Don’t let “gun violence” go unanswered.

[entropy]

The point I was originally trying to make is that the 'guns don't kill people' is completely vacuous. While it is technically true, it also doesn't convey any useful information. Nobody is making the claim that a gun is going to hop up on its own and murder someone.

Succinctly put: Punish the behavior, not the tool.

Better yet: Punish the behavior at varying levels according to the tool and/ or method used. The more heinous, the more time, or death.

 

[Ivy Mike]

That used to be considered impossible. There are a whole lot of people who are not so sure about that now. I have known for many years that it not only is possible, it was planned many years ago, and barring a pre-emptive counter-revolution, will happen.

I personally think we should consider splitting the nation up.
Our government is totally unresponsive to the voters. The wealthier you are, the more your opinion counts. If you live in a city, your opinion counts less than someone who lives in the middle of nowhere.
Right now, the US Senate is a Republican majority despite the Democrats representing a larger portion of the American people. While the Senate was intentionally built to equalize the states, we switched to direct election of Senators which changed the way the Senate works.
Our nation is in desperate need of a revamp in its government, or else it will find itself struggling for a reason to exist.

 

[entropy]

You can have California, Oregon, Washington, The NYC area, and the southern shore of Lake Michigan, once we remove all military installations , and any people who wish to live in a Representative Republic, from them. I'll even thrown in Madison, Detroit, and Minneapolis.

 

[Hartkopf]

I smell a popular vote coming!

Less knives are used in murders because guns are available. No guns = increased use of other weapons. Knife bans will follow. (London).

 

[entropy]

The wealthier you are, the more your opinion counts. If you live in a city, your opinion counts less than someone who lives in the middle of nowhere.

These two sentences are pretty much oxymorons. Except for the recent Exodus from Sodom to Montana, Idaho, and Wyoming, very few wealthy people live in the middle of nowhere, and those that do live in compounds. They may have read The Decline and Fall of The Roman Empire.

 

[Ignition Override]

SharpDog:

As for your conversion of the "leftist" friend, I commend you.
Did it begin with the guy or gal wanting to learn how to shoot, and if so, was it connected to concerns (extremely common now) about personal safety?

 

[Ivy Mike]

I smell a popular vote coming!

Less knives are used in murders because guns are available. No guns = increased use of other weapons. Knife bans will follow. (London).

But its harder to kill someone with a knife, and knife injuries aren't as frequently fatal as firearm injuries.

 

[DerMerchant]

But its harder to kill someone with a knife, and knife injuries aren't as frequently fatal as firearm injuries.

Could you provide statistics to back this up? It just goes against what I've heard.

 

[toivo]

Less knives are used in murders because guns are available. No guns = increased use of other weapons. Knife bans will follow. (London).

That's the essence of the problem with the "gun violence" meme. The notion that removing guns from the equation will reduce or eliminate the violence is a misguided one.

In the 19th century, America and Britain had virtually no gun control, yet our murder rate was higher than theirs: different cultures, different conditions. Murder rates in medieval Britain were higher than those of modern Britain but about the same as modern America, despite our ample stock of firearms. (Interestingly, most killings in medieval Europe were not related to theft and other criminal activity, but were affairs of honor: duels and the like.)

The best argument the anti-gunners have is that it's much harder to perpetrate a mass killing with a knife. Yet mass killings are only a very small part of our overall murder rate. That leaves the killing of innocent bystanders in gang wars as the most lamentable aspect of "gun violence," but using that as a pretext for disarming the entire populace is an epic overreach.

 

[Old Hat]

Getting people who are uncomfortable handling guns to go buy a gun, to become a “ new shooter”, when in many cases they would never commit to using it for their beliefs, is, imho, not helping the gun owing and arms enthusiast community. Neither is putting more people of questionable mental capacity and emotional stability into “civil militias”, or groups with various political beliefs, who’ve decided now to “train” with weapons.

In the rural places firearms are just another tool we grow up with, putting food on the table, like a fishing pole. And there is nothing wrong with being a new to guns person or urban enthusiast (let’s not get triggered) but those new owners too, need to learn the finality of consequence that a young hunter..... young KILLER... of game learns.... the pull of that trigger comes with huge responsibility and huge consequences, the greatest they’re is, and can even ruin your afterlife. ( I said killer there, because “taking game” as the TV hunt shows put it, is killing ). (The shows won’t say that, like it’s a dirty word). Killers of other beautiful creatures of the Lord’s making should and I believe mostly do understand the inherent tragedy in it, but that it’s just a part of life and normal, and just for man to have dominion over beasts of the field. Beasts, not people.

Sorry for the sidebar, but the point I’m failing to make is that there are a lot of “bold talk” on other sites about armed violence and coming wars from gun owners that I just don’t understand. Sure we all complain about politics in the casual way, but many of these militant types are dead serious sounding, and threatening too if you read the posts. It’s scary to read this stuff.

Several Hawaii shirt wearing shooters have already been arrested in the recent weeks, some shooting people.... and the responsible gun community and long time rural hunters need to speak out against this kind of talk imho, and not glorify them.

I think sometimes, that gun makers and the gun crazies (unstable militants) are the biggest enemy of the 2nd Amendment. Like, what is the purpose of selling 12 ga. 18” barrel pistol grip shotguns like used to be reserved for bad guys in movies? Companies want to sell anything that makes money. So they do. But, that particular gun is an assassins weapon, a suicide gun, that’s it’s only useful purpose. And that guy killed the Church goer with it point blank, because that’s all it’s good for. As a defensive weapon it is poor for 98% of people, and even more if capacity is any consideration at all.

But crap like that appeals to criminals more than law abiding folks, precisely because it’s an assassin’s tool. The liberals lament about AR’s, but they aren’t nearly as concerning as the 16-18” (sawed off) shotties to me, or the AR pistols, from a self defense POV. If a guy pulls that shottie on you point blank you’re done, even if you hit him back with that carry pistol.

The “old patriot militias” were called up by local governments, and made up of ordinary citizens. These extremists factions resemble more like organized mobs in Gangs of New York or like the various political militias in Germany prior to and after WWII, like the brown shirts that went before the SS.

 

[Robert]

We seem to have totally gone off the rails here.