Jump to content
ERDoc

Gun control, the constitution and you, let's keep it civil.

Recommended Posts

Dfib, I know you spend a lot of time outside of the US. When you decribe that you carry, are you carrying in the US? Or are you carrying in your current country of residence?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I just want to understand this quote and see if my interpretation of your comments is accurate. Please see my changes in Red.

.

I cannot speak for anyone but myself but a few reasons come to mind of why I personally have made the decision to carry a sidearm when possible.

I carry a sidearm first because it is legal where I live. So is walking across the road in a crosswalk, but you don't do it unless the traffic stops first.

I carry a sidearm because I am an individual and take responsibility for my own security and actions, including extensive weapons training. Why?

I carry because I am afraid for my family.

I carry because I am afraid for myself.

I carry because I am afraid for myself.

I carry because I am afraid for myself and my family.

I carry because I am afraid for myself and my family.

I carry because I am afraid for myself and my family and need to protect them because the authorities can not.

I carry because it has been effective in protecting my person and property in more than one occasion when evil doers attempted to assault and rob me, possibly even murder me. We will never know because I had a sidearm which I did not draw or point. I just pulled back my shirt and displayed my holstered weapon and the bad guys decided I was not worth the effort.

If you had not been carrying that weapon would you have placed yourself into a situation where you had to display it? Would you have been walking down that sidewalk without your sidearm or would you have simply avoided the location entirely if you could.

I'm not trying to dis you or your sidearm, that's not what this particular topic is about. It's more regarding assault weapons I believe. I don't really see a big problem with carrying a Glock or a Beretta on your belt. Up here it could only be transported in a lock box to and from a gun range, but I would take issue if you were carrying a P90 around everywhere you went.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am not sure what you are asking or stating?

I am not sure you are talking about me. If you are, I was thinking of the comparison between countries and the contrast that exist. The USA is a huge country with a lot of people a lot of cities and a lot of schools. Statistically with more people and more schools there is at least the increased probability of there being an incident as compared to countries with less people and less schools. If we add all of the other conditions such as the way the Health systems handle mental illness, that schools are defenseless gun free zones, and the amount of guns in circulation, cultural mores and values, and even regional differences the uniqueness of each country becomes more apparent.

Dfib, I know you spend a lot of time outside of the US. When you decribe that you carry, are you carrying in the US? Or are you carrying in your current country of residence?

Absolutely, I am talking about the US, but only because it is relevant to the conversation. I guess for accuracy sake I should say "While in the US ...." There is no legal loaded carry in the other country that I know of. I wish it is possible but until now it is not, although the discussion of legal carry is becoming more common and popular on a grassroots level so to speak.. I am in the US about half the time these days..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I just want to understand this quote and see if my interpretation of your comments is accurate. Please see my changes in Red.

I'm not trying to dis you or your sidearm, that's not what this particular topic is about. It's more regarding assault weapons I believe. I don't really see a big problem with carrying a Glock or a Beretta on your belt. Up here it could only be transported in a lock box to and from a gun range, but I would take issue if you were carrying a P90 around everywhere you went.

No sweat, I am not visceral about the issue. Different strokes for different folks, so to speak. There is always a risk of an insertion of other ideas into what we say especially when talking about this subject. I only comment on this forum about it because I am relatively sure that the conversation will remain intelligent and civil. The vitreous that is espoused in some of the other forums, blogs, FB, etc... is horrendous.

As most things in life I carry "While in the US... hehe" (lookin' at you mike) because it is convenient for me. I just thought that since the question was asked I would chime in. I actually have a small firearm by most people's standards because it is so easy to conceal. In Texas a weapon has to be totally concealed, that means that it cannot "print" or be outlined underneath outer garments.

As to a weapon placing me in a situation where I would have to use it, I have found that I am even more careful when armed than when I am not. I understand the great responsibility and consecuence of carrying and possibly using a firearm and try to avoid risky situations. I do have a pretty good situational awareness and avoid conflict and confrontation. This is not to say that everyone that carries has the same perspective.

EDIT: I googled P90 and that is not what I have.

Edited by DFIB

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have read a couple of articles in the last couple days that were interesting.

http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/lookout/gunman-behavior-shootings-indicates-planning-control-former-fbi-180620270.html

http://www.examiner.com/article/a-killer-s-profile-why-adam-lanza-killed-innocent-children

http://www.latimes.com/news/nation/nationnow/la-na-nn-sandy-hook-gunman-tried-to-buy-rifile-days-before-20121215,0,5913090.story

I think the US truly needs to examine the way that mental health issues are treated. I think we need to take away the stigma of mental health issues. We need better diagnosis, treatment plans and counseling. These people need help and too many times they fall through the cracks. Children who have mental health issues, and I'm not talking about just depression, I am talking about bi-polar, schizophrenia, oppositional defiant syndrome etc. Parents of children who have these issues have little help available to them....UNTIL the child tries to hurt themselves or someone else. Then psychologists and the "establishments" are all over it.

Adam Lanza ( and it pains me to say or type his name, because I dont think he deserves to be remembered at all) had issues his whole life. The first article states that he was in complete control of himself. He planned this very carefully. He destroyed his computer hard drives so that police wouldnt be able to get to "know" him. He had hundreds of rounds stock piled and with him. He planned to wipe out that entire school....and we will never know why. Not really.

I know the topic is about gun control and while my heart is broken for the victims families, I have to say this. Yes guns have been the weapon of choice for the last few shootings that have occured. I dont think that banning guns entirely is the solution. I dont know why people feel the need to own automatic weapons and multi round clips. But McVey used fertilizer and jet fuel in Oklahoma City and when that bomb went off...19 children under the age of 6 were killed. Yet, a debate over controlling the sale of fertilizer and jet fuel never occured. We all look for the easy scapegoat. In this case it is guns.

I really think the mental health issue needs to be seriously addressed.

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=depression-surpasses-asthma-as-top-disability-problem-amongst-us-and-canadian-teens

I disagree with part of the article that states that there is better diagnosis and documentation. The parents of the shooter knew he had problems and his mother, in the divorce proceedings, stated that she would take care of him for the rest of his life if he needed it. She ended up shot in the face, in her pajamas in bed and he went on to kill 27 other people including himself. She knew he had issues.

The question that needs to be answered is this....what, besides banning all guns, will keep this from happening again?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

EDIT: I googled P90 and that is not what I have.

Too bad, they look pretty. :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

One problem I see, even if all weapons were banned is that they are already out there. You can shut down all of the manufacturers and ban all guns, but the country has been popping them out so quickly over the years that they will still be around for decades to come.

Ban would then create another black market that would lead to more violent crime. People would smuggle as they do drugs.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here's my take on this. I grew up on a farm in the country, around various forms of firearms. Part of my medical training is the effects of various firearms and the injuries they cause. Part of my operational training deals with the aftermath of sudden catastrophic events. I have personally dealt with more gunshot wounds than I can remember. So any argument that I'm some sort of limp wristed gun grabbing liberal do-gooder is pretty well null and void.

I am not against private firearm ownership. I am against the private ownership of military type firearms, namely, semi-automatic large capacity rifles, and accessories like folding stocks and suppressors, which have no legitimate application. No where in the constitution does it guarantee unrestricted access to any style firearm that is in production. These weapons contribute not only to the amount of casualties per incident but also in the lethality of the wound. The .223 round and the AR-15 style rifle was specifically designed to produce the best chance of achieving a lethal wound against an armed opponent at medium range. There is no place other than a battlefield that such a weapon is appropriate. The fact that a good proportion of these weapons in private circulation are owned by people who harbor anti-government and by into paranoid ideologies should be a cause for great concern.

I have no great use for the term "law abiding citizen" because not only have I seen what supposed "law abiding citizens" are capable of; fist fights, road rage, bar brawls, domestic violence, virulent racist sentiment, just because you've never been convicted of a crime doesn't mean you are any person who should be allowed to own a weapon capable of taking out an armored fire team. I'm not sure which Wal-Marts you've been to, but the people at the Wal-Marts I've been to, the ones getting in pushing matches over the next generation iPad, those are the people who shouldn't be allowed to have access to sporks, let alone a gun. I don't care if they've never been convicted of a crime or not. Nancy Lanza was a law abiding citizen. So was Jared Lee Loughner. So was Charles Whitman. So was Seung-Hui Cho. So was Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold.

What I think though, what needs to change more than gun laws is gun attitudes. I am so sick of pseudo-macho, jingoistic wannabes and their stupid sayings. I know why guys like that have guns. Its not so they can respond with deadly force if necessary. That's not why they want to bring their concealed weapons to Starbucks or Wal-mart or even on an ambulance. No, they want it for when someone cuts them off in traffic, or calls them an asshole, or spits on them. That's when they want to know they have a gun on them, and they are disgusting people.

I am also sick of the NRA. The NRA was once an organization for sportsmen and other firearm enthusiasts. Now it is a haven for domestic extremists and their paranoid, hateful views. If you're a hunter, I suggest joining Ducks Unlimited instead. They're about hunter's rights, wildlife conservation, and you won't find many mentions of the United Nation's invasion plans or who the media's really run by, or where the president was born. The NRA needs to go.

What if you substituted flamethrowers for the type of weapons I'm talking about? Flamethrowers are perfectly legal. Flamethrowers have uses other than killing, like clearing brush or doing controlled burns on fields and stuff, and you know, I'm willing to bet they make pretty effective self-defense tools, too. But no one demands they be allowed to walk into Starbucks or Wal-mart with a flamethrower. No one shows up at political rallies with a flamethrower holding up a sign about tyrants. We'd recognize that as really dangerous behaviour. No one says "You can have my flamethrower when you pry it from my cold, dead fingers," and if the guy in front of you in the checkout line was muttering about his concerns of the government taking away his flamethrower, you'd be probably pretty concerned. Well, that's my view on guns, I consider them to be like flamethrowers.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There are plenty of people that jump on the second amendment. Keep the second amendment in the proper frame. In the 1700s people used their guns for food, protection from parties (Indians, French, British, etc) when the goverment could not provide that protection. They also were dealing with single shot, smoothe barrel, rifles that had the accuracy of a sling shot when they actually fired. The founding fathers were smart guys and knew that times would change. Thomas Jefferson felt that any constitution would be worthless after 19 years and would need to be rewritten by each generation. In the end, we were given the amendment process, which allows a new amendment to overrule a previous amendment. It would be interesting if we could resurect one of the writers and get their impression on our current weapons technology (as well as several other issues). I would guess that they would say, "Hey, it's up to you guys. We dealt with what we had to in our time, you have to deal with your time. That is why we gave you an amendment process."

This right here says a lot to me, and is the reason why the Constitutional argument holds very little sway in my opinion. Ultimately, my opinion will depend on what the science says. Unfortunately, trying to conduct a study comparing the effects of gun ownership and gun violence is going to yield varying results, depending on the location, as so much of gun violence seems to be tied to culture. I know there are some countries with high gun ownership and low violence, and others with low gun ownership and low violence. Which one would hold true in America? No clue. I will say that I agree with the President when he says that assault weapons have no place in the hands of civilians. Sorry, guys, I just don't see where civilians need such high-powered war machines for their personal use.

I would like to see less emotion, less hyperbole and more evidence-based, outcomes-oriented discussion among folks when it came to the gun-control debate. Judging from the media and Facebook, however, that may be too much to hope for.

Asys, that post was so great that I think it just about sums up my views on the issue completely.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...