Discussing The Colorodo Shooting & Gun Laws

[piratelady]

I wonder if you asked an innocent family in the US who lost a family member due to a shooting like a hold up etc how they now feel about guns?

I lost a family member to a shooting. That is the reason I hate guns, would never own or use a gun. I still like the idea that people have the right to bear arms, under certain circumstances. I think there should be more restrictions and control. For example, I can see people owning a rifle for hunting purposes. However, having a concealed weapon, I see no reason for this in a civilized society. There has to be a better way to control who owns a gun and how many they own. We have more control over the cold medicine people buy and who can drive a car - it makes sense to apply the same constraints on gun ownership.

After the loss my family experience, my mom went the opposite way as me. She is angry about the loss our family has experienced, she firmly believes that she should have a gun so if the time came she could shoot someone before they could shoot her. It makes me sad to see this reaction in her and I disagree completely. I feel it is her anger speaking.

Anyway, my thinking is that if I'm going to have a physical confrontation with someone, I'd rather have one that I can walk away from. If you shoot someone, if you kill them, that's it. I think our society is losing site of this fact. You can hit someone, apologize, make amends. If you shoot someone, they are gone forever. You have taken a life, you can't give it back; not to mention you hurt the lives of all the people who loved them. People who use a gun to solve a problem either do not realize how much pain they cause or they simply don't care.

 

[a3a2]

I come from a family of hunters. i still don't like guns, but I understand they do have a purpose. What I don't understand is why semi-automatic rifles are legal. They can't be used for hunting. So are they really being sold for self-defense? Or for rampages like the one Colorado is suffering through.

 

[Loner]

Thinking that things like this shouldn't happen and should be prevented is a natural reaction to a horrific event, however, it is not in tune with reality. This things WILL happen, as long as there are crazy people in the world, which will be always. Its really sad but the world is an imperfect place.

A gun is pretty much the only thing that can effectively even the odds between a petite female rape victim and a 250lb male rapist.

I understand why people want to imagine some sort of cause and effect relationship between violence and the prevalence of guns, but the truth is there isnt even much correlation. Mass murders like this make the news, but statistically they are incredibly rare. The vast majority of American murders are due to the drug trade and the vast majority of the remaining murders are due to some sort of jilted lover scenario. In neither of those instances would not having access to firearms have prevented the murder.

I do admit there is something kind of sick about American society that seems to foster murderous behavior in ways that are not found in somewhere like Japan for instance, but I don't think the guns cause it.

The vast majority of guns will never be used in any sort of a crime what so ever, which includes even suicide or hunting violations.

All these shooting rampages happen in 'gun free zones' because the perpetrator knows they will encounter no armed resistance.

Also, the idea that it is even POSSIBLE to remove all guns from American society is ludicrous. All that would happen is remove all law abiding citizens guns, and if the criminals have them I feel normal people have a right to access them as well.

 

[Loner]

I wonder if you asked an innocent family in the US who lost a family member due to a shooting like a hold up etc how they now feel about guns? I don't understand how the "right to carry a concealed weapon" serves any purpose unless you possibly will use that weapon one day (otherwise why carry it?) . The "right to carry..."logically leads to "using that concealed weapon" for me......Does the US Constitution inadvertently give Americans the right to "kill" others as I am sure each and every person is not skillfully trained how to only injure with a gun???

The Constitution doesnt GIVE any rights, it only recognizes rights innate to a free human. The right to self defense is one of those rights. It is arguably the ONLY truly inalienable right, no matter what you do to any animal human or otherwise, they will always have the right to do their best to defend themselves. In a society where criminals have access to guns, law abiding people have the right to be armed to defend themselves if they see fit. The police cannot and will not be there to protect you at all times.

I respect that you wouldnt feel right defending yourself from violence with the use of violence, but I do not feel that way. I am a good person and I love myself, my right to be alive is more important to me than a morally bankrupt persons right to be alive after they have decided to kill me for little or no reason. I would feel perfectly fine defending myself, or others from violence by the use of violence if that was the only way I could stop innocents from getting hurt.

Cars kill more people in this country (and every country I do believe) than guns. It is impossible to make the world a safe place. We could take away everyones right to have cars, but I would rather accept the risk that comes with me and everyone else owning and operating cars (and guns) and enjoy the freedom that also entails.

Personally, I have found target shooting to be very enjoyable and one of the few ways I can completely turn off my mind and focus at the task at hand without over thinking everything. It is incredibly calming and peaceful to me and has aided me in my recovery from ptsd.

 

[Loner]

I come from a family of hunters. i still don't like guns, but I understand they do have a purpose. What I don't understand is why semi-automatic rifles are legal. They can't be used for hunting. So are they really being sold for self-defense? Or for rampages like the one Colorado is suffering through.

Why can't they be used for hunting?

 

[a3a2]

Why can't they be used for hunting?

I don't believe they are legal for hunting, but I could be wrong. I think it must be a very poor hunter who needs a hundred rapid fire bullets to bring down a deer or anything else, and I certainly wouldn't feel safe being in the woods with him.

 

[anthony]

America will never change IMHO... the NRA and guns are simply too engrained within the countries standing to ever accept they cause more damage than good.

 

[Loner]

I don't believe they are legal for hunting, but I could be wrong. I think it must be a very poor hunter who needs a hundred rapid fire bullets to bring down a deer or anything else, and I certainly wouldn't feel safe being in the woods with him.

Semi auto rifles have a lot of utility for hunting (for which they are legal) and even more for target shooting. They are actually easier to shoot accurately at range target shooting because you don't have to completely change your entire position each time you shoot to work a bolt. Much easier to hold the same posture when you just have to work the trigger finger. Rifle magazine capacities are restricted for hunting but action type is not. The primary goal when hunting is to ensure a quick clean kill so as to minimize the animal's suffering. The ability for a quick follow up shot can mean less suffering for an animal, I am all for that. And no, it doesnt mean the hunter is a bad shot because the first round didnt put the animal down immediately. The only instant kills are central nervous system or heart, and its near impossible to hit those on a large animal at any distance with any amount of skill because you can't clearly see where the heart is. So most hunters aim for where they THINK the heart should be, end up hitting the lungs, and need a follow up shot. Many hunters are just fine with watching the animal stagger about in pain while they celebrate instead of ending its suffering. Tons of people also use semi auto shotguns for bird hunting.

I don't think continuing to voice my opinion will go over too well on this site, but I don't think there is any reason to ban guns, and I don't think gun owners have any responsibility to justify why they NEED the guns they have. Crazy people do crazy things. Some fly planes into buildings, some blow people up with bombs, some strangle others, some shoot people. Restricting people's rights and freedoms is not worth it to me for some POSSIBLE or PERCEIVED gain in safety, and I think most anti gun sentiment comes from the same place most bigotry comes from, naivete and ignorance, with a little undealt with grief as well. The world will never be a safe place. I sincerely hope you can all come to terms with that simple fact. The universe is absolutely indifferent to our well being and there a lot of sick individuals out there.

Anthony, I respect your opinion, but its not a matter of whether or not guns cause good or not. I do not think having everyone armed would make America a safer place as some espouse, I just think the collateral damage is an acceptable side effect of freedom. Everyone seems fine with the collateral damage that comes with the freedom to own and operate cars, yea its sad when some kid gets run over, but sad stuff happens and its not worth restricting the freedom of the entire population just to hopefully save a few people in an imperfect unsafe world.

 

[catjudo]

but I don't think there is any reason to ban guns,

Must it be such a black-and-white solution? What about compromising with stricter regulations and better oversight?

 

[Loner]

OK, do you have any concrete examples? I have not heard many suggestions for gun control that seem like a good ratio between potential perceived benefit to safety and very real infringement on freedom. Most of what I have heard suggested has been supported with the claim of oh, well we have to start somewhere, and it can't hurt which hardly seems like a good enough reason to me, and makes me think its basically a stepping stone to bans.

The virginia tech shooter is another really good example. An obviously unstable deranged young man but I see now way to set up a system that could of prevented him from owning guns that wouldn't be a HUGE infringement on a ton of innocent people's rights as well.

I am open to suggestions, and am curious if you have any.

The suggestions I have to reduce 'gun violence' that have been proven to work and won't infringe on any innocent people's rights are increase the penalties for any armed robbery with a gun to make sure those people never get out of jail, because if you're willing to point a loaded gun at someone innocent in a threatening manner you're almost surely willing to use it to hurt someone innocent.

The other problem with 'just a few reasonable restrictions' is that if they come from people who havent made peace with the fact that the world is unsafe and violent, then whenever these people hear about something violent, they will think it is a direct result of not enough regulation, as if regulation can change the nature of the universe. So, 'just a few reasonable restrictions' will never be enough as violence will persevere as it always has, and there will always be just a few more reasonable regulations that will 'make sure this never happens again' which is incredibly illogical and impossible.

 

[anthony]

I don't think gun owners have any responsibility to justify why they NEED the guns they have.

I strongly disagree with this. Yes, crazy people do crazy shit, no argument there. People however cannot go and readily get themselves a 747 to fly into a building, nor the material to create a bomb large enough to inflict mass casualties. Yes, anyone can make small home made bombs, though the materials to make a large bomb are readily known and monitored, hence bombs aren't easy to make to inflict mass damage.

Guns... far too easy to get a hold of IMHO. By your logic, if I came to you to buy my gun and told you I was taking it down to the local cinema and going to start killing men, women and children, apparently I have that right.

According to your logic of freedom, which is a right winged myth by the way, then I have that right. Unfortunately, there are laws... hence freedom is a myth and complete nonsense. If freedom was free, then you wouldn't be searched when getting on planes, or scanned, etc. You wouldn't have road rules, pay for fuel, food, electricity or anything else... because with freedom you can just take it.

Freedom is an incorrect aspect to include in a gun discussion IMHO, as according to your logic, a person determined insane is ok to buy and own a gun. That logic is insanity in itself.

There are lots of things that can be done to minimise gun related issues, without removing guns. Restrictions on age is a good starter, especially when statistics show a very clear and precise increase in youth gun incidents versus say those over about 26 years of age. You can makeup excuses all you want for automatic weapons, but at the end of the day they allow more carnage to be done than single shot. You don't need an automatic weapon to hunt... as a single shot per trigger pull is sufficient.

One of the largest aspects that has shown to reduce gun related incidents, is simply ensuring to own a gun you have been trained to use that weapon, passed a test on firing and maintaining it, and most of all, regular mandatory attendance at a local rifle range to keep up your weapon skills.

Guns have good and bad aspects, no argument there. You will always have bad guys who get them and do bad things with them, no argument there either. But when some young 24 year old who is studying at school and has automatic weapons and modified magazine to hold more rounds for that automatic weapon... not much good can really come from that IMHO in an urban environment.

Forced weapon safes at home for rifles has also lowered gun incidents, as guns aren't just defensive, they can just as easily be taken from your possession and used against you.... your own weapon that is.

Again, I don't see America every really accepting to restrict guns, because it is engrained within the American philosophy, which is fine if that is what you accept. It does not however negate a freedom or right under specific circumstances IMHO. This mythical freedom often preached under such conditions is negated instantly that gun laws already exist, ie. someone who has been charged with a gun offence should not have any right to own a gun.

To defend yourself when under attack is one thing, as is to use them to hunt with... but just to have an abundance of weaponry because you can... is not freedom, its insanity. I believe the US does have laws on how many weapons you can have, and their types, ie. so people don't build arsenals up. Again, US laws already negate this mythical freedom argument, along with a shitload of other laws.

 

[anthony]

To be perfectly honest... statistics seem to dictate, either strap a gun to every second person at a minimum, or remove them altogether from society... both being the safest options to near remove gun issues.

Imagine if a whole lot of people in that cinema were also packing? That kid would have got off a few shots, then got shot... end of issue, not as many deaths.