Gun Control, what is reasonable?

[JMHawkins]

Most of da population was livin' on da frontier, or was only a generation or two removed from livin' on da frontier. Arms were necessary for protection, and quite frequently for defense from hostile natives...

 

Obviously no one needs to defend themselves against hostile people these days. If someone attacks your familiy, the police are only 20 minutes away.

 

 

 

 

[Beavah]

Not da point, JMHawkins.

 

Point was that da folks were isolated invaders of another nation, which isn't the same thing.

 

When you're in that position, yeh are organizin' your community for mutual defense, eh?

 

Not imaginin' yeh have a need to defend yourself from your community.

 

Da issue is one of honesty about da meaning and intent of da language, nuthin' more.

 

Beavah

 

[pchadbo]

 

"Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect every one who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force. Whenever you give up that force, you are ruined.... O sir, we should have fine times, indeed, if to punish tyrants, it were only sufficient to assemble the people!" -- Patrick Henry

 

"Another source of power in government is a military force. But this, to be efficient, must be superior to any force that exists among the people, or which they can command; for otherwise this force would be annihilated, on the first exercise of acts of oppression. Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every kingdom in Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops that can be, on any pretense, raised in the United States. A military force, at the command of Congress, can execute no laws, but such as the people perceive to be just and constitutional; for they will possess the power, and jealousy will instantly inspire the inclination, to resist the execution of a law which appears to them unjust and oppressive." -- Noah Webster

 

This debate has been carried on since the 1780's and continues today, I for one will side with the men who felt that the right of the people to defend themselves from both foreign invaders and the government itself. Remember, these men just overthrew the most powerful army in the world and its king for ignoring the rights of the people. We were founded on the right of revolution.

 

"The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants." -- Thomas Jefferson

[Stosh]

It's kind of hard to imagine the response time for the police is measured in minutes, the response time for a gun is measured in feet per second. Waiting for the police is not always a viable option. That argument along with many others is rather flimsy.

 

Yes, I may only get one shot off before being killed, but that's one more than I would have had without a gun. That argument is the same one that says, why should I learn CPR, the person is already dead. Well if that person has a 1% chance of survival, it's worth the effort. Same for having a gun. I may have only 1% chance of survival, but it's better than nothing.

 

If one is looking for the definitive argument to this issue, they're never going to find it.

 

Stosh

[perdidochas]

As Hurricane Sandy (and other Hurricanes before that) tells us, the possibility that you can be without electricity and phone service (even cell) is pretty good. I know I lived through the aftermath of Hurricane Ivan. Our community (neighborhood) did talk to each other about defense against looters from outside of the neighborhood. Now had we done that beforehand? No. But the fact that we had guns, gave us that option after the storm. I don't really buy that most gun owners think that they need guns to protect themselves from their own communities. We are protecting ourselves from people that our outside of our communities, i.e. the less than law-abiding.

[JMHawkins]

Not da point, JMHawkins.

 

Point was that da folks were isolated invaders of another nation, which isn't the same thing.

 

When you're in that position, yeh are organizin' your community for mutual defense, eh?

 

Not imaginin' yeh have a need to defend yourself from your community.

 

Da issue is one of honesty about da meaning and intent of da language, nuthin' more.

 

As perdidochas pointed out, organizin' to defend yourself from your community isn't necessarily a notion relegated to the archaic past.

[Beavah]

Not necessarily, but you're really startin' to move toward pretty low-probability hypotheticals, eh? I also reckon I'm not altogether comfortable with random folks of varied levels of trainin' comin' together without any chain of command structure to start firin' on strangers in their neighborhood durin' a natural disaster.

 

I'd like to think most of us good citizens would be out welcomin' strangers in a natural disaster and settin' up aid stations, not barricades.

 

Beavah

 

[Eagle732]

"I also reckon I'm not altogether comfortable with random folks of varied levels of trainin' comin' together without any chain of command structure"

 

Then you would have very uncomfortable with the citizen soldier back in 1776 when the soldier was a farmer and an officer was usually the guy that had enough money to buy guns and equipment for the ones who didn't have any.

 

(This message has been edited by Eagle732)

[JMHawkins]

also reckon I'm not altogether comfortable with random folks of varied levels of trainin' comin' together without any chain of command structure to start firin' on strangers in their neighborhood durin' a natural disaster.

 

 

And they may not be altogether comfortable with sitting around their neighborhood un (or under-) armed if a natural disaster leaves them cut off from duly constituted authorities with chains of command when strangers with guns (the strangers being of the type who don't pay much heed to what the law says) come saunterin' in.

 

Remote possibility? Who's to say. Your opinion against theirs, your comfort against theirs.

[Tokala]

The paranoia scares me more than outlawing guns or clinging feverishly to the 2bd amendment.

 

[packsaddle]

OK, here I come with that ray of sunshine...I'm almost ready to get down on my knees in thanks that here, at least, in this thread, we're not being torn apart by religion. Thank God for guns.

[Beavah]

Then you would have very uncomfortable with the citizen soldier back in 1776 when the soldier was a farmer

 

Da soldier was a farmer who was part of a civic militia that trained together and had a command structure, eh? Often with a commissioned officer corps.

 

Remote possibility? Who's to say. Your opinion against theirs, your comfort against theirs.

 

Yah, sorry, whether we're talkin' da proper treatment for cancer or da objective evaluation of risk, not all opinions are created equal. This stuff is not a matter of personal opinion any more than treatin' cancer with crystals is. Yep there's folks that believe we're all goin' to be gone when da world ends tomorrow. That's their opinion. Be prepared and all that. Yep, if they really believe that enough to act on it then they have a form of mental illness. Ain't a matter of my opinion against theirs. Da risks and probabilities are quantifiable.

 

Worryin' about armed bands of men in a natural disaster in da white suburban neighborhoods where folks are carryin' and stockpilin' assault weapons is da same sort of thing. Stop your whining, put your damn guns away and help da rest of us run the shelters and first aid stations. Yeh can go back to your hobby when the work is done. I'll even join yeh.

 

Beavah

 

[Eagledad]

Here is an interesting Op piece on this subject.

 

""Only one public policy has ever been shown to reduce the death rate from such crimes: concealed-carry laws.""

 

A lot of folks don't care for Ann because her factual articles are blunt in tides of emotion. Ann's facts are rarely wrong because she is one of the best facts researchers among media professionals, which is why she drives narcissist crazy. It is an interesting read.

 

http://www.anncoulter.com/

 

Barry

 

[scoutingagain]

"It's kind of hard to imagine the response time for the police is measured in minutes"

 

Newtown police were on scene within 10 minutes. When a shooter can get off 30+ rounds in less than a minute, a response time in minutes is insufficient.

 

I have no objection to allowing trained citizens, who have demonstrated knowledge and responsibility carrying a handgun for self protection. I personally do not see the need and have to admit, wonder why anyone would have such fear in their lives to feel it necessary. I'd more understand having a firearm at home for home protection.

 

On the otherhand I wouldn't object to the idea of having a handfull of well trained educators, again who have undergone training, demonstrated competency to the satisfaction of local law enforcement having access to a handgun in a school for school protection.

 

As I questioned before, your a local cop, and summoned to an active shooting incident with limited information on the shooter, you find two or more persons shooting at each other, with other civilians in the crossfire, what's your response?

 

SA

[Eagle732]

Some of these politicians that write gun control legislation have zero knowledge of guns or what they are trying to control.

 

At least Tennessee is using some common sense:

"State Sen. Frank Niceley ® told TPM on Tuesday he believes it's time for that to change. He plans to introduce legislation in the next session, which begins Jan. 8, that will require all schools to have an armed staff member of some kind. The current language of the bill -- which is in its early form -- would allow for either a so-called "resource officer" (essentially an armed police officer, the kind which most Tennessee high schools have already) or an armed member of the faculty or staff in every school in the state. The choice would allow schools that can't afford a resource officer to fulfill the requirement without having to pay for anything beyond the cost of the training and, presumably, the weapon. But Niceley said schools should use the wiggle room to train and keep on hand armed staff not in uniform.

That's the best way to protect students, he said.

"Say some madman comes in. The first person he would probably try to take out was the resource officer. But if he doesn't know which teacher has training, then he wouldn't know which one had [a gun]," Niceley said by phone. "These guys are obviously cowards anyway and if someone starts shooting back, they're going to take cover, maybe go ahead and commit suicide like most of them have."

 

http://news.yahoo.com/tennessee-considers-training-arming-schoolteachers-protect-against-shootings-192556978--politics.html(This message has been edited by Eagle732)