OPINION: Coming to terms with gun violence in Ameria
January 7, 2013 at 2:36 pm in The Daily Republic
We own an estimated 300 million guns, enough killing machines to arm everyone in the country, including more than a few psychopaths. Continue Reading
Honestly, I can’t believe the non-sense that gets published. By the author’s reasoning there should be hundred of shootings in Mitchell each year by the drunk, agitated gun owners. Has the author seen the FBI report on gun violence?? Doubt it. By his reasoning we should probably outlaw hammers, bricks, or fists (you could punch someone to death). The views of the author are so far out of the mainstream it makes me question the motives of the editorial staff. Bottom line: using a gun to kill is UNLAWFUL, using any weapon to kill is UNLAWFUL, be it a car, a garbage bag, a wrench.
Hot debate. What do you think?
21 
9
Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.
Poorly-rated. Like or Dislike:
13 
24
My point being that anything can be used as a weapon. The author sterotypes gun owners….I couldn’t disagree more. Someone who steals a gun and kills people with it has committed 2 crimes. Taking firearms away from law abiding people leaves us at the mercy of criminals; its been proven all over the world…fact.
Hot debate. What do you think?
21 
10
Check out this website…crime statistics associated with firearms bans http://www.justfacts.com/guncontrol.asp
By the way according to the FBI in 2010 murder by rifle (assult weapon) 358, murder by blunt object (club, hammer) 540. So if we’re going to ban assult weapons we better ban hammers and clubs too. Right?
Hot debate. What do you think?
20 
10
The U.S. has the highest gun ownership in the world…making it first in the world for gun ownership. The U.S., despite being number one in gun ownership, is number 28 in gun homicide, with a rate of 2.97 per 100,000 people. So who still wants to argue with me (or anyone) that more guns equal more crime? The numbers speak for themselves. Take the emotion out of the arguement and look at facts.
Like or Dislike:
20 
8
28th? Really? Where did you get that number? I googled “what country has the most homicides by fire arms” and the 1st listed was in Wikipedia under”List of countries by firearm-related death rate”and sure enough we were 28th. I looked closer at the list and noticed that it was not in a descending order. When put in order we are 9th with 7 Central American drug cartel countries ahead of us and 1 African civil war country so other than that….We’re # 1, We’re #1.
The author of the opinion piece gave an excellent, well thought out article. Your “statistics” are at best “flawed”.
I’m guessing you’re a gun owner (so am I, by the way). How often have you had to use a gun to protect yourself? I have never had to. How often have you prevented a crime with your gun? I have never, not even close. Do you think you are left alone because you have a gun? I’ll bet no one knows I even have one. If I did have those kind of situations I would not get another gun, I would rethink where I live and go.
Hot debate. What do you think?
13 
17
Why are we even talking about these statistics? The number of uncontrolled variables in this data alone makes it useless. Besides it shows nothing with respect to the cause of violence and isn’t that the question we should be asking? What is the cause?
No credible person can argue that our country has not been slowly becoming a very violent place. Mostly inner cities but not always. We love our violence. At least for entertainment purposes. We crave it. Forget the statistics. Let’s all acknowledge that we live in an increasingly violent society and that it really doesn’t matter where we are on some list we found on wikipedia. There. That issue is settled. Now lets move on to the real question which is, why? Guns you say? Really? Guns are why we are seeing more and more violence?
Do you know why they put explicit warning labels on video games, music cds and rating on movies? Because there is a clear consensus among resonable minds that certain images and messages could be harmful to young developing minds. How many understand that those same warning labels and ratings do absolutely NO good at all. I won’t even mention what you can get on the internet.
Now put those kids in a world in which they become isolated, maybe a broken home with divorce, no real friends to speak of, a society that has no real moral compass anymore, throw in a bully at school, maybe a parent who has “no time”, more and more time spent taking frustrations out on a video game where they can “shoot and kill” to get the high score, watch a good “shoot em up” action movie and when they do go out they have wires in their ears pumping in the latest hip hop lyrics.
But wait you say, that’s not your typical kid. Most kids can handle all of the above with no ill effects. Well maybe, maybe not. I’m not so sure. What I do know is that most will NOT go out, find a gun and kill people. That, so far at least, is not the norm. We are however, seeing it more and more frequently. Wonder why? Because of more guns?
Guns are not the cause of gun violence anymore than cars are the cause of traffic fatalities and all the useless statistics which show our country to be a violent society (as if we didn’t know) do not address the reason why that is. But we know don’t we? We know why. Violence is very entertaining.
Ask any farmer…… “you reap what you sow.”
As Always,
Red
Like or Dislike:
15 
5
…..and if you really do just want to fight and argue over numbers and statistics, then I would challenge you to take a look at this very informative video. It really does sum up what I’ve said in the past about “lies, damn lies and statistics”. Educate yourself first, then debate intelligently. http://youtu.be/Ooa98FHuaU0
https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=Ooa98FHuaU0#!
Red
Like or Dislike:
6 
8
Lets just take the “guns are not the cause of gun violence anymore than cars are the cause of traffic fatalities” point. If you take cars away from people I’m betting there would be a lot less traffic fatalities. If you want to make a point that people drink (which is legal) too much and gets behind the wheel and kills someone…it’s the persons fault right, not the cars. Here’s the thing, this is what happened….a lot. MADD started and raised awareness. We raised the drinking age in a lot of states, police cracked down, bar owners were more aware of letting patrons driving when they shouldn’t. The point is we took steps to get in under control.
Smoking. It’s legal to smoke. We finally did something about the fact that there are NO benefits to it…all it does is kill the smoker and the ones around them. We haven’t outlawed cigarettes (yet) but we tax them heavily and put separate areas for smokers.
Do you really want to take the position that we don’t have ENOUGH guns?
You want a gun? Ok, how about this. Lets put a 150% tax on them. A $100 dollar gun would cost you $250. How about that. Take care of the deficit at the same time.
These ARE violent times, but in the context of history,not nearly like the past. Not even close, we have just become better and more efficient at it. It is a lot easier today to kill mass amounts at one time. But we know that don’t we? We know why. We just refuse to do anything about it, or even talk about it.
Like or Dislike:
9 
15
Red, you and I do not agree on much, but I believe your questioning thesis is exactly what needs to be done. There is something wrong with our society. We have lost a sense of communalism, of caring for the neighbor, of giving more than feeling entitled to. We are a society of individualism ( “I” have the “right” to own “my” guns.) rather than seeking the common good for the most people. We do not see the eyes of God in the person we disagree with and we are power hungry, greedy, and lost.
We have bullies in the churches, workplaces, schools and homes and yet we allow people to continue such behavior based on who they are and what position they hold in our communities.
We devalue women and the poor blaming them for their sociocultural positions without seeking to understand how they got in those positions.
And then we add violent movies, games, cage fighting, etc with access to assault weapons that have been created to be war weapons and viola’ we have individuals without the mental facilities gaining possession of them and the innocent die.
So what do we do? Continue to discuss the symptoms of the issues or do we seek to find the truth of the issue and work to prevent the symptoms? Until we humans begin to have the ability to humble ourselves and truly love one another, violence will continue.
BTW: In a recent book about buddhism, I read that the Dahlia Lama did not have the “language” to understand the term “Self-hatred.” In other words, it is not in his vocabulary and thus it is a non-understood concept. It is possible that part of loving of our neighbors as ourselves begins with learning to love ourselves correctly? Maybe hidden within this is an aspect of our violent issue.
Like or Dislike:
5 
7
It’s always difficult to follow your reasoning and seldom does your reply even address the topic being discussed but let me see if I can address a couple of my previous points which you seemed to have missed.
You say “these are violent times….but not nearly like the past” but then say “we have become better and more efficient at it” and that “it is a lot easier today to kill mass amounts at one time”. You contradict yourself here. However, please tell me when in our nations past we have seen more violence than today. When have our children killed our children more than today? When has gang warfare on the streets been worse? When have our movies been more violent? When has there been a time in our nations history when our children have been exposed to violence as entertainment to the extent of today, when it literally has become an acceptable way of life? When have our children been able to spend hours playing video games which military experts have stated are literally identical to the training simulators used to teach soldiers combat strategy?
I was not talking about the dark ages or crusades or holocaust or anything else outside the history of our country and you know it. I was talking about socially acceptable entertainment spoon fed to our kids by the media elites, who use gratuitous violence at every opportunity to satisfy our insatiable blood lust.
You also make my point (thank you) by citing regulations to curb drunk driving. Stiffer penalties might work. Use a gun or even possess a gun in violation of the law – throw the book at them. Make it a federal crime. Prison. We baby our criminals in this country. Get tough with lawbreakers. Yeah, I’m all in for that. But how about leave the good law abiding citizens alone? By the way, I notice people are still driving drunk. I’m not even sure it’s been reduced. Some states maybe. Nationwide, I don’t know. I do know alcohol causes more problems socially and economically in this country than any other single cause. We love that bottle though. I can assure you, when it comes to more laws for gun control…..here’s a news flash for you – criminals don’t care about the law!! That’s what the schools thought when they put up signs to let the criminal know “this is a gun free zone”.
Let me wrap this up. Here’s the bottom line and the whole point of my previous comment, which you seemed to miss.
I’ll pay the extra tax you suggest. No problem. Regulate, legislate, and confiscate to your hearts content. Then after you’ve finished doing all of that and the insurrection is over and the dust has settled, know this, you still haven’t addressed the root cause of violence in this country.
For years the progressive humanists have been crying out for a godless society. We are now beginning to see what that looks like. Unfortunately, it’s going to get much worse. Might as well microwave yourself some popcorn and go rent the latest Tarantino.
Ask any farmer – “you will reap what you sow.”
As Always,
Red
Like or Dislike:
11 
7
First, I addressed the topic being discussed in a previous post. My reply was to you and your posts. Second, you say you want to address some of the points you made and proceed to address the point I made so it comes as no surprise that you would find my reasoning hard to follow.
I would say that ALL our previous history (that being before I was born in the 50′s) exposed children to more violence than today. To be clear, I’m talking about REAL violence, not the viral kind. In the 1800′s people would go to a hanging for a picnic. Look at the sweat shops in cities up till the 1930′s. I could give statistics but with you …….it wouldn’t matter.
I didn’t contradict myself with my statements on being more efficient at killing. An example of my point would be a single soldier in Vietnam carried on his person the amount of firepower as a platoon in WW II…..and we have gotten better. There are more handguns now than ever. When I grew up, yes everyone hunted and had a rifle and a lot (myself included) still do, but I have never owned a handgun. It has almost gotten to the point that it’s FASHIONABLE to own one.
As to the root cause of the problem…..I don’t know. I was with you on the games kids play today but it was poited out that other countries also play the same games and you don’t see the same problems we have. Mental Health problem? Maybe. You pointed out that the soldiers see the same games as training and then see it up close and personal yet most SEEM to be OK
God…..he wasn’t in CT that day couldn’t she at least have caused the gun to jam or misfire…something simple?
Like or Dislike:
7 
10
I have yet to see a violent gun but there are plenty of violent people out there it seems. Occupy Wall Street sure seemed to be a violent organization. The left never had a word to say about that.
Like or Dislike:
11 
8
A gun by it’s nature is violent. It is produced to kill.
Where does this logic stop? Atomic bombs don’t look violent. Let’s let every country have one.
Like or Dislike:
8 
10
Wall Street was violent not Occupy Wallstreet.
Like or Dislike:
6 
10
Please provide link to support statement showing how many violent deaths were caused by the Occupy Wall Street movement and how many innocent grade schoolers they killed….Sheesh….
Like or Dislike:
4 
8
Red Handy said, “Guns are not the cause of gun violence anymore than cars are the cause of traffic fatalities and all the useless statistics which show our country to be a violent society (as if we didn’t know) do not address the reason why that is. But we know don’t we? We know why. Violence is very entertaining”.
spearman says, If we didn’t have cars there wouldn’t be death by car just as if we didn’t have guns there would be no death by guns.
Like or Dislike:
5 
11
The 2nd amendment was provided to placate the Confederacy who needed militias to enforce slavery. The Constitution would not have been ratified without allowing the South to enforce slavery with weapons available to them.
Like or Dislike:
4 
11
From a law school professors research. If we don’t like scientific research we just do a thumbs down.
Like or Dislike:
4 
10
Mr. Spearman,
Law professors don’t conduct scientific research. That’s because they are not scientists. Not even close. The legal profession practices the art of persuasive rhetoric. They find a topic or case, take a position and then spin the facts to support that position. A good lawyer could argue that the blue shirt you wear is actually red. That don’t make it so.
Have a great day.
Red
Like or Dislike:
8 
5
Red Handy, the study of legal history, like any history, is a social science therefore the scientific method is used to determine the truth of, in this case, the history of the U.S. Constitution. A Constitutional scholar doesn’t spin history as a lawyer would spin facts in a lawsuit.
Like or Dislike:
5 
10
All this is getting way off topic
The consensus of opinion so far seems to be:
1) guns are not the problem
2 )if guns are removed from the equation, nothing would change because the root of the problem has not been addressed……..and there is no way that could be guns.
Do I have that right? Are Mr. Spearman and I the only ones that see how crazy # 2 seems?
Like or Dislike:
3 
10
Don, I am with ya! While I believe the root of the problem goes deeper than guns, limit the ability to get the guns and we limit the harm from them. Its funny how pro-lifers are gun lovers, huh?
Like or Dislike:
4 
13
Well now of course if you removed all guns there would be no need for bullets and no shootings but the problem is you can never remove all guns from the equation so why suggest it as an option. That’s ridiculous. I prefer to be realistic.
The problem with removing guns from the equation is twofold. First, you would have to remove, strike down, change, whatever, the 2nd Amendment. Then confiscation. That’s unlikely to happen although it might. It would get very ugly though.
And second the criminals and even folks not normally prone to criminal behavior would get them. The black market for guns would be a booming business. Jails would fill up quick. Think – Prohibition. Substitute the word bootlegger with gun-runner and you get the idea.
The only reasonable option is tighter regulation and control. As I have already stated, go ahead regulate, background check, tax, do it all…..in the end you will not have addressed the reason or the cause for the violence. When you limit the ability to get guns you only limit the ability of the citizen who respects the laws. Those who do not respect the laws will always have unfettered access.
I don’t have a clue where to buy meth in this town cause I don’t want it. But I’ll bet you those who do want it, could pick up the phone and place an order 24/7. War on drugs didn’t work, prohibition didn’t work and I guarantee you, any war against gun rights is not going to work.
My only suggestion is super stiff punishment for any illegal gun activity. Felon caught with a gun – prison, got a concealed carry with no permit? Prison. Using a gun during any crime – prison. Automatic. Mandatory sentences. Send a message to the criminals rather than treating the good folks like criminals. Run out of room in the prisons let out some of the poor folks in there for non-violent charges like smoking grass. Make some room for all those thugs running around acting all bad with their guns.
I don’t even own a gun. Don’t need one as I don’t hunt anymore. But I love the constitution, I respect my neighbors who have guns, and I don’t trust the government. Frankly I think anyone who does trust the government is a fool. Maybe I’ll get me a gun. Holster it up alongside my leg or down the back of my pants. A fashion statement….. right godfather?
It’s funny how some anti-violence folks so easily justify abortions, huh?
As Always,
Red
Like or Dislike:
9 
3
I do own guns because I used to hunt. I don’t anymore. I’m not taking guns away from those who have them legally, but why can’t we at least say you can’t buy assault weapons any more? Why would you need it? Why did the mother of the guy in CT have her guns? Home protection? That always seems to be the argument for having them. If you practice home safety with a gun….it will do you no good. It would be unloaded and in a locked safe so if the bad guys come…too late so the fact that a criminal has one and you don’t doesn’t matter. When you leave the house, are you always going to be “packing” just in case.
You say you don’t have a gun….do you have any problems? Do the criminals know you don’t have one and target you? If you want home protection, get a dog.
I’m happy to see you have seen the light on the gun/vehicle analogy. You are right, we could never get rid of all the guns but you bring it up because the guns are the problem and you have to start somewhere. Again, the assault rifles, but the NRA and others will not engage in any conversation at all on removing ANY type of firearms. THAT’ A BIG PROBLEM!!
Sorry to hear you have no trust of the armed forces, or are you going to say you don’t trust the government….except the military.
Like or Dislike:
4 
10
Not sure what you mean but I did not “see the light”. My position has not changed a lick. Obviously you mis-read something I wrote earlier and got the wrong impression. I notice you have a tendency to do that. By the way, most people when using the term government are not referring to the military, although I guess that might be technically correct. I use the term in the common vernacular.
I am however a decorated military veteran so don’t spend any time worrying about me and don’t patronize me. I can take care of myself. Don’t ask me any personal questions or try to give me advice. If I want a dog, I’ll get a dog. Maybe I’ll get a dog and a gun. Don’t worry about it. Stay on topic and concentrate on your writing skills.
Red
Like or Dislike:
9 
4
I didn’t mis-read anything and my skills are just fine…thank you.
I worry because I care.
The questions were on topic. While they were in a personal reply they were rhetorical in nature.
Like or Dislike:
1 
2
Red Handy, the study of legal history, like any history, is a social science therefore the scientific method is used to determine the truth of, in this case, the history of the U.S. Constitution. A Constitutional scholar doesn’t spin history as a lawyer would spin facts in a lawsuit.
Like or Dislike:
5 
12
To offer some humor laced with intelligence, I offer you John Stewart:
http://aattp.org/watch-jon-stewart-annihilate-anti-gun-control-arguments-in-this-amazing-daily-show-clip-video/
Like or Dislike:
4 
6
Excellent!!
Like or Dislike:
4 
6
Fastone said,”Please provide link to support statement showing how many violent deaths were caused by the Occupy Wall Street movement and how many innocent grade schoolers they killed….Sheesh….
What? How many innocent grade schoolers who killed?
Like or Dislike:
0 
8
I believe Fastone is making a sarcastic remark to Smartimus on the Occupy Wall Street movement.
Like or Dislike:
1 
4
I should have read closer so the post gets 4 thumbs down I guess.
Like or Dislike:
1 
4
Spearman~ How many innocent school children “they” being the Occupy Wall Street movement..killed. Smartimus was dragging off point to bash on liberals and was totally unrelated and didn’t make any sense, though smartmouth rarely does. Don was right, just being sarcastic…
Like or Dislike:
1 
4
Comprehension isn’t a strong suit for leftists. I stated that Occupy Wall Street protesters were violent. I don’t see that as in question other than from the professional historical revisionists on the left.
Like or Dislike:
2 
3
Occupy was a non-violent movement. While I agreed with overall philosophy on the evil of Wall Street, their method and execution to deliver the message was poor.
What violence?
Like or Dislike:
1 
2
Standard leftist reply like “What debt problem?”
Like or Dislike:
1 
2
Still doesn’t answer the question.
Give 1 example of violence started by the “Occupiers”
Like or Dislike:
1 
2
Google it like I did. I’m not going to do your work for you.
Like or Dislike:
1 
1
Here’s something you won’t see often. I’m going to borrow a quote from Red
“Educate yourself first, then debate intelligently.”
Like or Dislike:
0 
2
Who’s debating? I know better than to think the radical left cares about the truth.
Like or Dislike:
1 
1
Debate is a tool to get to the truth
Like or Dislike:
1 
1
Here’s a free download of the 100 pg. essay about the 2nd amendment passed as a slavery preserving document.
http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1465114
Like or Dislike:
2 
4
Interesting article on gun statistics….
http://sandiegofreepress.org/2013/01/some-factual-gun-statistics-part-2-of-a-cultural-comparison-gun-violence-in-the-us-and-europe/
Lengthy but good read full of some interesting stats and comparisons. The conclusion is then why? Why are we so paranoid? The amount of guns is huge problem, but clearly this society has some deep rooted fear and paranoia issues not shared by other similar countries with similar cultures..
Like or Dislike:
2 
4