How many “not good people” have guns?
Can any of you even imagine losing one of your precious children?.. I can’t, not in my worst nightmares.
This is just so terrible I couldn’t stop crying when I heard the news. There is a good article in the Washington Post about this. I know there are many people who will (again) say this has nothing to do with the gun laws in the US but if you take a look at the kind of rifle the mother of the killer had at home I don’t think anybody in their right mind could argue that people should be entitled to have this kind of weapon in a private household. And yes, you can kill people with a knife too but is it really so hard to understand what kind of bloodshed you can cause with these semi-automatic or automatic guns? There is a reason why these atrocious crimes happen more often in the US than in any other industrialized country.
If you are really so keen on using one of these weapons, become a member of a shooting club, go to a shooting range and shoot!
Sure, people could break into such club houses as well and steal weapons but if I’m not mistaken this hardly ever happens. It is all about the availability of weapons. If we had the same kind of gun laws in Europe, we would have the same problems.
Americans are not worse than anybody else but they are worse off with this kind of gun laws.
Sadly, it is innocent people who (most likely) will continue to pay the price for this highly ideological discussion. And, to be clear, I’m not against weapons in general and I know how to handle them. I served in the Austrian army and was trained to use different kinds of weapons (pistols, machine guns, even anti-tank missiles) but I wouldn’t even dream of requesting to have any of these guns at home.
There will be more discussions about gun laws but the NRA simply is too powerful in the US. They will never change those laws and the bloodshed will continue.
I know some people will consider my post naive, misleading or maybe even stupid. I can live with all these labels, while the kids and all the other victims in this latest shooting are dead…
What is even sadder - and ridiculous - is that the same thing will happen in a few months or weeks, and then again and again.
" I don’t think anybody in their right mind could argue that people should be entitled to have this kind of weapon in a private household."
“A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”
I think the Constitution is rather clear on the issue.
ad unravelingmind (…) “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”
I think the Constitution is rather clear on the issue. (…)
Well, the Constitution doesn’t say people should be entitled to store automatic and semi-automatic weapons at home, does it? Besides, there was already a ban on these weapons. If such ban had been unconstitutional, the NRA would have been amongst the first to fight it. The ban has been revoked once the Republicans became strong enough to have it their way (although I’m sure there are quite a few Democrats as well who are in favour of the current gun laws).
Besides, even if the Constitution were as clear about this issue as you say, do you really think that whatever happens people should never be able to revoke prior decisions? I don’t know about the US but in Europe we are able to change the Constitution with the necessary majority of votes in parliament. People should be able to learn from mistakes.
I know from previous discussions that we strongly disagree on this subject and there is nothing wrong with it. You have your opinion and I have mine. I just don’t think the Constitution is as clear about this issue as you say. If it were, then President Obama would have called for a clear infringement of your Constitution by alluding to stricter gun regulations in his speech after the shooting.
Im not sure what they can do with c300 million guns in the country. Door to door collections by the army? Now that really would have the tin foil hat brigade running for the doomsday bunker.
“Well, the Constitution doesn’t say people should be entitled to store automatic and semi-automatic weapons at home, does it?”
It says the right to bear arms shall NOT be infringed. The best way to read the Constitution is in the spirit it was written, while understanding the mindset and philosophy of the founding fathers. Reading transcripts of their speeches helps clear up any perceived ambiguity also.
The 2A isn’t for hunting, or target practice, or shooting pests; it was specifically put there to create a check and balance of power between the government and the people. I know people tend to forget history and have an unwavering blind faith in government & politicians, but that doesn’t justify violating my rights. I’ve already mentioned democide in previous posts about gun control and the fact that civilians are not the ones committing atrocities in massive numbers over and over again. Civilians did not kill 1 million Iraqis over a WMD cache that was never found. Civilians did not drop nuclear bombs on Hiroshima & Nagasaki, killing thousands of innocent victims and causing generations of death and illness due to radiation.
My government treats other human beings like this, and I’m supposed to trust my government in blind faith, contrary to all of the evidence, and think they will always have my best interest at heart? I should give THESE people the monopoly of power? I can’t agree with that at all. It makes no logical sense to give those most likely to abuse their power a monopoly on power.
“I don’t know about the US but in Europe we are able to change the Constitution with the necessary majority of votes in parliament.”
That’s the thing; you can’t just start voting people’s rights away. That is one of the very reasons the Constitution was written. The Constitution is there to protect fundamental, inalienable human rights. The right to self-defense is a basic human right. You don’t get to vote my rights away and I don’t get to vote yours away. Blaming an inanimate object for the actions of a human being is bordering on schizophrenic.
“Door to door collections by the army?”
Good luck finding an army to do it because the US Army wouldn’t. Military men and women overwhelmingly support the 2A. Attempting to take guns from gun owners (in the south especially) would be a suicide mission.
No offense mate, Im sure your arsenal is impressive but if the government decided to take your guns they would take them and you wouldnt do anything about it.
In the UK there are strict rules regarding Gun Cabinets etc. The most rudimentary introduction of legislation such as this in the states would see most guns off the streets. You dont ban guns, you just make it a bureaucratic nightmare to buy a new one or keep an old one.
Military men and women by and large do as ordered btw, as you yourself have said…
My prayers go out to the vicitims. This was really disturbing and sad to hear. I didn’t know about it until my nanny told me way later. Also I am strongly against the “gun control” idea, to give children their own guns because God knows what can happen. For all we know someone else could get shot by accident or something. I don’t think giving children guns will solve anything at all.
Anyways that is just my opinion.
@ unravelingmind:
History shows that political regimes are usually toppled through mass mobilization, street protests, civil disobedience and economic collapse. The notion that gun ownership keeps the governments power in check is really rediculous in my view. Look at Syria, even an armed militia finds it difficult to displace a ruling dictiator supported by an army. Here are some countries awash with guns: Iraq, Congo, Pakistan, Libya, not very safe places to live in.
Do you really believe the average US gun owner could take on the US army if it were deployed to suppress its own people??? Give me one example in history where that has happened.
I never understood the almost sainthood status of the “founding fathers”. What would be wrong with modernizing some aspects of the US constitution? How can people assume that a document written more than 200 years ago can be the right foundation for a modern country in the 21 century?
Coming from a place which experienced an ACTUAL uprising against “tyrannical” rule, ironically against the Brits where I saw people shot, saw shootings and bombings etc Id wager that for guns to be de rigeur, have a use etc you need just cause.
Just taking your toys away doesn’t cut it unravellingmind.
BTW in Belfast gun ownership, like a lot of places under threat of war, wasn’t a point of pride but something some took part in as they felt they had no choice.
As soon as things are better, we prefer to live without them. Your privilege, your sense of entitlement amid such slaughter is mind boggling.
BTW the username unravellingmind will be great fodder for the news networks after your inevitable constitutionally orientated amoklauf.
“How did we not spot it??”
Sorry if I wrote something very controversial. I didn’t mean to.
I often wonder about the mindset of Americans who feel the need to be armed, either to protect themselves from “crime” or from their own government. If there is a realistic need to be armed to protect yourself from either your fellow citizens or from your government, what does this say about the state of your country?
At a certain point, it makes sense to disarm. The debate isn’t about guns or no guns, it’s about people keeping military-grade weapons at home. But the US, as a country, feels the need to be massively armed to the teeth with its massive military, so maybe it’s just something in the mindset.
But at the end of the day, people who think the 2nd Amendment is important are willing to accept these occasional massacres.
And unravellingmind, instead of citizens arming themselves with advanced weaponry, might they not be better served trying to disarm their government?
I am grateful that the US has a strong military presence, one that protects Canada, and many other countries. This is true today and was true in the past. It is childish to suppose that there will not be military confrontations in the future, given the history of mankind. The greatest assurance of peace as a nation, is to be adequately armed, or to rely upon another country that is. Total disarmament is a pipe dream in my view. How much armament is necessary is a much more difficult question to answer.
People do nasty things. Education does not make us immune to violence as the events of 20th century Europe taught us.
That said I don’t understand why it is possible to buy and sell military attack weapons. Hunting weapons are one thing, but multi-round automatic weapons is quite another. The idea of armed civilians providing a check on government is simply delusional. The right to vote is the only check citizens have on government, supplemented by whatever lobbying and protesting or other actions are used to attract attention to a cause or interest group. If the US government decided to ban attack weapons there would not be an uprising.
There’s a difference between having a strong military, and keeping thousands of nukes for no reason. The US keeps itself ready to fight some massive global conflict. Do they really need all the nukes, and warplanes, and bombs and whatnot? It seems excessive to me, and it seems to be at the expense of other priorities, like the health and well-being of ordinary people.
But that’s a domestic decision and not really for me to say. Yet I can’t help but think that’s there’s some connection between the country, as a whole, feeling the need to be armed to the teeth, and so many individual Americans feeling the same way.
The ban of domestic weapons will just cause other issues. The desire for firearms probably will never die down amongst citizens who constantly crave for violence and dominance. Firearms will rapidly become a type of hot-selling black market trade commodity, which adds onto what is already a problem nowadays - the drugs. As long such mindset stays, regardless what hazardous items you take away from them, violence will be done even if it had to be with their arms and teeth.
Which reminded me of this piece of old news:
This was intended to -prevent- school violence (shootings and such) to spread, and happened in a tiny town with low crime rate, a tiny school with only around 100 students. Teachers were trained and carried guns to shoot in school (at students too, if necessary) during critical moments. Guns could be stolen off teachers by students for unthinkable uses… Was all this necessary?
what’s his name in Norway seemed to have no trouble getting some guns to commit the most violent rampage murder in history. Is gun control really the issue here?
According to wikipedia, the Norwegian killer first attempted to get a gun illegally in Prague, but was unsuccessful. Apparently, in Europe anyway, it’s not so easy as all that to get illegal guns.
He was able to get his guns legally in Norway. Although, according to this article anyway, this would not have been possible in Sweden. Perhaps the fact that these guns were not restricted is part of the issue…
He also, apparently, bought his high-capacity clips from the US.
http://www.rawstory.com/rawreplay/2011/07/alleged-norway-killer-bought-ammunition-clips-from-u-s/
Gun control is always part of the issue, but we live in a global world, and you can’t control everything. Nevertheless, in my opinion anyway, there’s no need for ordinary people to have access to these sorts of weapons and high-capacity clips.
I think the main issue here is the much more complex yet dull issue of how the mentally unbalanced are handled by societal institutions like schools.
There are rampage killings everywhere whether there is gun control involved or not. Banning this or that type of gun is just a red herring trotted out for whatever purpose.