Jump to content

Logo

Today's Active Posts

Photo

What do you guys think of this year?


12 replies to this topic

#1 Scott

Scott

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 147 posts

Posted 18 May 2018 - 12:22 PM

Its sorta known that I'm in favor of gun regulations (and have been for a long time). I'm interested to know if gun owners think these school shootings are a problem, and what solutions might be involved. I will not be responding or involved, I just want to listen.  I live in an area (despite my job deeply rooted in natl defense) where most people think like me

I am sad and I don't know what else to do.

So I'm just wondering what your guys thoughts are on the matter. If no one responds thats ok too. 



#2 Matt

Matt

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 83 posts
  • LocationMinnesota

Posted 18 May 2018 - 06:19 PM

I'll put my position out there for discussion.

 

Every unnatural death is a tragedy. Shootings of all kinds are an extremely serious issue in our society, and we absolutely need to take action to address it. But "we need to do something" isn't an argument, and the low-hanging fruit of firearm regulations is not the right direction to go.

 

7 truths which need to be remembered when having discussions about shootings:

 

1. A firearm is an inanimate object, and cannot cause a person to use it to kill other people. This is true of all other objects which have been used to kill (vehicles, knives, fists, explosives, etc.).

 

2. There are an estimated 300-600 million firearms in private possession in the U.S.

 

3. No law has ever stopped a person determined to kill others. A person willing to break a law which says they cannot kill another person, is going to be willing to break a law that says they cannot have a gun if they want to use one to kill another person. Laws which limit or eliminate innocent and law abiding individuals' freedom to own/carry firearms in any aspect have no effect at all on such a person.

 

4. Every shooting is stopped by one of four things: the shooter runs out of potential victims; the shooter runs out of ammunition or their firearm malfunctions; the shooter kills themselves when authorities arrive, usually several minutes after the shooting began; or a good guy intervenes and stops them (often with a firearm).

 

5. The 2nd Amendment protects the individual's Right to keep and bear arms. Laws which limit or eliminate innocent and law abiding individuals' freedom to own/carry firearms in any aspect are a violation of this Amendment.

 

6. The 14th Amendment protects the individual's Right to due process. Laws which limit or eliminate innocent and law abiding individuals' freedom to own/carry firearms in any aspect are a violation of this Amendment.

 

7. English common law (the foundation of the U.S. legal system) includes the presumption of innocence. No individual can be punished for something they have not done. Laws which limit or eliminate innocent and law abiding individuals' freedom to own/carry firearms in any aspect are a violation of this principle.

 

 

Bearing all of that in mind, how do we move forward?

 

I believe the first step needs to be securing schools, churches, and other "soft targets" to the best of our ability. It should be done by states, cities, and local communities, which identify the specific needs of each location and implement them. Allowing, and even encouraging, faculty and other employees at schools to be armed and trained should be part of the equation. Individuals who are law abiding should take responsibility for securing themselves, their homes, and their communities by being well trained and armed - exercising their own Right to self preservation. This step will have the greatest effect in reducing the number of people killed in these tragedies.

 

Along with that, a number of things need to happen - among them:

 

The beginning of a long and hard discussion about the social pathologies driving individuals to commit these atrocities. We need to deal with the evil present in each situation with open eyes and a willingness to call it what it is. Mental illness and how we as a society deal with those who are a threat to themselves and others as a consequence is part of this discussion. As are: the epidemic of broken and single parent homes which cause young people (men especially) to not become socialized as they grow up; the terrible unwillingness of parents and teachers to actually discipline children who misbehave; and a serious reevaluation of the nihilistic post-modern culture epidemic in the U.S., and in media and education especially.

 

The education of U.S. citizens as to the realities of firearms. What they are, how they work, what they are not and cannot do, etc. The largest road block to actually starting the aforementioned cultural discussion is the immense scope of misinformation and propaganda about firearms, firearm owners, and the preposterous idea that the firearm is somehow responsible for the attacker's actions. The fact that a firearm was used to kill people rather than some other tool should be a footnote relative to the actions and motives of the perpetrator.

 

These discussions need to happen at times when emotions are not running high in the wake of a tragedy, and should be conducted with an honest, objective, and sober mindset.

 

I think I'll leave it there and see what others think.



#3 KlaudeMarks

KlaudeMarks

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 285 posts

Posted 20 May 2018 - 07:46 PM

I'm in favour of the 2nd, but I think we could be tighter on regulations. Sure, they may not work how they're intended to, but I think the spike in school shootings should at least warrant attention to the subject, and not look at it like..."well bad people will do bad things." If that's the case, why have any laws at all?
  • Scott likes this

EDC Culture

‚Äčgearfacts.com

 

 


#4 Brendan

Brendan

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 221 posts

Posted 21 May 2018 - 12:45 PM

Ok ok. Like people have said before me. Every death is tragic. But let's look at the root of all of this soft target BS. Joe Biden and the Dems brought us gun free zones and it's a damn shame.
Not that it's not only a Democrat created issue. Both parties are to blame.
Ironically NPR stated that school shootings are actually on the decline. It wouldn't seem that way because the Media is complicit on advancing this fallacy that they're on the rise.
We need to stop blaming the tool, and taking a look at the people and their situation that leads them to think that violence is their only answer.
I honestly think that if more people did their own research and found that defensive gun use is an effective deterrent, then the country would be in a better place.
I apologize if this is all over the place, I'm on a break at work. And will edit this when I get a chance.
  • Matt likes this
26th-infantry-division-subdued-patch.jpg

#5 Matt

Matt

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 83 posts
  • LocationMinnesota

Posted 24 May 2018 - 10:27 PM

Consider this video an addendum to my post above:

https://www.nratv.co...spiring-killers



#6 Mike Blum

Mike Blum

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 67 posts

Posted 22 June 2018 - 09:38 AM

The mass shootings will continue until the media and socialists in this country have their desired total gun control. It's not about 'protecting the kids', it's about controlling the citizenry. The current statistic for mass shootings is that if there is a citizen present with a firearm and he/she takes any action, the average number of casualties, killed, wounded or both is 2.5. The average jumps to between 10 and 18 when there is no one present with a firearm who will take action.

This statistic, like most others does not make any single event the norm, but it stands to reason that if a group is protected by an armed person, the number of innocent casualties is most likely to be less.

Mass Shooters will always have guns and if the guns all disappeared suddenly, the shooters would become archers, or knifers, or clubbers, or whatever.

So...... "take all the guns away from the citizens and you will have less killings" makes no sense whatever. It doesn't have to make sense to the media or liberals in this country, it just has to achieve the goal of disarming the citizenry and having them dependent on government.



#7 WallyGator

WallyGator

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 438 posts
  • LocationSwamps of Florida

Posted 25 June 2018 - 09:58 PM

II'd be all for for gun free zones and no guns in America but these things don't work the way we might want them to. Gun free zones and the signs that say so is like saying to those who would do harm, here's a easy target. Come do your worse! Think about it,you don't see many bad guys trying to break in and kill cops at the local cop shop. Bad guys aren't dumb, they're like any predator - they go for what they think are the weak. If they didn't have access to guns, then it would be cars or trucks, bombs or some other way. People will find the way to evil if they want to.  

 

Taking away weapons would work for weapon related deaths if we could get read of all the weapons. If there was a magic wand that would keep folks from stealing weapons or buying them illegally than I would give up my weapons in a heartbeat. It ain't going to happen. If they can get drugs or any thing else into this country illegally than you better bet that guns will find their way in too.

 

My solution to the problems of school related violence would be to put it back on the local level. If you want to have lawfully armed citizens in your schools than let the local community vote on it.  



#8 Matt

Matt

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 83 posts
  • LocationMinnesota

Posted 25 June 2018 - 10:49 PM

 

Taking away weapons would work for weapon related deaths if we could get read of all the weapons. If there was a magic wand that would keep folks from stealing weapons or buying them illegally than I would give up my weapons in a heartbeat.

 

See... this is something I disagree with. Even if somehow all tools which might be weapons were gotten rid of, people would still have arms - their own arms (and fists), and the ability to use their own arms to harm others. I would keep my firearms because 1) I'm not going to harm anyone that isn't a threat to me, regardless of what tools are available to me; and 2) I want to have the best possible tool to defend myself against someone who would harm me or my family - even if the tool they use is their own fists.

 

Some utopian vision of a world without "weapons" wouldn't undermine the validity of having the ability to use a tool for defense to overwhelm and stop a threat. There will always be threats. I don't concede false credibility to impossible hypothetical solutions with no basis in reality, even by accepting the premises for the sake of argument.

 

 

My solution to the problems of school related violence would be to put it back on the local level. If you want to have lawfully armed citizens in your schools than let the local community vote on it.

 

This I agree with.



#9 WallyGator

WallyGator

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 438 posts
  • LocationSwamps of Florida

Posted 28 June 2018 - 08:27 PM

See... this is something I disagree with. Even if somehow all tools which might be weapons were gotten rid of, people would still have arms - their own arms (and fists), and the ability to use their own arms to harm others. I would keep my firearms because 1) I'm not going to harm anyone that isn't a threat to me, regardless of what tools are available to me; and 2) I want to have the best possible tool to defend myself against someone who would harm me or my family - even if the tool they use is their own fists.

 

Matt, I think you misunderstood me.I thought my magic wand comment would have made it clear, there is no way in hell, all the weapons are going away yet that's a common argument - outlaw all the guns and the problem will go away. I don't agree with taking weapons from law following folks but yes, of course, try to get them out of the hands of bad guys. I realize that they can still get guns or use other things as weapons but let's limit their access if we can.      



#10 Matt

Matt

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 83 posts
  • LocationMinnesota

Posted 28 June 2018 - 08:50 PM

Matt, I think you misunderstood me.I thought my magic wand comment would have made it clear, there is no way in hell, all the weapons are going away yet that's a common argument - outlaw all the guns and the problem will go away.

I wasn't clear in what I said, sorry for that... I'm actually not arguing against your overall position - and I didn't misunderstand you. I'm arguing the rhetorical point that to couch or qualify your statements by saying "in this fantasy where the bad guys don't have weapons, I'd give up mine" is both ridiculous as I described in my other post and granting too much credence to the argument that the weapons are the problem. I've heard it over and over, I think it's counterproductive, and I disagree with using statements like that when your actual position contradicts it. We certainly agree that getting rid of guns won't solve the problem.

 

 

I don't agree with taking weapons from law following folks but yes, of course, try to get them out of the hands of bad guys. I realize that they can still get guns or use other things as weapons but let's limit their access if we can.

 

I agree on the face of it, but feel compelled to specity: only as long as we adhere to these principles:

 

1. Due process of law.

2. Innocent until proven guilty in a court of law.

 

Preemptively infringing on an individual's freedom for any reason is wrong.

 

Now, if someone has demonstrated a willingness to harm others, has acted on it, and has been lawfully convicted of doing so, we should certainly take reasonable legal steps to limit their ability to do so again - until such a time as they have demonstrated to the satisfaction of appropriate skeptical legal authorities that they have reformed themselves.



#11 WallyGator

WallyGator

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 438 posts
  • LocationSwamps of Florida

Posted 05 July 2018 - 05:37 AM

Matt, I think we're on the same page with this. It's a slippery slope when you start limiting a person's access to weapons but like you, I think there are some persons who should not have access to guns.Let's focus on helping the folks who have mental problems instead of trying to limit or deny access to a weapon based on what it looks like.    

 

I wasn't clear in what I said, sorry for that... I'm actually not arguing against your overall position - and I didn't misunderstand you. I'm arguing the rhetorical point that to couch or qualify your statements by saying "in this fantasy where the bad guys don't have weapons, I'd give up mine" is both ridiculous as I described in my other post and granting too much credence to the argument that the weapons are the problem. I've heard it over and over, I think it's counterproductive, and I disagree with using statements like that when your actual position contradicts it. We certainly agree that getting rid of guns won't solve the problem.

 

 

I agree on the face of it, but feel compelled to specity: only as long as we adhere to these principles:

 

1. Due process of law.

2. Innocent until proven guilty in a court of law.

 

Preemptively infringing on an individual's freedom for any reason is wrong.

 

Now, if someone has demonstrated a willingness to harm others, has acted on it, and has been lawfully convicted of doing so, we should certainly take reasonable legal steps to limit their ability to do so again - until such a time as they have demonstrated to the satisfaction of appropriate skeptical legal authorities that they have reformed themselves.



#12 EMVampyre

EMVampyre

    Newbie

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 3 posts

Posted 06 July 2018 - 11:26 AM

As a 30 year member of law enforcement (the largest sheriff's department in the world), I have seen first hand that no law, written or implied, has ever stopped a crime.  Not one.  Taking firearms away from law abiding citizens, removing those citizens rights to defend themselves, their families, and their homes has never stopped one death or crime from occurring.  "Gun free" zones are ignorant knee jerk, feel good reactions to bigger social problems.  

 

As noted previously, a firearm is an inanimate object incapable of doing anything without a human being behind the trigger.  Until the people bleating for more regulations and control of said inanimate object look at the causal factors of "mass shootings" and the individuals perpetrating them nothing will change.  Limiting sentencing on violent crime, refusal to actually prosecute violators for laws already in place due to "social justice" is effectively ignoring the problem.  Not one "gun control" law, proposed or currently enacted, has ever, nor will ever stop a homicide.  NONE.  However, the very act of denying self defense tools to those who need them, definitely has, and will, be a causal factor in the homicide of someone.


  • WallyGator and Matt like this

#13 Matt

Matt

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 83 posts
  • LocationMinnesota

Posted 08 July 2018 - 08:56 PM

As a 30 year member of law enforcement (the largest sheriff's department in the world), I have seen first hand that no law, written or implied, has ever stopped a crime.  Not one.  Taking firearms away from law abiding citizens, removing those citizens rights to defend themselves, their families, and their homes has never stopped one death or crime from occurring.  "Gun free" zones are ignorant knee jerk, feel good reactions to bigger social problems.  

 

As noted previously, a firearm is an inanimate object incapable of doing anything without a human being behind the trigger.  Until the people bleating for more regulations and control of said inanimate object look at the causal factors of "mass shootings" and the individuals perpetrating them nothing will change.  Limiting sentencing on violent crime, refusal to actually prosecute violators for laws already in place due to "social justice" is effectively ignoring the problem.  Not one "gun control" law, proposed or currently enacted, has ever, nor will ever stop a homicide.  NONE.  However, the very act of denying self defense tools to those who need them, definitely has, and will, be a causal factor in the homicide of someone.

 

 I wish I could like this many more times.

 

Thank you for your service.






0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users