Gun Control. Is there more middle ground to be explored?

Posted: July 31, 2008 in america, life, manliness, sports
Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Are the current gun control laws as good as it is going to get?

I believe that responsible adults should be allowed to own and carry a firearm. I also believe that if you made it illegal for those people to carry a firearm, the criminals would still carry, seeing as how their guns are mostly illegal already.

In this Episode of 30 Days the activist hates guns after her therapist was “massacred” by a patient in a gun related murder. If that person was willing to commit murder, I’m sure they were willing to illegally obtain the weapon for that purpose or use another weapon.

If there was not a single firearm to use in crime and murders they would still occur. Crime and murder have existed as long as men have had things that other men wanted, rather that be material things or otherwise. Even before man learned to wrangle an explosion into a directed projectile people were killing people in much more barbaric ways. Look at how violent the pre-firearm days were. I would rather be shot than bludgeoned to death by a mace, or have my stomach slit open by a broadsword weilding crusader for Christ. Crime is something that will never be stopped. People are, at root, animals. We are beasts that are at best only partially civilized. The world is full of people who want everything but simply don’t want to put forth the effort to earn it. Murder is more often than not a crime of passion, and that passion will find a way with or without a firearm. People are stabbed to death daily, perhaps we should regulate who can and cannot buy kitchen ware. The fact that her therapist was murdered by a firearm is just shear coincidence. The one who killed her was set on murder and could have done it with a pen from his pocket if he wanted.

They touch on the VT shooting a few times in this episode. At the UofU they allow their students to carry firearms on campus (which I was unaware of prior to watching this). I feel that if the students at VT (not all but the responsible ones) were armed there would have been fewer casualties. At the same time I feel there is the slim chance that if there were 10 scared young adults in the room with guns rather than 1 there may have been a crazy John Woo style Hollywood shoot out, but I’m most certain that the shooter would have just been gunned down by his peers.

I am pro guns, and I firmly believe in our 2nd Amendment right to bear arms! Let me know what you think. If you have any LEGIT ideas on how to allow law abiding citizens to keep their constitutional right and to keep them out of the hands of criminals both I and the Federal Gov’t would love to hear it.

If nothing else skip forward to about 35 minutes in and watch the story of someone who used his 2nd amendment right to protect his family from a man on a murderous rampage.

I’m sure i’ll catch heat from the mysterious “Mistah Jay” on this one too. perhaps you should show who u are Captain Secrecy. Everyone else who posts has used their names and email addresses but you seem to wish to remain cloaked.

Image courtesy of Michael (hence the blank comment)

Vodpod videos no longer available.

more about “Gun Control is there more middle grou…“, posted with vodpod
  1. Grosjean says:

    Ok, you know that I do not like guns in general, at least not around me. M only grievance with what you are saying is that crimes of passion would not happen as much without guns. It is a lot less personal to shoot someone and walk out, then to stab, beat, or dismember a body. Also, I do not know too many people who carry a mace around these days, but I have a better shot against a mace than a gun. Now, the VT shootings…Your point is that if some of the students were armed then there might not have been as many casualties. The problem there is how many students want to “have” to be armed on their way to class at eight in the morning, or to have to remember to grab it. There is no way that little punk could have killed 32 people with just a knife, hammer, chainsaw, mace, basically anything short of a suicide bombing. I agree that crime and murder will never stop, and the unfortunate fact is that there are so many guns now you cannot make them disappear, I mean shit there are 270,000,000 guns to the 300,000,000 people in the USA (thats 9 guns per 10 people). I have no problem with a friend of mine carrying a gun or a responsible person that I have never known carrying one. I have a problem with prior criminals not getting tough enough sentences for gun crimes, the fucking hammer should be brought down. Guns should be a lot harder to acquire than they are now (I am talking about legally, I know that people will always be able to get them on the streets). Guns cause more problem than they stop, but they will always be around. So we have to toughen the fuck up when it comes to gun control…PEACE…

    you know i could go on forever bout this lol, but i have to get my ass to work…good post though

  2. serdafied says:

    You’re right that he wouldn’t have attained the record kill count he did without a firearm or high explosives. The problem is that the simple thought that someone determined enough and crazy enough an get their hands on a firearm, rather it be bought illegally, stolen , or by other means.

    Cho attained his firearms legally. He killed 32 people. He is a psycho. You can’t stop a psychopath until he has started. There is no manner of law or restriction that can prevent people with no criminal history from attaining a firearm without being unconstitutional. The students wouldn’t HAVE to be armed but it is their right! Had they been allowed to exercise that right on campus the death toll would’ve been much lower, possibly the fact that the very students he was targeting would be carrying protection may have thwarted the entire incident.

    But that is all just theory.

  3. christian says:

    ” Guns should be a lot harder to acquire than they are now (I am talking about legally, I know that people will always be able to get them on the streets). Guns cause more problem than they stop,”

    1. When in the history of this country were guns harder to get?
    guns are not nearly as freely available as they used to be,

    2. People with guns account for 80-100K crimes/year
    People with guns prevent 750k-2.5M crimes/year

    Guns stop more problems than they cause.

    Florida has great anti-gun-crime laws
    bring a gun to a crime = 5 years
    use a gun in a crime = 10 years
    kill someone with a gun = life

    lets support the laws that only affect the criminals

  4. Grosjean says:

    My point is that you say he has no criminal history, this is true, but he did have negative mental history. There are plenty of countries, including Japan, who get the mental record about the gun applicant. This could have stopped him from ever getting a gun, not saying it would have, but I just think our gun attaining laws should be much more strict and rigorous!

  5. Michael says:

    “I believe that responsible adults should be allowed to own and carry a firearm. I also believe that if you made it illegal for those people to carry a firearm, the criminals would still carry, seeing as how their guns are mostly illegal already.”

    Well you acknowledge here that even the most severe form of gun control isn’t going to affect crime. In this case, there is no middle ground of gun control to be explored. If going to the extreme of banning guns isn’t going to affect gun crime levels, then that means that gun control and gun crime are two separate issues. If what you’re worried about is crime then leave the issue of gun control out of the picture as it is unrelated.

  6. Grosjean says:

    The only damn point Christian has is the Florida laws, I believe it should be AT LEAST like that nationally. I know PLENTY of people who have obtained guns legally and have had more priors than I have hands and toes. So just because people want you to think that guns are hard to get, this is not the case. There are a lot of pawn shop owners and gun dealers that will do a lot for an extra buck. Also Christian, you say that people with guns prevent 750k/2.5 mil a year. Does this include law enforcement? If it does, this means that these crimes can be stopped without a gun ever presenting itself.

  7. Harry Paget Flashman says:

    Huzzah, dude. Heinlein said, “An armed society is a polite society.” Robberies, muggings and carjackings go down when the perp knows the victim may be carrying concealed. It works that way in my state.

    – Proud onwer of a S&W 342Ti in my right front pocket.

  8. mistah jay says:

    I’m not really a gun person myself, but Pandora’s Box was opened when this country was founded. You can’t put a lid on it now that EVERYONE has one already (well, most everyone, especially the criminals).

    But it’s unfortunate those that do have guns legally, a man’s home is not his castle anymore. So actually using your gun to defend yourself can get you in hot water. Picture a no-knock SWAT raid that got the wrong house, if you reach for your gun you’re dead (and they get away scott free). If you kill the “intruders” who don’t even bother announcing themselves, you’re going to prison for the rest of your life. Then there are the cases of ACTUAL intruders that get shot by the home owners, and the family of the thief sues!

    So for guns, I say you’re damned if you have one, you’re damned if you don’t.

    Bet you didn’t think Mistah Jay was going to reply like that did you? =p

  9. Michael says:

    That’s why I’m glad I live in Mississippi. We do have a castle doctrine that gives us the right to kill intruders in our homes and prevents a civil suit against us for doing so. Not only that, but this right to deadly force extends to our personal property and lives wherever we may be. If we are in a parking lot and someone jumps us, we can shoot them.

  10. mistah jay says:

    There was actually someone in Mississippi whose house was broken into by an undercover cop guns blazin… he got shot by the home owner and only then did the rest start to announce “police! police!” They were raiding a duplex that had a drug dealer in it, so they decided to break into both sides for whatever reason… the neighbor had nothing to do with it and thought he was being robbed, and was holding his child behind a mattress as he shot the cop. He’s now serving life in prison.

  11. Michael says:

    The person you’re referring to is Cory Maye. That the raid was not announced is Maye’s side of the story. The police say that they knocked first and announced themselves as well. The police had search warrants for both halves of the duplex.

    Regardless of what really went down, the Castle Doctrine was not passed in Mississippi until 2007. The event involving Cory Maye occurred at the end of 2001.

  12. mistah jay says:

    cool, I appreciate the extra details on it.

    Of course the police are going to say that they announced themselves. But, I don’t know if anyone (innocent) would shoot at someone knocking down your door while yelling that they were police, but even then, he wasn’t in uniform… and he could only see that one person. regardless, if that cop had seen the man in his home with a gun he rightfully owned, he would have tried to kill him. that’s usually how it goes in a raid. shoot first, ask questions later. and he would’ve gotten away with it, and the story would have been long forgotten. Would the Castle Doctrine protect him in this case? I don’t think so.

    No knock warrants is the real problem with owning a gun. Even in Russia (at least at one time) they didn’t have the right to knock people’s doors down that are suspected of drugs/illegal activity. They’ll seriously wait for them to open the door, however long it takes. Despite them getting plenty of chance to flush everything down the toilet, was it worth dying over either for the cop or the criminal? No, but it sure does give the criminals a bad day for business. 🙂

    The use of SWAT has gone up way too much over the years. Even if they bothered to make sure they got the right house, they’re still overusing it for non-violent crimes.

  13. serdafied says:

    My opinion is that drug crimes are violent crimes. Most drug crimes are accompanied by violent crimes and the manufacturing and distribution of had drugs like cocaine, heroine and meth definitely lead to violent crimes. People that put the drugs on the streets know the risks, and therefore they are making the decision that drug money is worth dying for. As a police officer you are aware that u could be shot and killed at work and its in the job description so by taking the job you also decide that protecting your community, and family is worth dying for as well. Now if the man who is minding his business and defending his home catches the bad end and is shot and killed or in this case arrested and charged with killing a policeman that is shit. Unfortunate bi-product of war, collateral damage. The war on drugs kills innocent people everyday mostly by criminals.

    What I don’t here you addressing the criminals who rob and murder people for drug money. That kill policeman and put policeman, who are in the field, in the state of mind frame of “shoot first ask questions later” that SOME definitely are in. I also don’t hear the addressing of the issue that Criminals with guns have NO rules to live by and therefore always have the upper hand on the policing bodies. Police that push the laws in or bend or even break them and take someone off the streets who would try to put drugs in my home and family members, then I look the other way. I’m not saying its morally right but its definitely not unfair. A drug dealer only has one rule, survive!

    Now when police use their power for personal gain or personal reasons that is different and unacceptable.

  14. Just found your blog. It’s interesting.

    But seriously, when was the last time you missed with your mace and hit the kid standing next to the criminal? And when was the last time someone forgot their mace was loaded and hit themselves in the head?

    I’m not anti-gun. Far from it. I believe that you and yours have a constitutional right to own a firearm for personal protection, recreation, and hunting (I’m not gonna, but that’s a personal choice. This house is protected by Louisville Slugger.). But having a gun is a responsibility that too many Americans are not living up to. We need to promote responsible gun ownership (trigger locks and/or gun safes), punish gun owners whose irresponsibility leads to further crime, and better screening procedures to make sure that guns are not in the hands of unstable or disreputable sorts.

    Gun control shouldn’t mean getting rid of guns, just getting a handle on the guns that are out there.

  15. serdafied says:

    I totally agree. I have nothing against tougher screening laws so long as they don’t infringe upon your average citizen. I think mental health evaluations are fine and dandy but you can buy a gun in total good health and 3 years later catch your wife cheating on you, realize you hate your job and everyone there, start feeling like the world shit on you , next thing you know you’re climbing a clock tower and taking out random people. We have to realize that so long as people have emotion we’ll hurt each other over trivial things. Don’t demonize the firearm its just an inanimate object. The person who pulled the trigger is the villian, not his weapon of choice.

  16. Michael says:

    “But having a gun is a responsibility that too many Americans are not living up to. We need to promote responsible gun ownership (trigger locks and/or gun safes), punish gun owners whose irresponsibility leads to further crime…”

    And where does it end? If I lock my gun in a gun safe, and then someone uses my gun safe to crush another person, should I be legally responsible for that? Am I responsible for someone stabbing another person with a knife they grabbed from my kitchen? Should I be required by law to lock my silverware away?

    The last thing we need are laws to condemn one person for the actions of another. Personal responsibility is what we need to promote with our laws, not a way to blame someone else for the crime of another.

  17. Michael says:

    And to clarify before my statement is taken out of context, by personal responsibility, I mean direct personal responsibility. I didn’t kill someone by not locking my gun away. The person who took it and shot that person did.

    Another point…if you want people at the beginning to be responsible for what happens at the end of a chain of events, then consider this:

    If I did have a trigger lock on my gun and someone broke into my house and killed me while I was fumbling around trying to get it off, should my death be ruled a suicide? After all, I died because I wasn’t able to get the lock off in time. That’s my fault, right?

  18. here says:

    I like this blog site layout . How did you make it. It is very nice.

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