military guns at a local arsenal rather than in the home was defeated last year. Gun and shooting clubs are an important thread in social life apparently.
There are states like that. Vermont has virtually no gun laws, but it also has a low rate of firearms crime.
Here are the statistics by state:
You will note that VT is in the lowest statistical bucket.
The total VT population was 626,431 as of July last year2 firearms murders in 2010
% change since 2009
Handguns murders 1
Firearms, % of all murders 28.57%
Per 100,000 population 0.32
Firearms crimes, rate per 100,000 pop:
Aggravated assaults 7.87
Being a rural state with very little ethnic variations help.
In general VT just doesn't have a lot of crime, let alone gun crime.
Furthermore, VT has a decent social safety net, and it has decent health care & education. It is neither particularly wealth nor particularly poor.
New Jersey's median family income is roughly 82.5K while VT's is 62.5K AL is about 50K
When discussing the shooting in Aurora with a co-worker, his comment was that he feels that he's more likely to get a gun now. I asked him if he honestly thought that his having a firearm would've helped. If anyone else had attempted to shoot at the perpetrator, he was more likely to injure or kill someone trying to get away - as well as increasing the risk to his own life in putting himself out there to take aim.
I can't recall the exact quote, but someone on facebook posted something to the effect that guns were 'muskets' in the 1700's. Our forefathers had no idea of the types of weapons that would be created.
I certainly don't understand why an average (or any) household would need an automatic weapon. They are created to utterly destroy - not defend.
As for guns in a household, they do require a great deal of responsibility - and too many people are lax in this regard. My uncle had a handgun - he lived in my grandparent's with their daughter (his wife) and their 2 sons. My grandmother watched the kids while everyone else was at work and she did not speak English. When one cousin was probably 4 or 5 and his little brother was 2, the cousin took the gun out of the dresser drawer where the baby was sleeping. He pulled the trigger of a loaded gun. Fortunately, the bullet clipped his finger and embedded in the dresser. No one was seriously hurt. My grandmother didnt' know what to do; so, she started to clean the wall. Fortunately, the neighbors heard the shot and called the police, who removed the gun from the premises.
Now, that incident occurred back in the 1970's when people had more time to be careful. These days, people are so busy and easily distracted.
I definitely don't think that one should be able to mail order weapons and ammo as this hinders the ability of the salesperson to note any odd behavior.
The shooter in Aurora obtained his weapons via legal means. However, someone at a gun club he wanted to join put a 'hold' on his application until they could meet face to face (due to a weird answering machine message.) This just tells me that it is important that someone acquiring weapons and/or ammo needs to meet face to face with someone who is trained to observe for signs of possible risky behavior.
So, yes, I am in favor of more stringent gun control laws - which does not mean that I feel that all weapons should be banned, but that some should not be allowed (i.e. automatic weapons) and that certain qualifications needs to be met when purchasing.
Heyang, what a scary story! I actually lived on the same block as a sixteen-year-old kid, who ought to have known better but either was playing with a gun or was with friends who were playing with a gun. His brother became an only child thereafter.
Your last paragraph pretty much reflects my stance on the matter. The Constitution does not give people carte blanche to keep boxes and boxes of ammo in the house. Also, no amendment protects the right of people to buy body armor.
There's another side to the story, and I don't know whether it would have affected this perpetrator or not, because I'm not sure that he exhibited any signs of mental illness beforehand. (If he did, it sounds as if it was only very recently.) But our laws in this country about what can be done to keep the severely mentally ill in a protected environment are as lax as our gun control laws. In the late 1970s or early 1980s, people who were distressed (justifiably) at the awful conditions in asylums and mental hospitals got the laws changed so that patients could not be committed longterm to facilities. They would live in the community, where local resources would take care of them. Unfortunately, most communities couldn't afford or or were unwilling to take on the burden of supplying such resources as halfway houses and so forth. Many mentally ill people just ended up on the streets. Some were a danger to others; many were targets for attacks. They went without medication because there was no system to supervise them, and they could not be committed for more than a brief period of time. Better regulations would have gotten help for the Virginia Tech killer, who was severely impaired for most of his life and received, I believe, no treatment. The young man who shot Congresswoman Giffords and several others, killing some of them, would also have been restrained before he proved his illness by a killing spree. Not every mentally ill person is dangerous, of course. But those who are can't be located and treated effectively (which might involve temporary or longterm restraints). The man who shot President Reagan is still locked up principally because he tried to assassinate a sitting President.