Police shootings at Dallas BLM protest.

[Danijel Gorupec]

Tools do not make decisions, regardless of their purpose, and the removal of a tool from the box doesn't mean people won't find a way to accomplish the same goal.

Just don't get me wrong... I am not saying that it is your gun that is 'provoking' you to kill me. I am saying that it is my gun that is 'provoking' you to take out your gun and kill me. I am not saying that if you own a gun it makes you more kill-intended. It is my gun that makes you quicker to defend yourself (you cannot think that as fast as fast I can kill you, so you are forced to kill me faster than you can reasonably think).

 

That said, I am not absolutely against firearms. And I really have no idea how to regulate it.

[Greg H.]

Serious question... is US society really that dangerous that normal law abiding citizens need to be armed?

 

And so far the very vocal pro-guns lobby is winning this argument.

Unfortunately, the answer to that question depends entirely on where you live. In some of the inner city areas, yes, especially the areas which are heavily gang influenced. Our police forces are both chronically understaffed and underfunded. If you told me my choices were live in central Detroit without a weapon or leave the country, I'd be on the first boat out of here. Not out of fear for myself, but for my family, and most especially my kids. That is what drives that decision making process.

 

As far as the gun lobby winning - they do have the most money. This is the problem when you have career politicians.

 

And keep in mind, it's not all about protecting yourself from people. A good number of Americans live in areas where wild animals are the more pervasive threat, either to humans or to livestock.

[StringJunky]

Here is what I think is wrong with such logic... If you take out your car keys, I will assume you are going to drive; If you buy some fertilizer, I will assume you need it for your lawn; If you start a chainsaw, I will assume you are going to cut a tree... but If you take out your gun, I am not going to assume you are going to scratch your nose. Guns are made for a specific purpose and they make other people nervous. They just make a society a bit more nervous.

+50

[Greg H.]

Just don't get me wrong... I am not saying that it is your gun that is 'provoking' you to kill me. I am saying that it is my gun that is 'provoking' you to take out your gun and kill me. I am not saying that if you own a gun it makes you more kill-intended. It is my gun that makes you quicker to defend yourself (you cannot think that as fast as fast I can kill you, so you are forced to kill me faster than you can reasonably think).

That's more of a training issue. You having a gun isn't going to make me any more likely to pull mine out and shoot you - but that's because I'm not scared of you simply for possessing a firearm, and I'm not scared of the firearm itself. It's like electricity. I respect it for it's ability to do damage, but I don't fear it.

 

Fear, as they say, is the mind killer. It's what takes otherwise logical, rational individuals and turns them into raging, angry mobs of dangerous animals.

 

Maybe we should ban people. They seem to be the real problem.

Edited July 8, 2016 by Greg H.

[DrmDoc]

Serious question... is US society really that dangerous that normal law abiding citizens need to be armed?

 

If so, then you can make a great case, particularly if the number of accidental shootings and those maked by mistake are pale into insignificance as compared to all the lives saved. This maybe the case, maybe not- but as I said this is what US society has to think about. And so far the very vocal pro-guns lobby is winning this argument.

 

America is an insecure nation borne of threats both real and imagined. Guns represent power and I think they are the tools that a weak and insecure people use to given them courage and faith they can't summon on their own. I don't think America's gun owners will ever gain the strength of character and courage required to give up their guns.

Edited July 8, 2016 by DrmDoc

[zapatos]

 

"It just seems to me that there are crazy people all over the world, but only in America are they allowed ( and their fellow citizens defend this right ) to buy military grade weapons and perpetrate this kind of crazy sh*t."

Yeah - those darned rights. It's so damned inconvenient when they apply to everyone.

 

Oh - wait, that's why they're called rights, and not privileges. And actually, we don't let crazy people have firearms. But you have to prove they're crazy before you can strip them of that right. Because, you know, rights and stuff.

 

Edit:

Huh. Pointing out inconvenient truth is enough to get negative rep. But disparaging an entire nation because of the acts of a few is worthy of an up vote? Interesting.

 

 

I fail to see how MigL disparaged an entire nation by stating that there are crazy people all over the world, and that Americans can buy guns.

[Greg H.]

 

 

I fail to see how MigL disparaged an entire nation by stating that there are crazy people all over the world, and that Americans can buy guns.

Maybe because that's not what he said?

 

"There are crazy people all over the world, but only in America are they [crazy people] (and their [crazy people, again] fellow citizens [those of us who, apparently, aren't crazy] defend this right) allowed to buy ... "

 

Or does my understanding of how pronouns work fail me?

[ajb]

Unfortunately, the answer to that question depends entirely on where you live. In some of the inner city areas, yes, especially the areas which are heavily gang influenced.

And we have evidence that waving a gun at a gang is actually making one safer?

[Greg H.]

 

America is an insecure nation borne of threats both real and imagined.

Sadly, I have a hard time arguing with this part of your post. We didn't used to be, though. I'm not sure when that changed, but now we are a divided country full of scared people, electing even more frightened and divisive people to lead us - and you can see the results for yourself. Moderation is key, and we haven't had that in a long time.

And we have evidence that waving a gun at a gang is actually making one safer?

LOL, no, that's likely to get you killed. But if I see you on the street waving your gun around like a moron, I'm as liable to shoot you as any gang member. And that's part of the problem - the purpose of owning a firearm is not to wave it around like a damned idiot. But should said gang members decide to break into your home, the judicious application of armed response in a surgical manner may just save your life. Contrary to the popular media, we're not a nation of "spray and pray."

 

There is a difference between gun ownership, and responsible gun ownership. We have the right to one, and, in my opinion,.the obligation to the other. Unfortunately, a lot of people do not share that opinion.

[ajb]

But should said gang members decide to break into your home, the judicious application of armed response in a surgical manner may just save your life.

I get the impression that for most Americans this is never really very likely. Indeed, gun ownership is in decline due to the realisation that that a gun in the house offers more risk than the protection it offers.

[MigL]

Yeah, those damned rights, Greg.

I suggest you and the people who support the loose criteria for gun ownership in the US don't understand fundamental rights.

 

Sure, your constitution allows you to own and carry guns.

But the constitution also grants the right to life and freedom.

Why is every other American denied their right to life because some whack-job insists on being able to carry a military assault rifle ?

In case I need to spell it out for you...

'Your rights stop when they start infringing on the rights of others'

 

Or are you OK with your country becoming a 'third world' country where sh*t like last night happens ?

( sorry if I'm being a little too 'in your face', but I'm really pi**ed off by last night's events )

[ajb]

And just because... "A higher number of firearm laws in a state are associated with a lower rate of firearm fatalities in the state, overall and for suicides and homicides individually" [1].

 

So it seems that stricter rules do reduce deaths.

 

More than that, the US seems to have a culture that violence is the way to deal with problems. Couple this with the avaliablity of guns, social problems, mentally ill individuals etc and you have an explosive mix. The shooting in Dallas is only part of this wider problem - both on part of the normal people and the police.

 

Reference

[1] Eric W. Fleegler, MD, MPH; Lois K. Lee, MD, MPH; Michael C. Monuteaux, ScD; David Hemenway, PhD; Rebekah Mannix, MD, MPH, Firearm Legislation and Firearm-Related Fatalities in the United States, JAMA Intern Med. 2013;173(9):732-740 (http://archinte.jamanetwork.com/article.aspx?articleID=1661390 )

[zapatos]

Maybe because that's not what he said?

 

"There are crazy people all over the world, but only in America are they [crazy people] (and their [crazy people, again] fellow citizens [those of us who, apparently, aren't crazy] defend this right) allowed to buy ... "

 

Or does my understanding of how pronouns work fail me?

Your understanding of how pronouns work is fine. It is your interpretation that fails you.

 

Saying that the crazy people in America are allowed to buy guns, and the crazy people's fellow citizens do defend their right to do so, is true. As is evidenced by the shootings in Dallas and the defense of people like him to buy guns.

 

He made an accurate statement. You are being overly sensitive.

[Moontanman]

I honestly think I have a fundamental right to defend my home, the police do not prevent crime, they investigate criminal acts. I gave up hand guns a long time ago, but I still have pump shot gun. It's reasonably safe, you have to turn off the safety and chamber a round before it will fire. It's not a toy, I do not take it out and put it on display, I clean it rather irregularly, it's a chore I do not enjoy. It is designed for close combat indoors, it could technically be used to hunt but the barrel is kinda short for that.

 

This idea that it's ok to carry guns around in public is nuts, especially long guns. Hand guns are as common as flies on excrement around here. I seldom go to gas up that at least one person has a not so well concealed hand gun, it doesn't really bother me... I guess I am used to guns, for me it's matter of responsibility, shooting someone by accident would be a never ending nightmare.

 

But carrying a rifle into Wendy's? Come on people, what is up with that?

 

But if you break into my house you best be quick because I will shoot you... I will not like it, I will be forever remorseful but my house is where I draw the line..

Edited July 8, 2016 by Moontanman

[swansont]

Yeah - those darned rights. It's so damned inconvenient when they apply to everyone.

 

Oh - wait, that's why they're called rights, and not privileges. And actually, we don't let crazy people have firearms. But you have to prove they're crazy before you can strip them of that right. Because, you know, rights and stuff.

 

 

What we're seeing, though, is that the rights don't belong to everyone. When attempting to exercise your rights get you killed when you are not white (by an agent of the state, no less), it's hard to defend that you actually had that right.

[MigL]

Maybe I am being a little too direct, Zapatos, but I have quite a few friends who are ( Canadian ) cops.

They are normal people like you and me. And it struck me that those cops in Dallas ( some of whom lost their lives ), even while under fire, were trying to shield and protect people who, minutes before, had been protesting against them.

[iNow]

This is a complex issue. Most cops are wonderful human beings who do amazing work for all of us. Some cops are horrible people who have no business wearing the uniform. Others sometimes just make mistakes.

 

The point is that mistakes and clear breaches of the oath they took need to be addressed. Saying we want to hold police to the standard they swear to is not the same as saying we hate cops or that any of them should die.

 

We do have a problem, though. Citizens are being killed by law enforcement unnecessarily and in large numbers. We need to be able to discuss this rationally and clearly and take steps to improve it.

 

None of this means that there aren't great humans wearing the uniform and doing great things every single day. It just means we need to honor them by weeding out the horrible colleagues around them. We have to break the cycle, and try saving the lives of our fellow citizens while doing so.

[ajb]

But if you break into my house you best be quick because I will shoot you... I will not like it, I will be forever remorseful but my house is where I draw the line..

You mean to protect your stuff or yourself and family?

 

From what I can gather looking at the statistics is that 'home invasions' as you Yanks call them, that the vast majority do not involve the homeowner getting killed or seriously harmed.

 

 

All that really happens by owning a gun is that you put yourself at higher risk of suicide, homicide and accidents.

[Moontanman]

I honestly do not understand the mind set behind shooting innocent people, the Dallas shootings do not come as a surprise to me. In fact would say this has been building for quite some time. I live in a city that back during the time of MLK saw ambush style shootings of the fire department. The perpetrators would set a fire and wait for the fire department and then fire on the fire fighters.

 

When people are pushed to near their limit of what they feel like is persecution you can expect members of that group to have lower flash points than the majority of the people who feel they are being treated badly. I have seen some very disturbing videos over the past few years of police brutality, before the ease of videoing someone you did hear of police brutality but most rational people dismissed it.

 

The idea that our law enforcement could be guilt of so many infractions was just too much to wrap your head around. But now the actual incidents can be seen, often well before the police can even react to the charges.

 

Not surprised, appalled for sure, but I do expect more of it before it stops..

[dimreepr]

It's almost like Judge Dredd was written by George Orwell.

[ajb]

 

 

We have to break the cycle, and try saving the lives of our fellow citizens while doing so.

Exactly, and part of this must be better gun control. Less guns make it safer for everyone including the police.

[swansont]

Could it be changed? Yes, absolutely. That's what democracy and the rule of law are about. Should it be changed and, more importantly, would changing it fix anything? That's a deeper, much thornier issue, Many people view the Bill of Rights as inviolate - and if one of them can be removed, then why not another?

 

Here's the crux of the matter - removing the Second Amendment requires a constitutional amendment, and those aren't governed by the people in general, but by the Congress and the state governments. The general population don't get a vote - and if the government gets the notion that they can remove one of those rights, what's really to stop them from removing - say - the right to freedom of religion? Or the right to freedom of the press (although some say that died out on it's own ) - or the right against self incrimination?

 

 

You don't have to remove it. There are several rights enumerated in the Bill of Rights, and many of them have limitations on them. You can practice what religion you want, but you can't sacrifice a human because your religion says you should — it defends beliefs, not actions. You have freedom of speech, but not if it's libel/slander, or incites people to riot, etc. Due process goes away under exigent circumstances. You have the right not to self-incriminate, but if you don't word it just right when being questioned, that right doesn't actually exist. "Cruel and unusual" is a subjective standard.

 

So rules applied to gun ownership, i.e. a recognition that the right is not absolute, is consistent with limitations on the other rights enumerated in the Constitution.

[Moontanman]

You mean to protect your stuff or yourself and family?

 

From what I can gather looking at the statistics is that 'home invasions' as you Yanks call them, that the vast majority do not involve the homeowner getting killed or seriously harmed.

 

 

All that really happens by owning a gun is that you put yourself at higher risk of suicide, homicide and accidents.

 

 

Actually in my own town which is a smallish college town and quite liberal compared to the rest of the south home invasions almost always result in harm to the home owners from rape to just being beat down severely. If you break into my house I assume you mean to do me bodily harm. I do take some measures to make my house less attractive to invaders which are somewhat different than simple burglary. I doubt someone could sneak into my house, I am quite sure my hounds would raise the alarm way before they got inside.. But to beat down someone's door and come inside to me means they intend to do bodily harm.. they are screwed...

[ajb]

Actually in my own town which is a smallish college town and quite liberal compared to the rest of the south home invasions almost always result in harm to the home owners from rape to just being beat down severely.

Really, or are these just the events you are aware of?

 

And still, do we have any real evidence that a gun in the house make your safter. So far all the statistics suggest not.

 

 

-----------------------

Maybe there is a point of definition here. Most people who enter a home do so to steal things. The term 'home invasion' may mean breaking into someones house to commit crimes other than burglary. I may has misinterpreted the use of the meaning.

Edited July 8, 2016 by ajb

[MigL]

In the one case, the victim had brandished a gun and someone called 911.

The cops knew he had a gun and were obviously on edge.

He certainly didn't need to die for this, and if he wasn't carrying maybe he wouldn't have.

 

In the other case, the victim admitted to having a gun and a license for it, but insisted on reaching for his license to show.

He also didn't need to die, and would also be alive if he wasn't carrying.

 

Now, admittedly I don't know all the details, and I certainly don't mean to blame the victims.

But why exactly, does everyone and their brother, need to have a gun in their pocket, or the glove compartment of their car ?

I blame THAT mentality which says that's a 'sane' thing to do.