Skip to content

Guns Blazing…

July 24, 2012

I have opinions.  I like having opinions.  I really like screaming about my opinions and my favoritest thing in the world is telling you how stupid your opinion is.  None of this is news to anyone who knows me, reads this blog, or is married to me.  However, every once in a while, an issue presents itself to me that is so cloudy and polarizing, that even I cannot quite convince myself of what I think I believe.  This is one of those issues.  Maybe you can help…

I am not, nor have I ever been, a “gun” guy.  I’ve never held a gun, shot a gun or owned a gun.  I know nothing about the different classifications of guns and I don’t get all giddy about caliber, rounds per minute, or clip size.  I don’t hunt.  I don’t shoot skeet.  I don’t feel that keeping a gun in my house would bolster the security in my house.

What does this all mean?  Well, it means that I can admit that my opinion is not an informed one.  So I am going to ask some questions.  None of them are rhetorical.  Feel free to chime in.  I am also going to include some responses I have seen and heard since late Friday night (We all know what happened. No reason to rehash it here.) from gun enthusiasts who I have engaged in conversation on the issue.  Make no mistake, I have an opinion and I am going to make it clear.  I will not, however, tell you that you are an idiot for telling me I’m wrong.  Since I am so naive on the subject, all I can tell you is that I know what I feel about guns.

OK.  Here goes:

I would have absolutely no problem if guns were outlawed in this country.  All guns.  Big ones, little ones, I don’t give a shit.  I have yet to hear a truly compelling argument that gun ownership should remain a right in this country.  There.  I said it.  Maybe the best way to do this is to start with the arguments that have been made for gun ownership, and deal with them one by one.

I need a gun to protect my family.

OK.  Noble reason, no doubt.  Yet statistically, your family is not safer with a gun in the house.  In fact, they may be more at risk.  According to an Oxford University study, people who live in a house where a gun is kept face higher occurrences of homicide and suicide than a house without one. (Website here.)

Criminals will still find ways to get guns even if they are outlawed

Well, if you believe that, it is important to add three key words to that sentence.  It should read “Criminals in this country will still find ways to get guns even if they were outlawed.”  It’s an important addendum, because that statement would only be true of criminals in this country.  Take a look at countries with iron-clad gun regulations (I.E Canada, UK, Germany, Australia, France).  There gun death rates are not only lower, but infinitesimally smaller.  In the year 2007, England had 59 gun fatalities.  A total of 59. (BBC statistics here)  Any guess how many we had?  31,224.   So criminals in those other countries are, in fact, NOT getting there hands on guns, despite the strong anti-gun legislation.  So I am left wondering:  Are our criminals more resourceful than those in other countries?  Are our law enforcement agencies less capable of enforcing laws than they are in other countries?  Gives new meaning to “American Exceptionalism”, doesn’t it?

And even if it is true that bad guys will still get guns, no matter what we do, it shouldn’t mean we make it easier for them.  Iran is going to kill Jews, no matter what we do to prevent it.  So, using your logic, why are we trying so hard to prevent them from going nuclear?  In fact, why not sell them a bomb?   Might as well make some money off of it.

The constitution guarantees me the right to possess a gun!

Yeah, well it also gave me the right to own black people and extended the right to vote only to white men.   Yet, eventually,  we realized that the time for those rights was over, and no longer appropriate for modern times.  Maybe the Second Amendments time has come.

Finally, I saw this absolute fucking nonsense on Facebook the other day:

For those that may not know, the AR-15 was the weapon that did most of the damage in Aurora last week.  So maybe someone out there can explain to me which category it fit into that night.  A target rifle?  A “Family Fun” rifle?  (Which is my personal favorite by the way.  What, did the dice go missing from the Monopoly box again?) A hunting rifle?  No.  It was none of those.  Those poor bastards in Colorado were “assaulted” on Friday night, so excuse the shit out of me, but the AR-15 was an “assault rifle” on that particular night.  To say it was anything else is a fucking insult to the 71 people who bled on that theater floor.  Including the six-year-old fucking girl who was killed.  Oh and if you need a weapon like this to kill deer, you are a piss poor fucking hunter.

Now, having said all of this, I remind you:  I am still in the process of learning what I can about this.  I know I am reacting emotionally after a horrific tragedy that will resonate with us for a long time, and it may be clouding my judgement.  I am typically a Libertarian who wants the government out of my life as much as possible, but I am having trouble supporting this.   So please, gun folks, tell me why I’m wrong.  Tell me why your right to own a gun should outweigh that little girls right to breathe…

  1. Hey Mon! permalink

    I’m not anti-gun, grew up with hunters, could envision owning a gun (if I didn’t have kids and wasn’t married to an anti-gun “conservative” guy), but I can’t tell you you’re wrong because there is something wrong with allowing people to buy assault rifles and excessive amounts of ammunition. Oh, also, I’m a supposed bleeding heart liberal from a “fly-over state” where hunting is a way of life, who isn’t anti-gun, but IS pro-gun control. Let’s be reasonable people! And the NRA ain’t reasonable.

  2. Lauren permalink

    Because that guy was crazy. Most gun owners are responsible citizens who keep them locked out of sight of children and don’t go on shooting sprees. The government shouldn’t have the right to take away the guns of everyone because of a few crazies. I have held guns, I have shot guns… I own guns. I keep them unloaded and locked away from my children. They can not be used against me in case of home invasion. True, I used to sleep with one under my bed… until I had children. Now they’re safely locked away. I was once approached at gunpoint by a guy trying to get into my car and chose to never be a victim again. I have been through the background checks. I have a concealed carry permit and I carry legally. Those that follow suit should be allowed to also own and carry guns. What happened in Colorado is tragic but it was one man. One super crazy man. Colorado is a conceal carry state but it’s against that theater’s policies to allow concealed weapons. Imagine if those movie-goers had their concealed weapons with them. A lot less injuries/deaths would have occurred. Those that carry, are for the most part responsible and usually good shots. They could have taken out that psycho seconds after he started. Not everyone is comfortable with guns and that’s fine… don’t own one. Don’t hunt and don’t go to a shooting range. No one is forcing you to own one. Those that legally own weapons are generally good people who are exercising their right to bear arms. They aren’t the few crazies you hear about. I mentioned this on your page earlier today…the 2nd amendment is your right to bear arms, to protect yourself against a tyrannical government and raise a militia along with many other rights. I’m not outraged by your blog post but I stand by my opinions (I’ll say it again… MY opinions).

    • Thirty thousand gun related deaths a year. Isn’t the problem bigger than “a few crazies”?

      • Lauren permalink

        Many big cities have gang violence. I believe most of the deaths come from those crazies… and the crazies that don’t lock up their weapons. Gangs will still have guns, even if they outlaw them. We’re too close to Mexico. Europe may be doing fine with gun control, but it would never work here.

      • Interesting. You think illegal guns would Get in over the border? You think that’s why Europe has an easier time keeping guns out? Could be. Leads to an interesting thought: conservatives usually want gun rights protected and the border shut down and secured. I wonder if liberals agreed to secure the border, would conservatives agree to tighter gun control? I dunno, I’m just thinking out loud. You make an Interesting point on Mexico. I have to think about that

    • Lonestar State permalink

      He was wearing full body armor. As ex military, I know that he wouldn’t have been taken down. The argument that if someone in there had a gun, he could have been taken down is assinine and isn’t based in reality.

      • I agree with this. I think adding more weapons would have added to the death toll in that theater. Too much chaos. Too much smoke.

  3. Nancy permalink

    My father was a volunteer deputy sherif in the marine division, patrolling the Niagara River/Lake Erie. He had a permit for his weapon which he carried on the job and to the warehouse for his company, which was in a very bad neighborhood. He came home from his volunteer shift and was in the process of unloading his weapon, aimed at the floor when it discharged, sending a bullet thru the floor, missing my head by centimeters (I happened to be in the basement, doing laundry and the “breeze” blew my hair into my face). My father is the most cautious, safely minded man I know- he kept the gun locked away, bullets locked in a different location. Now imagine that same gun in a different house in Buffalo (or anywhere else). You mention homicide/suicide – don’t forget accidents!! Shit happens.

    • The 31,000 number I sited in the post includes all firearm deaths, accidents included. I should have been more clear about that…

  4. jillgeorge permalink

    I am in awe of the way you look at all sides of this issue and actually pay attention to facts and different opinions. This is so damn rare these days and it is such a breath of very fresh air! (Sorry about the cliche…I am horrible about that )-: )

  5. I own a gun. The way I see it, most people I know own a gun because criminals own guns. I wouldn’t have a gun in my house if no one else had access to guns. I did not buy my gun, a 9mm, for hunting or any other purpose other than to protect my family. My husband travels a lot and I want the added protection. I live in a good part of town, even though it is Memphis, TN, crime capital of the nation. Everyone here it seems owns a gun, and you can easily get one off the street. My warehouse guys tell me all the time they can get me whatever I want. I work in a terrible part of town and before I had kids I would carry it in the car with me. I replaced it with a stun gun. When a guy tries to car jack you as you drive through a Wendy’s you need all the help you can get. I would be extremely happy if all guns were eradicated. But in this country, it will never happen. And the crazies will get them no matter what. Or we take Chris Rock’s suggestion and let everyone have guns but make ammunition unavailable or so ultra expensive that no one can afford it!

    • This is exactly the kind of dialogue I was looking for here. Somewhere between the left wing crazies and the radical gun nuts are all of us that sit somewhere on the middle. Even though I’m not comfortable with guns, it is absolutely reasonable to me why you would be, given the circumstances you describe. Maybe I’m being idealistic, but I really think there is a way to allow people to defend themselves yet still cut off access to guns like the AR-15.

    • Cause I can’t see how anyone in this country needs 100 rounds per minute to defend their home, unless it is being invaded by China…

  6. Siobhan permalink

    I have to say I agree with pretty much everything you said. My husband has expressed a desire to have a hunting type rifle in the house for protection (he’s sorta convinced that we are going to be submerged in anarchy) but I just don’t feel right about it. That said, do you remember that story out of Oklahoma a few months back about the young mother who shot the intruder after asking permission from the 911 operator about it? I absolutely applauded that young woman. So, I’m sort of torn about it.

  7. PJ Czech permalink

    I can’t believe you are such a p***y when it comes to firearms! First, even if you outlawed them all today, there are still so many in circulation that the argument that bad guys will get them stands. Second, I think its a bit of a stretch comparing the Iranian situation – if there were only 10 guys in the world with bullets and guns, then you could certainly stop it. That is the scenario with the capability to make nuclear weapons. Third, the culture of America is guns! The movie this guy shot up was horribly, horribly violent! How many BBC-Produced shows or movies feature gun violence like we do? How many european movies in general, or bollywood, or whatever? Our media has sensationalized violence to such an extreme – god forbid they take responsibility for this!

    Oh and finally he didn’t use an AR-15, I believe it was a S&W.

    I’m not a gun owner, as a disclaimer. Its too much of a pain in the ass to get one in NJ so I haven’t followed through with it. There you go, gun laws at work.

    • I refuse to give up on solving a problem because it is already too widespread. Why not do what Japan did in the fifties? Ban the sale of all guns from today on, and grandfather all current gun owners in, with the stipulation that when the gun owner dies his guns are immediately surrendered? May not make much of a difference today or tomorrow, but twenty years from now? Maybe we finally get to where Japan is. You know, 2 total gun deaths in 2007. 11 last year. Why can’t we strive for that?
      And the weapon was an AR-15 according to the New York Times (, but that is hardly here nor there.
      I also refuse to believe that we are more predisposed to violence than any other country. Japan has a long history of the most violent, bloody movies in the world, and it doesnt seem to effect them. And even if it is engrained in our culture, who says that can’t be changed? Women’s rights, civil rights, gay rights all took, and continue to take, massive shifts in our cultural beliefs. So why not guns?
      And the Iran analogy is a stretch. It’s called hyperbole. It’s used to make a point. The point is that the philosophy is similar in both cases.
      And it’s OK. You can say “pussy” here. Everyone who reads this blog can handle it…

  8. Azalea permalink

    Ive never understood the huge deal some Americans make about their precious guns. I have a semi friend who is (in my opinion, obviously) completely nuts in his feelings for guns… He has a whole facebook album dedicated to pro gun pictures, one of which says that Americans having access to guns keeps other countries safer, because ‘bad guys know that the US is their ally and the US has guns’. Because, you know, random civilians are going to be shuttled off to defend a country from its own citizens? Oh yeah, the defending of the other country is for crimes like murder or rape, not exactly international scale.
    Ive tried to see it from the other side, I really have…and I still dont get it.

  9. I would like to oppose Lauren’s view that gang members are grouped into the “crazies” bunch. There is a very big difference between a gang member shooting another gang member because of a bad drug deal (and maybe killing a bystander) than a sociopath going postal on a room full of innocent people. The only similarity is that neither of those people should have access to guns, let alone metal forks. Canada has more than its fair share of gang problems and we are nowhere near Mexico. And where do you think that the Mexicans get their guns? You think they manufacture them there? No, they make them in the U.S. Kind of ironic. Like when the US sold Iraq a bunch of military equipment to fit against the Iranians in the 1980s and then those same weapons were used against the U.S. in the Gulf Wars.
    No government or society is ever going to eliminate violence. Sure, guns don’t kill people, people kill people, but if they have a gun it’s a lot fucking easier to do a massive amount of damage. Outlawing guns will mean that criminals and “crazies” will find some other way of hurting others, like knives, machetes etc., but those weapons are a lot less destructive than guns.

    Oh and by the way “Oh and if you need a weapon like this to kill deer, you are a piss poor fucking hunter.” may be the best line ever.

  10. Niki permalink

    I’d like to say thank you for blogging about things that are going on RIGHT NOW! I admire you for blogging about the issues at hand (weather anyone agrees with your opinions or not) and not running from them. I read a ton of blogs and for the most part it seems others are doing their best not to mention the latest happenings as if it never happened. I love a funny blog as much as the next person but I have found it quite annoying to log in everyday to these other blogs without the mention of the REAL WORLD out here. Keep writing!

    • Thanks. I don’t understand people who avoid a topic like this out of “respect for the dead”. I think the least we can do to respect the dead is examine the situation and start a discussion immediately that might help prevent more of these in the future. It’s more disrespectful to pretend it never happened…

  11. JVD permalink

    First, thank you for a level headed, two sided discussion. If we had more of that in our culture perhaps we’d have less violence. As for the issue of firearms ownership, I won’t weigh in on that either way. It is a personal choice whether to own and/or employ firearms. All I can tell you is that as a gun owner myself, I enjoy the perfectly legal pursuits for which I own my rifles. Now, on the issue of “Assault” rifles. The classification itself is arbitrary to the extent that no one definition exists. The main thing that people object to is the high capacity and handiness of these weapons, arguing that a sportsman doesn’t require those attributes. Thing is, the “assault” rifles universally trade firepower for these attributes (hence a standard .223 AR-15 is illegal for deer hunting in most states.). There are a number of older lever action guns available with much more power and sufficient capacity to cause a far higher ratio of casualty to wounded, so I fail to understand the point of even reporting his armaments.

  12. Tuscanitunr permalink

    Interesting views. I liked the article…mainly because it made me think about the issue in a different “light”. I’m like you, in how you describe yourself on your second paragraph, however…I do believe having a gun in my house would make it safer for my family. It’s all about personal accountability. This country has none any more. To put statistics out there seems reasonable, but, what are the statistics for a gun saving someones life? True story: I forget the location (I think somewhere in the Midwest), but there was a news story about a woman who was at home alone with her child. Two men were trying to break in even while she was on the phone with 911. She had a 3-6 month old baby. The police did NOT get there until 20-30 mins after she called 911. She killed one guy trying to break through the barricade she had at her front door. The other guy ran off once she shot his partner. Let’s say, she didn’t have a gun. Let’s say she only had a knife. That CQC stuff right there, and if not trained in using a knife, two men would probably be able to over power her a lot easier then it would have been her holding a shotgun. This in’t the only instance out there either.

    You say as the very last sentence “Tell me why your right to own a gun should outweigh that little girls right to breathe…”. The above is why anyone should have the right to own a gun. Can anyone who reads this tell me that they would trade off any one of those people shot in the movie theater for a woman and her 3-6 month old? While it makes that situation no less tragic, it was one man, premeditating killing people. He would have found a way. Either with home made grenades…etc.

    “In the year 2007, England had 59 gun fatalities. A total of 59. Any guess how many we had? 31,224.”

    United Kingdom pop 2007 – 60,975,000
    United States pop 2007 – 302.2 million

    Ofc we would have more fatalities. Granted it’s a way lower number than 59 …speaking relatively…I did some math…but I don’t know if I did it correctly to determine the number of their deaths to our death ratio…blah blah. Still, I would dare say we have bigger and more densely populated cities than they do. I would think (although I could be wayyyy off base here) more densely populated = more crime. Basically what I’m getting at is…Compare a smallish country town and their gun crime compared to a city like…New York….or Chicago…etc.

    “The constitution guarantees me the right to possess a gun!”

    It damn straight does. That’s a good thing. Another quote I’ve read…in which I have no idea where I read it and thus cannot prove it’s truthfulness…but 1 reason why we have not been invaded is because of the fact we do have so many people that own guns. An invading force would not only have to deal with our military, but also have to worry about every Tom, Dick and Harry shooting at them. Another reason is it makes sure our government is held in check. Something our forefathers wanted. They wanted a gov for the people by the people. I believe Tommy Jefferson said it “”When governments fear the people, there is liberty. When the people fear the government, there is tyranny. The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government.”

    I hate to bring up Nazi’s, but I remember reading soemthing about how the Nazi’s involked gun control laws/bans, which after doing research…turns out is sorta true, but also false…(as there were already gun control laws in effect before the Nazi’ came to power, and they only thing the Nazi’s did was to enforce stricter gun laws on Jews. I also came up with this…

    “Cramer says he encourages people to read a book by Jews for Preservation of Firearms Ownership on “the curious parallels between the U.S. Gun Control Act of 1968 and the 1938 Nazi weapons control law.”

    That’s coming from people who lived it.

    “Finally, I saw this absolute fucking nonsense on Facebook the other day:
    For those that may not know, the AR-15 was the weapon that did most of the damage in Aurora last week. So maybe someone out there can explain to me which category it fit into that night. A target rifle? A “Family Fun” rifle? (Which is my personal favorite by the way. What, did the dice go missing from the Monopoly box again?) A hunting rifle? No. It was none of those. Those poor bastards in Colorado were “assaulted” on Friday night, so excuse the shit out of me, but the AR-15 was an “assault rifle” on that particular night.”

    Yea…the AR-15 is an assault rifle, but not a fully automatic unless modified. How many other weapons are out there that can give a similar firepower. M-14? High power rifle…22 cal sport rifle? has a clip, semi auto, can do some damage, and because it’s a 22….doesn’t really have the kick, so you can aim faster. I guess all that mumbo jumbo I just spewed out right there….was me trying to say, just because he had an assault rifle doesn’t make it a more dangerous weapon then any other gun out there. There are semi auto shotguns that have ABSOLUTELY no kick what so ever.

    I think in the end, Americans have guns because it’s a hobby. It’s like people who drive high horse power cars. Do they need them? No. But we are America…founded to provide a certain freedom NO ONE ELSE had. You know…the American dream. Of course it could be argued that that “idealism” doesn’t give someone else the right to own a gun and potential harm someone else. I would then argue…it doesn’t give anyone the right to go over the speed limit as the speed limit is the LAW and was posted there for everyone’s safety. It also doesn’t give anyone the right to go out there and drink and maybe drive, thus putting my life in danger. It also doesn’t give someone the right to possess a cell phone while driving, nor operate a radio, nor drink a beverage…as those things provide a distraction while driving and could cause bodily harm and/or death to someone on the road. I’m sure someone could also argue that all of my examples don’t come near to what guns do to people…so I’ll leave off here so I can hear those arguments…and here’s a link from the NY Times about DUI type of deaths…and how even though stricter laws and programs have tried to prevent it…it’s still climbing.

    *PS…sorry if my comment is one huge mess of a counter argument…but I’m not a writer and my grammar can suck ass sometimes. I would have formatted the comment better, but format options not available*

    • Lauren permalink

      Well said! Thanks for putting into words everything that was jumbled in my head when I tried to respond.

    • Tuscanitunr permalink

      BTW…I think I should clarify some things there…

      When I’m comparing guns to DUI’s, drinking, high powered cars, driving distractions…basically what I’m getting at is the fact people kill people…the gun is a tool. So, if that’s the case…then alcohol should be outlawed (we saw how well THAT worked out), high powered vehicles should be banned from the U.S. (I can’t tell you how many idiots I’ve seen horsing around on the road…….yes I’m one of them…..or on youtube that have caused a crash. How about cell phone’s while driving? Creates a distraction. You’re having to concentrate on a convo rather then concentrate on driving…….

      so I just wanted to somewhat clarify that.

      • Thats a good comment. WHat you say makes a lot of sense. In fact, you stole a little bit of my thunder cause I plan on hitting on the alcohol analogy a little bit later tonight. Good stuff, Tuscan…

  13. tuscanitunr permalink

    Haha…thanks for the compliment. Like I said above…I wish I could have put it together a lot better, ’cause as I’m rereading my comment, I’m thinking to myself…wow…can’t spell hunh? lol.

    Looking forward to your other posts!

  14. gsekse permalink

    Every time something like this happens, it’s the same old story. “There oughta be a law” “Ban Guns” Etc… Here is the REALITY of it folks: You can’t logistically remove guns from the American psyche. Try to imagine if the government decided to take all guns. WHO would do it? The police? The military? I hate to tell you, but those groups are among the highest percentage of gun owners. That means they have to turn in their own guns. Get real, it is just not going to happen, it is NOT an option on the table. Conservatively, 40-50% of Americans possess guns, any move to ban them would upset half the voting population. So! Let’s just forget the whole “get rid of guns” idea, Ok? I am ex-military, qualified 45, M16, shotgun. I don’t own a gun, would rather spend my money diving instead. I understand the desire to “make the world safe” for our family and children. Nope, that isn’t going to happen either. You can minimize risks to some extent, but unless you do the hermit thing in a cave, you will run the risk of some dork with a car or truck or gun or knife or baseball bat or rock… you get my point, who will try or successfully kill you. We all are going to die, we spend our lives avoiding ways to make it come sooner rather than later. (a “jackasses” on TV seem to have that in reverse, go figure) Sadly, until people face the reality of guns, we will continue to cry for control of something that is out of control, ie: “THE NUT JOB”. When we make a nut job detector, we might then be much safer.

    • OK. Fair enough. But again, why have other industrialized nations been so successful in minimizing, almost to the point of extinction, gun violence, while our numbers rise every year? You say its engrained into our psyche, which I agree with on some level, but then lets find out why our collective “psyche” is so damaged and address that. What I can’t accept is the attitude of “well, this is just how it is, you know” and go about my day…

      • gsekse permalink

        Oh I am sorry, there is not a good answer to that one. The love of the gun is probably connected to the same reasons for America’s love of cars. I don’t think there is a “reasonable” answer to how America formed it’s national self-image. I will try some ideas: One thing is land size. In England, it takes less people to police it’s small land area, thus the British bobby could rule with a night stick for decades. American west, where I believe the love of the gun was born, had people needing guns to protect from many different dangers. Not to mention a source of food. The west was vast with people living many days travel from any form of law or crime control. In Europe, the smaller area, the existence of law prior to guns, stuff like that. America has been a fast-track, quick start country. We moved to where we are in a relatively small amount of time (200 years) England, France, Spain, Italy all have many centuries over us. I could make guesses at the way this all came about, but it would be just that, a educated guess at best. My real point of the statement was, never mind the past, here is what I see of the present and the problems of future action in the area of gun control. It’s true, never say never. I guess if enough people die and it’s always a gun in the picture, a restrictive set of laws may slowly work their way in. Kinda like in New York City. I don’t see any broad, ban on major groups of firearms ever being successful in this country for the foreseeable future. Still holding out for the “crazy” detector. Though a mind reading machine is way more scary than loaded M16 to me!

      • My answer to land size is this: (and I’m not trying to be argumentative, it’s just that this is a debate more people should be having) Canada and Australia certainly are large land masses, they don’t have these problems. You’re most likely right about the old west, but the government can be a tool that changes societal norms, like in the case of slavery…

      • gsekse permalink

        First off, if you run under the title of “Arrogantsob”, being argumentative would almost be expected. (part of my profile on twitter is “know-it-all bastard”) Honestly, it’s the problem with the best of the internet, here we can discuss with things, but so many people grow hostile instantly at disagreement, it chokes any real dialogue.

        The Australia thing is a very good point. A county that was populated by criminal and other social rejects, probably should have similar problems. I could get all psychology about it and say that America doesn’t seem to teach good anger management to it’s kids or not enough mental help assistance. That is a total cop out because I don’t know what sort of help or training can prevent the lone “nut job”. Many of these loners are reasonably to very intelligent, trying to out smart them would be futile. If you use the “closed system” approach to this, the removal of guns would take out a ranged, rapid fire weapon from hands of a potential NJ (nut job), but as I have noted before, it’s just not a feasible option at this point in history. America is not a “closed system”, we have rather wide open borders. I have family that lives in W. Virginia and some born and raised in Tennessee. Trust me when I say that the mountain people will not listen, obey or even acknowledge and laws that restrict their guns.

        I have in the past and will state here my approach to weapons:

        I hate 50 state laws that make gun ownership and movement of guns over state lines, a nightmare. I feel that Americans should have the right to have guns in the same exact way in 50 states. I think conceal permits are stupid. The law should only state that the weapon must be carried safely.

        Now for the other side of it: A gun owner’s rights end when they cross into privately owned land. The land owner has absolute rule over who and what weapons come into their area. (except for law enforcement which already has a set of rules) If a gun owner violates someones area, they would be liable for heavy punishment and in certain cases, the land owner or their representatives can use deadly force in protect of that right. It would be the gun owner’s responsibility to know when they are off public land and to determine the rules of the owner. The owner does not have to post signs every damn place. (farmers have a big problem with hunting on this.)

        I believe crimes committed with a gun should have massively larger punishment than crimes committed without. (you can lump other deadly range weapons into it.)

        Personally, I would give criminals a break on punishment if they used a stun gun. If every store clerk was hit stun gun instead of a bullet, many more clerks would still be alive and undamaged.

  15. Nate permalink

    So do you support outlawing all guns? If so, you must also support outlawing guns for use by the police and government.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: