Guns…Who should have them and who shouldn't?

Recent mass killings have raised many issues regarding gun control. Needless to say, the debate is getting somewhat heated. Maybe it is time to think in terms of cold, hard logic instead or our normal predispositions one way or the other.

Most of the mass killings of the last few years have been in what are called "gun free zones", where even being caught possessing a gun means a stiff prison sentence. One would think that should be enough to deter the mentally unbalanced mass killer from "doing his thing", but it appears these people have no respect for the law and aren't too worried about getting caught. Obviously gun free zones aren't the answer.

Maybe we should ban the sale, manufacture and importation of guns altogether and melt for scrap every one we can find. It shouldn't be too hard to get legislation like that passed after all the senseless killings. So lets assume that such legislation IS passed and further assume that ALL guns have been found and destroyed. What then? Paradise? Unfortunately, only a mentally defective dimwit would think the the killing sprees are over, or even significantly reduced.

One only needs about a fourth grade education to know how to make a pipe bomb, so it is logical to assume that for lack of guns, the pipe bomb would become the prime method of dealing death and suicide bombing with large pipe bombs would become all the rage. The problem of security at the door could probably be licked by team efforts such as used in the Columbine shootings. One kid could "get the door" to allow another to run in and take out the desired targets.

This may seem stupid and unrealistic, maybe even unworkable, but consider this…We've only presupposed a grade 4 education. High school kids could be much more creative and could probably make much more sophisticated bombs with much more destructive potential. It should be easy enough for the average high school grad with some background in chemistry and electronics to build compact, radio-detonated bombs that could bring down a whole school without too much trouble. On the other hand, they could go for the more vicious kill, by building radioactive dirty bombs. (It may sound laughable, but a lot of kids have the technical savvy to build one…and they know where & how to get the radioactive material too.) If one of those were to take down a school, workplace or theatre, the radioactivity would probably force either a major (costly) cleanup, or (more likely) an "exclusion zone" of maybe half a square mile for the next 50 years or so).

It may be that you think I'm proposing nonsensical, ridiculous things, but if you were a mentally unstable, suicidal/homicidal killer being denied your weapon of choice, what would you do?…call the whole thing off?…maybe (if we're all lucky), but I would bet you'd look for an alternative and start implementing "Plan B."

Historically speaking, there has never been a measure implemented that didn't soon give rise to a countermeasure. For instance, Radar guns quickly gave rise to radar detectors. They've passed laws against the detectors to discourage their use with a nasty penalty if caught, but many "outlaws" are still using them. The same will be true with guns. You could impose the death penalty for possessing a gun, but that will only mean that the people possessing them will shoot it out rather than surrender to the law when caught. The homicidal maniac will always have a gun. Doesn't it make sense to have one yourself to protect you and yours from people like that?

If you think guns are evil in themselves and ought to be abolished, perhaps you should consider what they could be replaced with. Guns or no, killers have always existed and likely always will. If guns are evil, I have no doubt that what replaces them will be even more so. Maybe you should consider guns a necessary evil, and a lesser evil than the alternatives.

If you despise guns, I still want you to consider getting one and training yourself in its use, because someday MY life may depend on your having one. If you don't have one, it must only be because you don't care if your fellow man lives or dies; you only care to mask your callous apathy in a self-righteous distaste for guns.

Who should have guns?…You!

how about this

if I dont have one, it may be because I Care about human life, even a 'criminals' life

and my common sense tells me, that the odds are exponentially greater, that where there is a gun there will be gun violence

and I dont want to be the one providing that odds changer in any environment,,

and my fellow man who believes everyone should have one, should be having one to protect THEMSELF,,,,

when my daughter was little there was a couple who i would babysit for they had 2 kids

there oldest at the time was 2yrs old same as my own daughter ( that was 27yrs ago

but his dad was stupid.. even though he didnt see it as a problem
he would let his son( mind you at 2yrs old)
play with his gun( rifle)
it wasent loaded but still letting a child that age
play with it... his wife didnt like the idea either

and some where down the line when there daughter got older
im not actually sure what had happen
but his daughter lost her hearing do to the sound of the gun

im not sure about how her hearing is now for she in her 20s

Nobody has any control over how other people live their lives. The main question this thread asks is why shouldn't YOU own a gun?

Most people who want or think they need a gun shouldn't have one. Because they believe it gives them power that it doesn't give them. Because they sickly want the power that they are not mentally equipped to have.

It is a false sick sense of protection from imaginary fear fed to people by the not well in our country who are hatemongerers and fearmongerers.

Most guns bought for protection if used for more than target practice are used to kill women, kill kids, kill family, kill fellow employees, kill neighbors, etc...

There are never NEVER cases of these guns saving the day in a mass shootings and the guns are almost always there but are not used.

There are no reliable stats to support more guns equal less crime, there are no reliable stats that more guns make for a safer environment at all anywhere.

Guns kill innocents all the time and it all comes from gun crazies who think they need to have guns.

NRA has so much blood on it's hands, so many women's blood and children's blood. As do all the gun toters like this guys mom from the recent shooting.

The main reason I have a gun is because I do a Lot of camping and those mountains are full of mountain lions.

because I dont want one

same reason I dont take karate

or have numchucks

or any other number of 'defensive' measures,,,

I don't have one because so far I don't feel the need to have one. I live in a very peaceful town. I also don't really know how to use one.

If I ever begin to feel threatened or unsafe, I will probably get one, but in the mean time I have a knife and an ax.... close by.

Oh yeh, and my hands are registered as lethal weapons and I have an attack dog in my house. .

lol

u go jeannie!

I have several guns for different reasons. I have used them all my life. I am well trained in their use. I have also studied the constitutional aspects of our bill of rights and what the concept of "congress shall make no law" has come to mean in the abridgment of those rights.

Everyone should not own a gun. Some are simply not capable.

Oh, here is my attack dog. He is larger than a German Shepard. His name is Ringo. He is very smart.

awwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww!!!

adorable,,,

Yes he really is. And he is so gentle, and gets along well with all of my cats.

He really would not harm a flea, but he barks. LOL

Isn't that a value judgment on your part? Is it just your speculative opinion, or do you have something to back your assertions?



What are the "hatemongers and fearmongers" feeding to the innocent, unsuspecting populace regarding gun ownership?

Is it a false, sick sense of protection to have a means of defending yourslef and your family? Why?



So buying a gun for protection will turn most people into raving maniacs who will kill just about anyone for laughs?…Gee…Whoda thunk it…Those guns are pretty evil alright….I've seen a lot of stuff blamed on guns, but research indicates that guns don't do anything but shoot when the trigger is pulled…I didn't know they were demons capable of mind control and soul possession…I'll have to look into that.



I think you're wrong there. Either that, or the cops should be using pea shooters so as not to harm the killers. Has it ever occurred to you that mass murders just might have been STOPPED by a responsible armed citizen BEFORE they became mass murders? What is an armed citizen supposed to do?...wait until enough people have been killed to qualify in the news as a mass murder before he acts to stop the killing?

As for regular citizens with guns:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BuLgO4wo4xI

Somehow the concealed carry guy managed to avoid the mind control curse of the gun. Think he wore a magic talisman?

Let's take a quick look at a country without guns:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p8RDWltHxRc

Hmmm…That can't be right!…Let's look at a wild west type "guns only zone" & see the murderous chaos that inevitably occurs when everybody has guns:

http://fromthetrenchesworldreport.com/gun-town-usa-25-years-murder-free/28388/



I'm surprised you didn't read this. I posted it myself. Are you saying the stats aren't reliable? Please feel free to critique it and give it your own analysis.:

Taking stats on the ten highest and ten lowest gun ownership states, I ranked them in terms of the amount of gun crime (larger number means lower gun crime) and the % homicide victims by state (% by gun as opposed to other weapons…national average is 61%). The results proved interesting. To make a long statistical story short, while one might expect the ten highest gun ownership states to have a mean rank of about 5 or 6, they had a mean rank of 31.1 (i.e. they averaged 31st position out of 50 in terms of gun crime. Of crime victims by weapon, they averaged 53.19% by gun (well below the 61% national average).

Taking the ten states with lowest percentage of gun ownership, the mean rank was 23.5 (in the upper half of the rankings and nowhere near the mid 40s as you might expect) and victims by gun (which you might expect to be much lower percentage-wise owing to fewer weapons per capita) averaged to 62.95%, which was higher than the high gun ownership states by about 11% and even higher than the national average of 61%. It appears then, that the gun is the killer's weapon of choice when most other people don't have guns.

To make the short story even shorter, the numbers suggest that high ownership states have lower per capita gun crime and a smaller percentage of gun victims than states with low ownership states. I note that Connecticut had one of the lowest gun death rates in the country. I dare say that statistic is now slated to climb in light of recent tragic events. Apparently fewer guns don't appear to translate into public safety no matter how the numbers are crunched.

The use of gun deaths as a statistic can be very misleading, as many gun deaths are the result of accidents resulting from poor education & trainin (it should be mandated that every student & gun owner in the country should have to pass a competency & firearms safety training course before being able to purchase their first gun) lawful homicide by police in the line of duty stopping criminals, and also suicides, where people find guns to be quick & convenient, however taking the suicidal person's gun way will probably not prevent his suicide by other means, so adding in gun suicides & lawful homicide skews the numbers and makes guns look like the bad guy. The more important numbers IMO are per capita victims of homicide/wounding by gun, which is more accurately reflected in gun crime.

I included the erroneous stat of deaths by gun only to show how drastically it differs from the actual unlawful homicide stats, however, some facts can even be gleaned from these statistics. For one thing, the mean ranks would be expected to fall in the midrange of the actual ranking mean. In both cases they don't. In high gun ownership states, the mean rank is 15.3, well outside the top ten and nowhere near the expected 5 or 6. While in the lower gun ownership states, the mean rank is 41; it just squeezes in to the bottom ten rankings and still sits quite a ways from the expected number of 45-46. This suggests that even with all gun deaths taken into account, the numbers at the extremes tend to gravitate away from their place within the extremes in the direction of the other extreme. Obviously then, there is a problem in establishing a meaningful correlation of gun numbers to gun deaths there are mitigating variables at work.

It will probably lose all the formatting when posted, but for what its worth, here are the numbers:

ownership gun crime rank (of 50) victims by gun (%) gun deaths/100k rank & number

• 1. Wyoming - 59.7% 48th 40.0 4th ( 18.8)
• 2. Alaska - 57.8% 45 52.9 2 (20)
• 3. Montana - 57.7% 7 50.0 13 (14.5)
• 4. South Dakota - 56.6% 46 33.3 41 (7.9)
• 5. West Virginia - 55.4% 40 68.4 12 (14.7)
• 6. Mississippi - 55.3% 9 63.6 6 (17.3)
• 6. Idaho - 55.3% 34 50.0 19 (12.3)
• 6. Arkansas - 55.3% 23 75.2 9 (16.3)
• 9. Alabama - 51.7% 18 65.2 10 (16.2)
• 10. North Dakota - 50.7% 41 33.3 3 7 (9.1)
__ ___ __
31.1 53.19 15.3 (14.71)


• 40. Delaware - 25.5% 1st 80 37 (9.1)
• 41. Florida - 24.5% n/a
• 42. California - 21.3% 8 72.6 30 (6.7)
• 42. Maryland - 21.3% 18 67.6 22 (11.5)
• 44. Illinois - 20.2% 6 74.2 31 (9.7)
• 45. New York - 18% 32 59.3 46 (5.1)
• 46. Connecticut - 16.7% 31 60.5 49 (4.3)
• 47. Rhode Island - 12.8% 24 63.4 46 (5.1)
• 48. Massachusetts - 12.6% 43 47.4 50 (3.1)
• 49. New Jersey - 12.3% 28 61.0 48 (4.9)
• 50. Hawaii - 6.7% 44 43.5 51 (2.8)
• __ ___ __
• 23.5 62.95 41 (7.17)

I pulled the extra stats off of this site, which seems pretty comprehensive and allows statistical selection by a number of criteria:

http://www.statemaster.com/red/graph/cri_hom_vic_by_wea_gun-crime-homicide-victims-weapon-gun&b_map=1



People who think they need guns aren't the gun crazies. The gun crazies are the people who want guns so they can go crazy killing, robbing and raping. People who think they need guns are the people who don't want to be robbed, raped or murdered by a gun crazy.



The NRA has no blood on its hands that I'm aware of. It promotes safe and sane handling of firearms, which is only common sense…stupid mishandling of firearms can get innocent people injured or killed.

I think the one with a lot of blood on his hands is Senator Kohl, the guy who brought in "gun free zones." If he didn't know better in 1996, he sure as hell should know better by now. Almost all the mass murders committed since then happened in gun free zones. The damning evidence has been in for quite awhile now and the fact that he hasn't acted to have the legislation repealed leaves him with a lot of blood on his hands if you ask me.

In fact there have been so many murders as a result of stupid anti-gun legislation that I'm now using the slogan "Guns don't kill people; ant-gun legislation kills people."

I've noted your anti-gun bias seems to have a lot of venom in it. I suspect you'd like to see gun owners lined up against a wall and shot. If that's how you feel, I would suspect you would like to be the one to shoot them, in which case, I'd have to say you are not rational and should therefore definitely NOT have a gun.

THEY WANT TO TAKE YOUR WEAPONS.

Hey Bozos! (As Jsnip4 says.) The second amendment and the right to bear arms is not for hunting or even for protecting yourself from some petty crimes or home invasions.

The right to bear arms was not about hunting rifles and handguns. It was about keeping this country free people. DUH.

The right to bear arms is about KEEPING THIS COUNTRY FREE FROM A DICTATORSHIP!

Eventually democracy always devolves into dictatorship people. Do you see any signs of this? Wanting your guns is a good sign.

And now the government wants to ban assault weapons.

(Assault weapons are what you will be up against if a power hungry president decides to be a dictator. Do you want to try to defend yourself against that with a handgun?)

Yes we need the freedom to own assault weapons!! Don't let the government take your weapons for any reason.

Hey the Feds killed 25 children at Waco Texas, so they have not been beat by this latest shooting of children.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GWM2l4p4hEM



And they also are warning that they will arrest anyone who makes any statements on social media about this latest shooting that does not jive with what they are reporting ---claiming that misinformation is now a crime.

In other words.... free speech is on the line now also.

Don't walk passively into that gas chamber folks.

Again Dukky, you proved nothing except that I was still correct.

And again the only way a gun or a million guns will help you against the government is if you blow your own head off before they come to get you.

Barry has already killed 175 innocent children who are targeted by US drones in Wazirstan.

He definitely shouldn't be allowed to own or use weapons.

Or, is it ok to waste kids as long as they are in another country?

The "government" isn't as all powerful as you believe. They have you running scared. Still if we are going to go down via the government, I think I would rather go down with a fight than just to be escorted to the gas chambers.

Read about what the government of Turkey did to the Christian Armenians.

Took all their weapons and killed millions.