It's the Guns, Stupid

It's the Guns, Stupid

There are 103299 comments on the Truthdig story from Apr 20, 2007, titled It's the Guns, Stupid. In it, Truthdig reports that:

“And that's the end of the issue”

Why do we have the same futile argument every time there is a mass killing? Advocates of gun control try to open a discussion about whether more reasonable weapons statutes might reduce the number of violent ... via Truthdig

Join the discussion below, or Read more at Truthdig.

Dr Freud

Bethnal Green, UK

#97357 Jan 20, 2013
The ADELAIDEAN wrote:
<quoted text>
Serious malpractice. I've never heard of a shotgun zipped up in its case while loaded ... until now. Better training is crucial. It seems to me that it is possible for US citizens can buy guns without any training at all. That's asking for trouble. After all, people have to pass tests to gain a driver's license. It should be the same for firearms.
<quoted text>
They mostly are, probably, but there's always room for improvement.
While your heart is in the right place, I'll say differently about your thinking.
There is a reason that there are no training requirements in most U.S. states, and certainly the idea finds no basis to exist in the U.S. Constitution's second amendment.
In the very same way that U.S. citizens have the right to exercise their religion at will, to speak and write freely, without a license, or by demonstrating a certain proficiency in those areas, is because they are human RIGHTS.
You simply cannot lay restrictions upon the exercise of rights, without sooner or later laying such egregious requirements upon the exercise as to make the right essentially null.
It is entirely incumbent upon the individual to seek out the necessary knowledge in whatever endeavor he engage.
Long ago in the U.S., parents undertook to educate their offspring in all of the vagaries associated with firearms. Those children were taught from a very early age all about guns, how to handle them, when to use them, how to care for them, and certainly to NOT treat them as toys.
Any thought towards mandatory training, and proficiency testing is tantamount to restricting future ownership by way of tighter and tighter standards, such that only a very few will be able to have any gun at all.
Much has changed over the last century, what with the communists gaining ground in the political and educational spheres, where they have sought to demonize guns, and their owners.
But of late, there has been some really serious push-back as more, and more of the citizenry discover that there is a game afoot to first disarm them by degrees, and then totally disarm them. What is planned after the disarmament is too terrible to speak of. It will make all other pogroms pale by comparison.
So, the more the communists push to disarm the people, the more the people are waking up to THE REAL purpose, and are buying guns, literally in the millions.
What

Huntsville, AL

#97358 Jan 20, 2013
Dr Freud wrote:
<quoted text>
It's quite obvious by your statement that you're as uninformed as can be.
Koresh had on several occasions invited the local ATF office to come by an do an inspection of all the weapons held. They declined.
The ATF said that they had a warrant out on Koresh. But since the man was KNOWN to be out jogging every day, on a circuit which took him some distance away from the B.D. campus, then the ATF had many than ample opportunities to arrest the man whenever he was out running. But they did not. Why? Because there WAS NO warrant.
One member of the B.D. group had an FFL license, which totally dismisses any idea of the group being in possession of illegally held arms.
At the time, the U.S. Congress was getting ready to defund the ATF because they were running roughshod over many innocent people's rights. Their thoroughly egregious acts were getting them in to legal hot water.
The leadership of the ATF NEEDED something to save their bacon, and so the Branch Davidians were in their sights. Instead of politely approaching the front door of the B.D. administration building, they came charging up with three large cattle cars loaded with agents, whereupon Koresh met them at the front door, and demanded to see the warrant, which they STILL did not have.
One of the agents got trigger happy and let off a burst from his machine gun, and that is what started the shooting.
The rest is history.
is obvious is that you are a gullible conspiracy consumer. You left off the part of the story where this nut had all those folks holed up for a month and a half, defying all attempts to deal rationally.
Teaman

Abingdon, VA

#97359 Jan 20, 2013
Guppy wrote:
<quoted text>
Who said?
I suppose you had the utmost respect for them?
The government had to do something! They deserved it.
When the government tells you to do something~you do it, or else you pay the consequences.
"When the government tells you to do something~you do it, or else you pay the consequences."

Oh boy! I hope this isn't our future speaking here.

“Si vis pacem, para bellum !!”

Since: Dec 07

Southeast Virginia

#97363 Jan 20, 2013
Guppy wrote:
Bulgarian opposition leader was almost killed yesterday, BY A GUN.
Guns are a menace to society.
Would you be happier if it had been WITH (not "by") a knife or some other object???
Dr Freud

Bethnal Green, UK

#97362 Jan 20, 2013
The ADELAIDEAN wrote:
<quoted text>
<quoted text>
At least he'd be in no danger of putting a bullet through his brain. Nobody could be that accurate.:)
Presuming of course that he even has two brain cells to rub together!

“Si vis pacem, para bellum !!”

Since: Dec 07

Southeast Virginia

#97364 Jan 20, 2013
Hey Guppy...here is something that I am sure will tan your hide. I am going to a gun show today to buy ANOTHER gun, and there isn't a damn thing you can do or say to change my mind, or stop it for that matter.

“REFUSE ALL IMITATIONS!!”

Since: Jan 11

Australia

#97365 Jan 20, 2013
Dr Freud wrote:
You simply cannot lay restrictions upon the exercise of rights, without sooner or later laying such egregious requirements upon the exercise as to make the right essentially null.
It is entirely incumbent upon the individual to seek out the necessary knowledge in whatever endeavor he engage.
I appreciate what you are explaining, but surely all American motorists are trained and tested before being allowed to drive. Has that led to egregious infringement of rights that may accompany motoring?

Likewise I'm not sure how my analogy of reasonable training in safe handling of firearms breaks down.
Teaman

Abingdon, VA

#97366 Jan 20, 2013
The ADELAIDEAN wrote:
<quoted text>
I appreciate what you are explaining, but surely all American motorists are trained and tested before being allowed to drive. Has that led to egregious infringement of rights that may accompany motoring?
Likewise I'm not sure how my analogy of reasonable training in safe handling of firearms breaks down.
Some states do require some gun training. Driving a car isn't considered a right, but a privilege and it is done on state property. No driving training is required on private property, such as a farm.

Like drivers training, gun regulation is a state matter. Someone in Suburban NJ wouldn't have the same needs as a rancher on the Mexican border.
Dr Freud

Bethnal Green, UK

#97368 Jan 20, 2013
The ADELAIDEAN wrote:
<quoted text>
I appreciate what you are explaining, but surely all American motorists are trained and tested before being allowed to drive. Has that led to egregious infringement of rights that may accompany motoring?
Likewise I'm not sure how my analogy of reasonable training in safe handling of firearms breaks down.
I will consider that Teaman pretty much answered that question.
But allow me a few further points.
Aside from the matter of driving on public thoroughfares, themselves which the state has undertaken to assume the responsibility for their construction and maintenance, and for insurance purposes, they get to set the minimum requirements regarding driver proficiency, and knowledge of the 'rules of the road.'
Considering the number of privately held firearms in the U.S., the number of associated injuries and death pales into insignificance when compared to automotive injuries and death.
Currently, in most locations of the U.S., a person does not have to undergo safety training to own a firearm.
Conversely, a person does have to go through a skills test to exhibit their competency, and knowledge before obtaining a driver's license. Other locations yet, mandate certified training to be undertaken through a state licensed instructor.
This is why in the year 2002, there was a horrific 800 (approximate) accidental deaths attributed to firearms, while a pitifully meager 40,000 (approximate) were attributed to automobile accidents.
That's a 50:1 ratio.
Looks like the mandatory training did a lot of good there!
www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvsr/nvsr54/nvsr54_10.p...
You see? Mandatory training is shown to be quite useless for the following reasons:
A responsible person will seek out training on their own.
An irresponsible person will proceed to ignore any training they've been forced to undertake, once they have that license in their hot little hands.
Marauder

Anchorage, AK

#97369 Jan 20, 2013
Guppy wrote:
<quoted text>
Who said?
I suppose you had the utmost respect for them?
The government had to do something! They deserved it.
When the government tells you to do something~you do it, or else you pay the consequences.
"When the government tells you to do something~you do it, or else you pay the consequences."

If...when...maybe...
Marauder

Anchorage, AK

#97370 Jan 20, 2013
Teaman wrote:
<quoted text>
Some states do require some gun training. Driving a car isn't considered a right, but a privilege and it is done on state property. No driving training is required on private property, such as a farm.
Like drivers training, gun regulation is a state matter. Someone in Suburban NJ wouldn't have the same needs as a rancher on the Mexican border.
"gun regulation is a state matter. Someone in Suburban NJ wouldn't have the same needs as a rancher on the Mexican border."

May not have the same "needs", determined by the individual, but they have the same "rights". The States and local gov'ts are under the same restrictions as the federal gov't is under the 2nd Amendment.
Guppy

Venice, FL

#97371 Jan 20, 2013
Armed Veteran wrote:
Hey Guppy...here is something that I am sure will tan your hide. I am going to a gun show today to buy ANOTHER gun, and there isn't a damn thing you can do or say to change my mind, or stop it for that matter.
Be my guest.

It's a dumb way to spend your money, but whatever turns you on...
Guppy

Venice, FL

#97372 Jan 20, 2013
Armed Veteran wrote:
<quoted text>
Would you be happier if it had been WITH (not "by") a knife or some other object???
I never said I was happy. So, how could I be happier?

With? By? What difference does it make. You knew what I meant. I got my thought across to you.

You really get off on this don't you?
Guppy

Venice, FL

#97373 Jan 20, 2013
Freud's sentences are too long, and he is full of hot air.
Guppy

Venice, FL

#97374 Jan 20, 2013
Teaman wrote:
<quoted text>
"When the government tells you to do something~you do it, or else you pay the consequences."
Oh boy! I hope this isn't our future speaking here.
I hope it is, pertaining to guns.

Your tax money at work...
Dr Freud

Bethnal Green, UK

#97375 Jan 20, 2013
Marauder wrote:
<quoted text>
"gun regulation is a state matter. Someone in Suburban NJ wouldn't have the same needs as a rancher on the Mexican border."
May not have the same "needs", determined by the individual, but they have the same "rights". The States and local gov'ts are under the same restrictions as the federal gov't is under the 2nd Amendment.
"The States and local gov'ts are under the same restrictions as the federal gov't is under the 2nd Amendment."

The only thing stopping that from being fully enforced is that many people just give a damned about something which doesn't directly impact them.
They simply do not want to 'get involved.'
Teaman

Abingdon, VA

#97376 Jan 20, 2013
Marauder wrote:
<quoted text>
"gun regulation is a state matter. Someone in Suburban NJ wouldn't have the same needs as a rancher on the Mexican border."
May not have the same "needs", determined by the individual, but they have the same "rights". The States and local gov'ts are under the same restrictions as the federal gov't is under the 2nd Amendment.
That's right. The state can't deny the right to keep and bear arms.
They can regulate. If I fired a shot here and missed, the bullet could go through two other houses. You have different circumstances where you are.

Shotgun hunting only here. Bolt action rifle only in the state next door. The states or their people regulate. The right to keep and bear arms can't be denied.
Guppy

Venice, FL

#97377 Jan 20, 2013
Marauder wrote:
<quoted text>
"When the government tells you to do something~you do it, or else you pay the consequences."
If...when...maybe...
When the government says to you, JUMP! You'll say, how high.
Dr Freud

Bethnal Green, UK

#97378 Jan 20, 2013
Teaman wrote:
<quoted text>
That's right. The state can't deny the right to keep and bear arms.
They can regulate. If I fired a shot here and missed, the bullet could go through two other houses. You have different circumstances where you are.
Shotgun hunting only here. Bolt action rifle only in the state next door. The states or their people regulate. The right to keep and bear arms can't be denied.
Allow me to say that what you're speaking of is that matter of 'ordnance,' wherein the right itself isn't being regulated, but in fact what is being regulated is the activity.
A good common sense ordinance would of necessity state that discharging a gun in a thickly settled area, without regard to the possible harm it might cause, is forbidden, unless the act is conducted in self-defense.
In that case, which I state above, the right isn't regulated in and of itself. The ordinance is a demand that right be exercised responsibly.
Dr Freud

Bethnal Green, UK

#97379 Jan 20, 2013
Guppy wrote:
<quoted text>
When the government says to you, JUMP! You'll say, how high.
And when the rest of us exclaim "DROP DEAD!", then YOU are supposed to enquire:'For how long?'

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

US News Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News Thousands of people march during rally at Bosto... 1 min Frankie Rizzo 2,007
News Jobs report shows Trump to inherit solid but un... 1 min Mikey 35
News The President has failed us (Jun '12) 2 min Freespirit8 403,625
News Trump Isn't Bluffing, He'll Deport 11 Million P... (May '16) 2 min President Donald ... 14,555
Election 'Fox News Sunday' to Host Kentucky Senate Debate (Oct '10) 3 min inbred Genius 253,021
News Once slow-moving threat, global warming speeds ... (Dec '08) 5 min OzRitz 62,306
News Trump's repeated claim that he won a 'landslide... 7 min inbred Genius 152
News Barack Obama, our next President (Nov '08) 13 min Ghey Ghost 1,458,030
News As anger over election of Donald Trump erupts, ... 21 min angry confused de... 2,909
More from around the web