(12-15-2012, 06:36 PM)Whip Wrote: arnie,
Would be interested in engaging you in this topic. I'm one of those bastages that beleive in lawful gun-ownership but that doesn't mean I can't have a meaningful conversation about it with you.
Respectfully,
-whip
hey whip,
i am always open for a respectful, mature, dignifying open-minded dialogue . I am not here to convince anybody of my opinions, etc. As long was can agree to conclude at some point that we may have to respectfully disagree, than I am confident an interesting conversation can start.
Let me start off with that I am not a gun hater, not do I think that people that have guns or like/love guns are stupid or something. No, what ever floats your boat so to say. And everything has its place (in society) even firearms. That said, I absolute don't believe that an outright ban on all guns will be better than the current gun ownership laws in place. Because if history has thought us one thing then banning anything makes controlling it even harder and encourages criminal behavior (e.g. the biggest criminal of all times -Al Capone- was during the Prohibition, when alcohol was banned).
That said, we need a more sensible and smarter gun ownership law than what's currently in place because clearly the current law(s) are not working in ensuring that the innocent and those that can't defend themselves are adequately protected. Unless, one thinks that the killing of 27 kindergartners (for starters) is simply a price we pay "for the right to bear arms"; and that such slaughterfests (i cannot describe it any other way) or OK and normal. Nobody with a sane mind will argue that. If one or society does think so anyway, I am convinced society got rightfully what it deserved and a lot more blood spilling will come. That one can be certain off, unless we change current laws, regulations, and situations.
Now that we've established that the current situation needs to change, we need to ask several questions, related to this shooting and which also relate to the whole gun ownership law: "why did his mother have 3 (!!!) guns?" and "why did she (think she) needed 3 guns?". I cannot come up with one good answer to any of these questions. Is 1 gun not enough? Once we have answered these questions satisfyingly, and the answer is simply "she didn't need 3 guns, and most likely she didn't need a gun at all", we can than move forward to determining what should be changed. Because change is needed, since the current situation is dysfunctional. It is insanity to suggest that more guns will solve the problem; clearly that is more of the same and doing the same thing over and over again, but expecting a different outcome. (for example, we are not the FED here where Benny and his printing press posse thinks that printing more and more and more money will created jobs, while clearly the previous trillions of printed dollars have not created any jobs at all).
Or let us put it in numbers. In 2009 there were 310,000,000 million registered firearms in the U.S. Yes, 310 MILLION... that is one firearm for each and every man, woman and child. Would 620Million guns solve the problem? If 310 already cause this much bloodshed, how much can we expect from 620M??? So clearly more guns is not the answer, clearly arming society to the teeth will not protect the defenseless, but put them even at greater risk of harm.
If one think it is because our government (police, sheriffs, dea, etc) is not able to protect us so we need to protect ourselves, than a simple numbers game will show that this train of thought isn't a logical argument. Assume for simplicity sake that each firearm in the US costs $300. The total amount of dollars spend on firearms in the US is thus: $300x310M = around $100,000,000,000 ($100BILLION). And I am sure this is a grossly underestimated number.... If society would simply not buy half of these firearms and instead donate that money to local law enforcement agencies, stations, pay in taxes or any other way ensured it would go to law enforcements we'd have a whole lot more coppers, sherifs, troopers etc on our streets, protecting, guarding and watching our neighborhoods. A much more effective way than owning a gun, and waiting for a bad thing to happen.
That said, prevention is better than curing. Metal detectors, gates, on site security, buddy systems, self defense, etc etc only treat the symptoms of a dysfunctional law and do not treat the cause. So we need a integrated holistic approach to fixing this problem.
First solution is: Limited the number of guns an adult person can have to 1. Second, guns should only be owned by people who need them for either profession or subsistence. Third, anybody who wants to own guns for pleasure or hobby can refer to the first solution, and will have to go through rigorous background checks, clearance, gun handling and safety classes, sanity tests, etc. Guns are, as we all know, not toys. They were never intended for that purpose and should never be either. They are designed to hurt and kill. Simple as that. Than we haven't even talked about the types of guns (automatic, semi automatic, etc) or ammunition, etc. But, if we can limit the number of guns to responsible owners we have come a loooooong way in ensuring or loved once and especially our little once are protected from further evil.
I just did my Christmass shopping (the bulk of it) using the Amazon link on this blog. Easy as 1-2-3. It ain't much what I bought, but every little thing should help! What is your commission on each purchase if I may ask? 1%, 2%, 0.5%???
