I’d like to take this opportunity to thank all Best Gore members who responded to the roll call and sent in their essays outlining the advantages of owning guns. I will soon pass the mike to those who responded, but first wanted to make a few points:
Best Gore is NOT Plagiarism Central
Copy pasting someone else’s words and sending them to me will not get you published. If you can’t put your thoughts into your own words, you won’t get a feature. Not only is it wrong to steal someone else’s writing, it also makes you look like a tool. Don’t do it.
The Today’s Colorado Shooting Inspiration
I’ve overheard something on the radio today and it made me shake my head so bad I decided I had to make a point off it. I don’t recall the names mentioned, but there is this father whose son was shot dead by James Holmes during the Dark Knight Rises movie premiere in Aurora, Colorado. The dad said that his son dove to shield his girlfriend and took a mortal shot from James E. Holmes.
I laughed my mother fucking ass off when I heard that. That’s some movie shit right there. Perfect for sensationalism hunting mainstream media and perhaps something to sell to Steven Spielberg or some other tool movie director, but don’t pull that shit on me. Do you think we’re all dumb to believe a super hero story that someone took a bullet for their girlfriend? I think it’s time for a little “Knock, knock… Who’s there? It’s reality, I’ve come to slap you in the face” check:
No, Sir, your son did not dive to shield his girlfriend from incoming fire. As a matter of fact, he couldn’t give two shits about her. If I were to guess, I’d say your son was a closeted faggot too cowardly to admit to you that he liked to suck cock and only kept a girlfriends to avoid being suspected of faggotry. When James Holmes opened fire, he crapped his pants so bad, he slipped on his own shit and smashed his head diving face first into that pile of toxic trash. He died of blood poisoning caused by evaporation of accumulated semen from his secret boyfriend. God, some people sure are desperate for attention with made up stories. Am I really the last one left who says it like it is? At least my made up story is more believable than that superhero crap. Comon now, for fuck’s sake!
The Pro Gun Debate
Because several members responded to the Pro Gun Debate roll call, I’d like to give space to each of them who submitted their original writing. It takes a lot of time to write a piece of original work and I would like to make their time’s worth. It may end up being a lot to read, but I will separate individual essays and label them with names of the author so you can break it down into separate reading sessions, if you find it overwhelming. They all deserve a feature and they all get it. I apologize to BG members who forwarded me their comments for not publishing them here. I appreciate you commenting on previous Open Posts, but please understand this post is reserved for those who took time to put together an original essay intended specifically for this post.
As a brief disclaimer – each articles is published here in full, as provided by the author. I do not pull mainstream media bullshit on my members by withdrawing words out of context, or otherwise butchering their intended message. And while I’m at it, allow me to also state what I’ve never stated before:
The opinions expressed in this post are those of each individual author and do not necessarily reflect the views of Best Gore. LOOOOL, I totally said it 🙂
Gun Control, Gun Laws, Gun Crime and the Society – by Buju
Firearms, depending on your location can be a touchy subject to either side of the fence. Pro guns, stricter gun control and as far as complete abolishment of Firearms, are the general opinions. Before we can really get into deciding, favoring or trusting either side, one must simply look at the facts of all aspects, consider their choices, risks and options to protect against a potential threat. We are talking about firearms, and therefore one must also decide their own capability of being in possession of such a powerful item.
One that makes such a choice so light heartedly, is most likely making a decision they could regret, in all forms of regret. Before we end this discussion, I will cite examples which provide positive argument to both sides of the story. I will quote people from both sides of the argument. I will also point out instances which may reflect negatively upon both sides of this, heated, discussion. Make no mistake, this will be in depth and present both sides in a fashion I believe regardless of your view, will make you think. My own opinions and views will be voided and therefore excluded from this discussion, as I intend to present this from a neutral stand point.
The arguments, are without a doubt compelling no matter which view you are listening to. Regardless of the fact that many on either side are simply “going with it” in regards to whatever suits their need or acceptance goals, their opinion will indeed be considered here for the masses inevitably weigh in weather agreeing or disagreeing based on whichever trend fits anyone’s liking. If you want a good example of this have a look at how music is currently conveyed, accepted and liked. Particularly in the USA. Influence is like ripples in a still lake, and reaches far beyond what you can even perceive with the naked eye and basic observation after the fact. This last sentence will be well examined later in this article.
Let us first, start with the obvious. Well, guns are good. After all, the Police have them, and use them to prevent violent crime. Right? The military uses them to quell people who may harm us, no matter what our nationality. How could they be bad? Then again, it has so often been recorded that the government turns its armies upon its citizens. So it is turning its weapons on its citizens! Well, now those weapons don’t sound so good, do they? They are further portrayed in weak light when one observes the criminal activity associated with firearms. Then again, the light is brighter when they are portrayed in a manner which upholds the law and saves lives. To those reading this, the light is starting to look like one of a cheap concert hall with bad acoustics, barely illuminating or projecting the performer and performance, isn’t it? Well, why not divide that light to focus on the real facts and issues.
To begin this discussion, let us approach this from the perspective of someone that has never been directly affected by a firearm. The subject of this view has little or no knowledge, and has never handled or fired any sort of a weapon. They have never been in a situation they felt severely threatened by a person or animal. This person does not feel they need a firearm for protection. Based on the assumption they have no such run in’s, they have no experience for a basis. Sure, they watch the news and have seen it all. They may even look at what some view as questionable internet websites, providing uncensored glimpses with an insight they simply do not get from their local Channel 4 Breaking News Network. They have no personal, real, experience to draw from when concerned with the issue of firearms and firearm abuse right? So their tranquil opinion is irrelevant right? Wrong. People with firearms, legally and illegally, potentially all around them certainly says otherwise. They may be against and they may not own. They may not even have the real world experience. They do however, have the concern of who might be, and who might not be carrying a weapon in their vicinity, and what that may or may not mean. That is more than enough reason to be concerned. These people could be affected by firearms, and more than anything most likely, do not want to be.
This aspect of the argument, more firearm control and regulation, is not limited to those rowing the same boat as our last subjects. As it is also not confined to those, in fact, affected by firearms. This discussion is not restricted to Pro-Gun advocates either. This is something everyone should be aware of. This is something everyone should seriously consider before drawing a conclusion. A neutral may sway one way or another. They are however, certain of whichever side they stand, and with good reason. Looking at some personal accounts of neutrals, one can ascertain that they have some of the more clear headed opinions and conclusions on this matter, not being partial to one or another view.
Legal or Illegal, people around you, everywhere, at all times, may or may not be legally or illegally carrying. Within the line of thinking of stricter gun control and/or abolishment, we have now eliminated everyone in the vicinity that may be legally carrying and capable of ending a deadly situation. However, with stricter gun control and penalties for disobeying this law however, criminals with guns, will be less inclined to expose their illegal possessions, and therefore the chances of random shootings, or non-intended casualties will greatly slacken. People such as Holmes will simply go “well I can’t get a gun to do the job, oh well, I will just continue to suffer until I eventually get over it.”
Without ready access to guns, people have fewer guns, therefore criminals have fewer guns, and fewer crimes involving guns are committed. More simply, when people do not have firearms, criminals will not need them to keep people in check and will therefore no longer obtain or carry them. When criminals can’t obtain them easily any longer and no one has them, they will not need an upper hand anymore, which will ultimately result in law abiding citizens no longer needing firearms to protect against criminals with firearms. What should have been illegal to begin with so we would not miss what we never had, is beyond control now, but a valuable point to the solution. Let us look at some statistics to support this, from places with such gun polices and/or bans…
“Why Was James Eagan Holmes Shooting? There are a million and one ways to answer this simple question and they all, but one would be speculations. There is however one and one answer only which cannot be refuted as incorrect. Why was James Eagan Holmes shooting? He was shooting because he had a gun. An alternative question could be: Why did Aurora movie theater goers died? They died because James Eagan Holmes had a gun. Bottom line, it’s only and solely because James Eagan Holmes had a gun that he was shooting and that’s also the sole reason why people at the Aurora Movie Theater died.”
“I agree that making the process of obtaining guns more difficult in order to deter your average Joe that is in a bad mood, wants to get a gun, and wants to use that gun to shoot people, will drastically decrease occurrences like this.”
So, looking at the UK, it appears they have low firearm crime. Furthermore, even before gun control really took serious hold, crime involving firearms has historically been low in the UK. It has been said, that the Police do not carry firearms, and do not need to. While this is widely correct, with the exclusion of Northern Ireland there are still approximately 7,000 armed Police in the UK, whom appear to prefer carrying the Carbine, Heckler & Koch MP5SF. Another popular choice for these Policemen is Semi-Automatic Pistols, such as the Glock 17.
Within the UK, and excluding Northern Ireland, fully automatic (including sub-machineguns/assault rifles) over .22 caliber are completely banned. This includes pistols over .22 rimfire and anything more than short barrel. While larger calibers, up to .357 Magnums in long barrel are indeed allowed, ammunition is obtained for those permitted, as sport shooting has taken many people’s “fancy” in the UK. Clay Pigeons and hunting being some of the more popular sport shooting. Self –Defense ammunition is never issued.
Shotgun ownership, while allowed is generally controlled, even simple air rifles and pistols, while permitted, are indeed controlled to some extent. Firearms of any kind are permitted by the Police and ammunition is permitted by the Police as well. Modest air guns are generally not controlled, if the muzzle energy is not over 12ft•lbf for rifles, and 6ft•lbf for pistols. A shotgun with a capacity of 3 rounds, 2 in a potential clip and 1 in the chamber, are less scrutinized however anything with a higher capacity requires a Firearms Certificate. To purchase ammunition you must be 17 years of age and have a license. The Scotland act of 1998 was intended to enforce further laws, and stricter rules surrounding firearm ownership, this however has created tension as the British Parliament has since reserved the right to the legislation. When it comes to Northern Ireland, a certificate may be obtained through the Police Service of Northern Ireland. Firearms laws are regulated by the Northern Ireland Firearms Order of 2004, slightly differing from Britain’s own laws.
Britain seems to have a good handle on firearms. One must not forget however, that even before gun laws, London was no “Wild West.” Sure there is history, but never any real trend of gun crimes. A thoughtful mind would wonder if it is simply, guns have had less prominence in this area of the world when it comes to the civilian population, or are these people just more willing to slug it out with fists? The people of the UK are resilient, strong and in every sense of the word honorable. One only needs to look at such events as the Somme, and extend to its other kingdoms, Passchendaele and Juno Beach. As awkward and bizarre as Canadians may be, they are not to be underestimated when it comes to war. Could this be what leads to their lower firearms crime rate? Possibly.
More likely, however, it is the smaller caliber rounds generally available to public and lethality lost. While England and Wales Police reported some 50 homicides including firearms, that is a rate of 0.01 deaths due to firearms per about 100,000 people, in 2005 through 2006. About 6.6% of homicides involved a firearm. In eight years, until 2006, homicide rates averaged 49 to 97 with two of these being fatal shootings of law enforcement. An average of 9.7 a year, there were 107 non-fatal shootings. To compare, in 2004, the US reported some 9,326, per 100,000, the UN reported 4.55 for the USA and some 1.45 to the UK regardless of weapon type.
At the close of the 1990s England and Wales were below the EU average while Northern Ireland and Scotland remained above the average. While there was a spike after 1998 and 1999, the numbers remained mostly static through 2003 and 2004 and fell slightly in 2005 and 2006. The crime rate in the UK is actually slightly higher per capita than in the USA at about 85 per 1000 people while in the USA it is around 80. While it does include injuries from “imitation” and air guns, the crime rate involving firearms has risen some 110% in the UK. Regardless, these statistics show that heavier gun control does affect firearm related incidents, but the people are equally to credit when one simply evaluates them as a people, and knows them personally.
“The question why was he shooting. To the people who say he could do the same with a knife I don’t agree. If he had a knife it would be much more difficult to kill people after the first two someone would take him out and the rest would have time to flee. There will always be murderous psychos like Anders Breivik or terrorists trying to hijack planes the only way to stop this is to try and control guns and explosives.”
“The more cars, the more accidents. The more sun, the more sunburn. The more snow, the more cold. It’s all a matter of substance. The more of one thing is inevitably going to lead to more of another”
Standing in complete and stark contrast to the previous discussions and arguments, the United States, one could say, has rampant problems with firearms and firearm related homicide. However as was mentioned previously, the UK never had a rampant problem even before firearms control. Let’s explore a little about the USA and its past, in an attempt to perhaps gain some insight. We will look more specifically upon time periods where everyone had a gun, and outlaws were more numerous than law enforcement. Our second amendment is looking pretty good right about now, we can defend ourselves in this mostly lawless land.
Let’s head back to the 1880s. The days of Wyatt Earp, Doc Holiday, Bat Masterson and their opposites, Billy the Kid, the Clemens and so many more that could be named. To understand, you must place yourself in this era. You must imagine, and attempt to understand what it would be like during the migration west. Every day you are facing threats, bears and wolves or coyotes and cougars depending on where you are. Add the Native Americans plundering and pillaging all they can, fighting fiercely to drive the pioneers back, out of their land. That’s not all our daring adventurers are faced with. Not to mention sickness, armed criminals roam the wild west holding up anyone they can for money or sustenance. Not to mention, our heroes need to eat!
Hunting must be a daily affair, or you starve. Famine is already knocking at your door every single day of your journey. What do you do? You arm yourself, and there is no other option, other than remain in the east. What could possibly drive someone to take such a risk? Well let’s look at an individual. He has very little here in the east, possibly he is homeless, or rents a hotel room for a buck a week. Scraping by every day of his life when hears of gold, riches and opportunity discovered out west. Through the same looking glass, here is a family, their farm is failing, losing money and ever closer to being taken away by the banks that sold it to them. The man of the house is desperate to provide for his children, and will do whatever it takes to put food in their mouths. Out west we go!!
In this land, everywhere you look, people are armed. The gentleman at the poker table, with a Colt Peterson holstered tightly at this side over there. He does not wear it to keep up the looks of a cowboy, or to be intimidating. He has this weapon for a reason. Perhaps he is a rustler, or perhaps an honest man who sifts for gold and keeps his sidearm close to fend off any criminals that may want his earnings. Banks are robbed routinely. The term “riding shotgun” in a vehicle for example, stems from the man in the passenger seat on a Wells Fargo stage coach; he carried a shotgun to defend from criminals. This is not a time one could simply call the Police. You defended yourself, or you became a victim, and there is no other way.
This dynamic is still seen today. When I said influence is like ripples in a lake which the effects of can linger long after it can be perceived, this is what I meant. While there is increased law enforcement now, as an equal and opposite reaction grown from a century of those living outside the law, a century of the “Wild West,” people remain set to do harm and perform criminal activity to get ahead. One could imply that this could be looked upon as highly aggressive capitalism. It’s me or you, and I’m getting ahead no matter what.
Gangs of today are not much different than gangs of the 1880s. Now of days, they deal drugs, rob and steal for money. They attack those they do not agree with and are extremely territorial. All that has changed is the introduction of drugs, and the loss of the epic bank robbery. While it can be argued that the second amendment gives Americans the right to defend themselves from the government, all points within the last few paragraphs are the more direct intention of how the second amendment is to be applied.
“Ive heard people say ‘a government should fear its people rather than the people fearing its government.'”
“yea, your founding fathers had a ‘dream’ but that dream has become a nightmare.”
“guns aren’t the problem, people are, and we have no one to blame butt ourselves”
“So say some rapist decides to invade my home, armed with a knife, or even worse a gun, what advantage would I have? I am a single parent, how in the hell do I defend my kids, with a broom? A Louisville slugger, even Mace is illegal in Canada, so it’s win win win for the armed criminal. I have to take my chances I guess… Or buy one illegally… This would be the only reason I would need a gun.”
Today, criminals are just as numerous as they were back then. They are no less ruthless or willing to commit crimes. Furthermore, with mentalities severely altered and a possession obsessed society, fueled by various forms of music representing everything from committing crime to overthrowing the government and valuing possessions more than life, depending on genre. Sure, we could argue the 2pac and Notorious BIG era of “Gangster Rap” sparked an outburst of gang on gang crime, east vs. west, and that they aptly encouraged this. While somewhat true, one only needs to listen to songs such as “Keep your head up” by 2pac or “Juicy” by Biggie to understand these guys while speaking often of violence and crime, were still saying something to their audience, “Wonder why we call you bitch?” by 2pac is another shining example of this, something that could be reflected upon and learned. So what has changed then? Anyone who listens to any sort of radio playing today’s music will find the answer in a big hurry. There is nothing there, but money, greed, rims and hoes when it comes to hip hop and nothing but depression or anti-government sentiment in the rock/alternative and emo spectrums. The point I am making here, is that where music once reflected the society, now it feels like all too often the society is reflecting the music.
So what does this mean for guns and gun control you ask? It is simple desensitization and follow the leader. Where young kids in black, Latino and yes, white neighborhoods see the big shot gangsters and want to imitate that, they once saw the money and opportunity to provide for themselves. This, my friends is a volatile scenario. This is where the majority of firearm related crime comes from in the USA.
What about crazies?! I hear you all, “wait! Wait! Eric!!! What about the crazies!!!?” These people are of an entirely different breed all together. Where some may argue it is the gun fanatics that become these crazies and commit mass shootings, the opposing argument says that these people are not gun fanatics, and were not serious or responsible owners of firearms to begin with. Take James Holmes for example. Good student, model citizen. He did not own firearms. Who knows, perhaps he had never even fired one. In the few months leading up to his fatal massacre, is when he purchased these weapons and ammunition. This suggests that he bought these weapons specifically for the deed he intended to carry out. Could it possibly go another way? Could he have bought these weapons for fun? Did he intend to become a sport shooter and became drunk with the power he possessed upon realization of what those weapons could do? Possibly.
“I am saying however, that these reminders (people getting mowed over) are an ugly representation of the potential that guns/weapons retain.”
So with a fair view of firearms in the USA, we can get down to brass tack and really discuss the topic at hand. While gun violence is most common in poorer, urban areas generally involving juveniles or young adults, it is still a widely debated political issue. Each state has its own points here and there that differ from one another when it comes to gun laws; the laws are still quite generally relaxed.
“There were 52,447 deliberate and 23,237 accidental non-fatal gunshot injuries in the United States during 2000.”
When speaking in self-defense, the numbers are low. Between 1987 and 1990, David McDowall found that annually, about 64,615 incidents occurred where guns were used in self-defense. Of 1,000 incidents, that is about 0.2% or twice for every 1,000 incidents. This begs the question; would more lawful gun ownership increase this rate? Criminals certainly have the weapons, so the people need to be able to protect against that. In terms of violent crime, rape, assault and robbery the percentage is at about .83%. Incidents of self-defense involving a firearm showed that some 71% of attacks were committed by strangers, while the rest was roughly evenly split between crimes committed by acquaintances or someone well known to the victim.
That is a scary thought and only serves to strengthen the need for firearms as a self-defense weapon. Not because people need guns, but because they are up against guns. That excludes the fact that they are also up against knives, bats, fists and all manner of inanimate objects that can be used for crime instead of their intended purpose. While firearms intended purpose is in fact, to kill, it is nothing without the intent. A hammer is not a deadly weapon without the intent, but with the intent it is more deadly than a gun used for sport shooting. At 28% of incidents involving self-defense, victims fired upon the attacker. 20% of incidents involved Police using a firearm. During the same period (87′-90′) some 2,628,532 non-fatal crimes with firearms occurred.
While the government at federal, state and local levels curtail gun ownership by categorizing people between lawful users and high risk groups, the ability to completely control firearms continues to elude law enforcement. Weapons stolen from homes and other places are readily available for illegal transaction and sale, and are available other places to criminals or those who are not legally allowed to be in possession of a firearm. To a law abiding citizen, this poses a severe threat. Due to this threat, many people opt to own and even carry a firearm for their own protection should a situation arise that calls for such force.
Self-defense laws themselves, vary widely from state to state. In New Mexico for example, one may meet force with equal force, and deadly force is not solely limited to firearms. Risk of great bodily harm or death, is the standard. In this state, an aggressor may ultimately be a lawful enforcer of self-defense, provided after the initial confrontation they did everything possible to defuse the situation. Within your home, the standard is still the same with slightly more lead way. There is no “Duty to Retreat” in New Mexico, giving citizens the option of immediately “Standing their Ground.” Duty to retreat means, in simple terms, if there is a way to flee, you must, by law, flee. New Mexico has one major flaw to its self-defense article, lack of a “Castle Doctrine” which would protect a victim from civil court by the attacker’s family in the event of a home invasion self-defense incident. The protection would be from a “wrongful death” civil suit, which the family may feel is the case regardless of the potential fact that their loved one was the intruder, aggressor and threat to the homeowner.
In an environment like the United States can so often be, protection of one’s self is a high priority to Americans. They have always had the right to protect their lives and assets, and will never relinquish it. This power has inevitably been abused, and will continue to be abused, weather gun laws are stricter or not. It is therefore Americans will continue to feel the need for protection. Americans in general, law abiding citizens of the United States, simply refuse to become a statistic of violence.
I thank you for reading. I hope I have been able to convey all sides of the argument from an outside looking in perspective with fact and statistic to reinforce my observations of all spectrums. I would like to thank the extensive arguments and great points to all sides of the equation made by my biggest source for personal perspectives, the members of BestGore. To those who made excellent points who’s quotes were not used, I read your point. All of them, and I respect each of them greatly and individually. Everyone is entitled to their opinion, and it is through this that we are able to advance and grow as a species, and it is hopefully through this diversity and intermixing we can one day, all get along.
Gun Control of the Masses by zer0sgnl
I am probably one of the very few gun supporters that believe the 2nd Amendment is totally misinterpreted and taken out of context along with the rest of the Constitution. The Amendment simply states: “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.” Which during the time the Constitution was written it was expected that every newly established American citizen male would be willing to be in the militia to fight for freedom, remember they just won our Independence. The Supreme Court has also ruled that the 2nd Amendment gives the right to bear arms to those protecting our national security, in other words the National Guard. The masses tend to pick and chose what they want to interpret from the Constitution, but what are the first 4 words in the 2nd Amendment – “A well regulated Militia…” in plain and simple English just as our Founding Fathers wanted it to be for all to understand for generations to come.
The control of guns is an issue dating back to 1911 with the Sullivan Act, in which New York passed a law stating that persons with a gun small enough to conceal must have it registered. This set in motion numerous laws to expand on the 1911 Sullivan Act. The National Firearms Act of 1934 and the Federal Firearms Act of 1938 in which both are the first established federal laws (licensing gun dealers and the regulating of machine gun possession). The Gun Control Act of 1968 repealed the 1938 Act and increased the feds control of guns including – requiring any persons selling or manufacturing of guns and ammo to be licensed, prohibiting the mailing of guns and ammo across state lines, prohibiting the sale to minors or persons with criminal backgrounds, and it also included the same regulations on explosive materials, bombs, and grenades.
By the early 1990’s there were in effect 20,000 plus federal, state, and local laws and regulations on firearms and explosives. Also by that time there were millions of acts of violence carried out by the use of guns. So does regulating and making laws on guns really work? Any one fool can see the answer to that question, but just in case the answer is NO.
Do you think flat out banning of guns would work? Like I have read in other posts, the banning of guns WILL just lead to the black market sale of guns increasing and more violence to erupt. Look at what happened during prohibition and the banning of alcohol across the nation by the feds. Did this stop people from enjoying a cocktail? NO. It made poor men (and women) rich and it made thousands maggot food all because the feds wanted to ban alcohol.
There is a way to make the control of guns more logical. First require a background check on anyone purchasing a firearm – you say – “but they already do that dumb ass.” That is true they do check, but only a criminal background as required by law. Have you ever filled out a security clearance packet? It is an outrageous and very thorough check on not just you but the people who know you and your entire history is in question, I’m surprised they didn’t ask for a blood sample. My point is that if this was performed on every single person wanting to by a gun it would rule out people and make other people not want to buy. It could likewise make others look at buying on the black market, but the price would be tripled and would also make them not want to buy. The second step would be to license the successful candidate and require a yearly renewal of the license, much in the way we do our driver’s license. There are numerous other ways to achieve this task, but the obvious is true – what we have now isn’t working.
The price of ammunition has also gone up in the past few years so drastically that I refuse to even buy it anymore. I have invested in reloading my own ammunition, which turns out to be a few dollars cheaper in the end. That being said could raise the taxes even more on ammunition and make us “pro-gun crazies” keep reloading our own ammo. Only those dedicated to their weapons would reload while others would simply gripe and complain, eventually losing interest.
There are currently 40-50 million firearm owners in America as of today that chose not to do what we all have seen in the news over the year (not sure the exact number, but I’m sure some jackass will correct me). If we start allowing the banning of guns completely we might as well just all wear “OBEY” shirts and wait for the feds to let us know when we can breathe or wipe our own ass.
Why Keep Guns Legal by Trooper72
I would prefer firearms to remain legal… And EVERYBODY should have a rifle in their Homes. Just in case. To use against the people that would sooner rob, rape and murder your family… Namely Burglars and Politicians.
People who pay close attention to my posts will notice that I believe Western Europe is rapidly approaching critical mass… Resulting in a collapse in law and order. How are we to defend our families and nations in such an event?
And those of you from Republican nations (that were born in war) are quick to forget. That if your forefathers had no access to weapons… Your nations would have been stillborn. You would still be ruled by Tyrants and Authoritarians.
A ludicrously small amount of Gun owners in their lifetime will ‘go postal’ and decide to turn their firearms on their fellow man. But when they do… It attracts all the media attention. For every one of these events you hear about… There are 20 other instances of firearms abuse by Criminals.
On this site. We are exposed to the worst faces of Human Nature. We never hear of the brighter side to Human nature… Of all the instances where Firearms have saved lives instead of ending them.
The usage of firearms by civilians also stretches into the workplace. They are tools, as well as items of pleasure. We wouldn’t be able to eat the fine foods that we do at such a low price if half the crops have been destroyed by Rats… Or Foxes raided Chicken Coops all the time.
I live in the United Kingdom. I don’t feel the need to carry a firearm with me. Or any weapon of any kind. I am confident enough in my own physical and mental aptitudes to survive any assault. Plus crime hasn’t reached Inner-city American levels (yet). It also helps that I live in a good(ish) area.
Although I am against people carrying firearms on their person… There is a law in Northern Ireland that allows people deemed to be at risk to carry a firearm.
My point is. People should be trusted to own legal weapons… Many of you use a lethal weapon every day… A car…
Many of you interact with WMD on a daily basis… Children. What are more dangerous? People? Or inanimate objects?”
Guns Are a Tool by Sunworshipper
I live with NO fear and am willing to toe to toe with ANY anti-gun fanatic! Logic will rule the argument. No guns is a euphorian/Liberal pipe dream in this sick, fucking society!
Guns are a tool, period! They uphold natural law: life, liberty, and the pursuit of whatever that individual gun owner wants as long as he does not infringe or otherwise harm another individual! Guns protect life and property when used morally. It’s the purpose of the powers that be to glamorize and bastardize our young minds, selling violence as cool and hip! This is on purpose. ALSO, to discount the notion that the U.S. government does NOT brainwash or otherwise warp minds at will is naive. That Aurora, CO shooter may have been targeted for this act.
Most are NOT aware of the lengths the government and contracted private corporations have gone to learn and control the human mind using drugs, energy weapons, subliminal messaging, etc.
A sane human who can see through this shit life and all the mechanization of material worship and how acting like a superficial bastard is the norm, can logically conclude that most people are FUCKING STUPID and FUCKING NUTS! Add to that normal statistical populations of mentally unstable folks caught up in the usual trappings of Western life and take a portion of anybody else in society that are victims of mind control predators and you get a warm, bloody mix of death and mayhem at will… just like the Aurora shooter.
One only has to look at history… ie LSD testing on unsuspecting soldiers by the CIA last century, on and on. Add false flag attacks, if it bleeds it leads news reporting, degradation of our rights, bad cops, etc. and I and a big ass group of other citizens choose to protect what we hold dear with a tool…a gun.
I say live and let live, based on natural law, intrude on me or another and be prepared to be corrected with perhaps the use of said tool!
This is a ‘dead’ argument to me, but if I am selected, I am willing to use logic to make my case!
Media’s Role in Gun Ownership Warping by fOe
It’s of interest to note that the media’s response to mass shootings follows the same pattern; initial outrage, followed by an in depth discussion concerning the suspect’s life, education, personal creed, and potential motive. The latter phase is typically the point where we began to see smiling mugshot photos of the suspect on the front page of magazines and internet news sites, along with a hastily prepared timeline of the events, and a slapdash analysis from the “experts”. One might say that this time tested reaction from the world stage is enough to tempt any ambitious young man who had failed to achieve his goals, but yet still wanted the attention and adoration that comes with accomplishing great things.
In addition to a large amount of money, it takes 5 to 6 years of full time study to earn a PhD, and not even this guarantees that one will find work, or go on to complete research worthy of the world’s attention. However, it only takes one act of senseless violence to get your name in every household in America, something the most dedicated PhD candidate could only dream of experiencing. Through this system of reward, we have created a process through which absolute nobodies can become overnight celebrities, and psychopathic narcissists can get the attention they feel the world owes them.
The tendency from both sides of the debate is to politicize the issue to make a case for or against gun regulations. One could say “If gun laws were more relaxed, he would not have been so sure that the theater occupants were unarmed, and this may have provoked a change of heart in the suspect”, or “if gun laws were more strict, he would not have been able to obtain a gun so easily, and this may have prevented him from acting”. Both arguments are valid, but neither apply here. This man wanted attention; he wanted the world to recognize his genius, despite the fact that he had failed to prove it.
Had a gun not been available, he would have used a sword. Had a sword not been found, he would have used a stick. Had a stick not been laying around, he would have used a rock. Had no rocks been available, he would have used his bare hands. Instead of rewarding this young man with the attention he could not earn legitimately, he should have been banished into the world of the obscure; the fact that he wasn’t is a guarantee that this will happen again.
Outlaws by redazzbaboon
Ok, I can see there is no point in trying to change your views on the subject of gun control, so I won’t try, maybe just attempt to shed a little different perspective on the issue from what you may, or may not have heard in the past.
I work in law enforcement, I’m an avid hunter, and I support gun rights and responsible gun ownership. In my opinion, if the second amendment was repealed and guns were made illegal to manufacture, import, export, and own, (outlawed), by all citizens, law enforcement included, you would have a higher rate of gun crime than we have now.
Reason being if we outlaw guns, only “outlaws” will have guns. This presents a problem for law enforcement such as myself who would be stripped of their firearms as a result of a ban. It presents a problem for the man, or woman, working two jobs to feed their family when one of the “outlaws” puts his gun in their face demanding money. It would be bad all around (in my opinion). With that said, guns are dangerous and should be treated with the utmost respect and care. It only takes a millisecond for a gun accident to occur. People need to be properly trained on firearm safety prior to purchasing a firearm, maybe even teach firearm safety to children when they are in middle or high school.
Who knows what makes people like the Aurora shooter snap… I’m no psychologist, but maybe it just boils down to this new generation of children being desensitized to violence since grade school by violence on television, violence in music, violent video games, etcetera, but nobody wants to talk about banning those things because that infringes on our first amendment right.
It’s too easy to blame the gun. Guns alone cannot kill. It’s impossible. Maybe a little bit of early education on firearm safety would go a long way in the prevention of firearm related accidents, as well as educate people on the benefits of firearms. Remember, there are millions of registered firearm owners in the US we are not all crazy sadistic murderers.
Why They Shoot by jTZAR
I thank you for your efforts in creating this community; I respect your interest in hearing another’s point while keeping an independent opinion yourself. That virtue will keep me coming back.
Gun laws in the United States of America are not the issue here. I do not support the second amendment although I do support the safe use of firearms for the purpose of hunting and target shooting. So, that means there is no reason for any non-military personnel, excluding police, to have pistols or automatic rifles/shotguns.
“Long-guns”, meaning shotguns and rifles having a barrel length greater than 470mm with a semi-automatic action, I support. I suppose I feel the second amendment should be biased as to the type of firearm in question. My support for the “long-gun” is conditional on the existence of an appropriate screening and testing process to ensure that the personalities described in the following essay will be less likely to gain access. (Held to a statistic minimum) However access is not the main issue.
There is a difference between a Škorpion and a Purdey, an AR15 M4A1 (AUTO) and, really, any other “long gun” which beyond length restrictions must also hold no more than five rounds. Fully automatic weapons and all pistols are designed to kill humans. Once more, I feel such weapons should be prohibited for non-military peoples. I hope we are clear on this point.
This topic may not be summed up in a few pages. My aim here is only to touch a few points people often forget in the hope of stimulating healthy and thoughtful argument on the topic. Any system designed for push-button operation is in danger of turning against its intended function. That includes our most precious establishments and the laws which support them. Beyond that, I ask the reader to consider who taught them to fear guns more than people with ambition and bad intention.
Why they shoot is not an issue of the gun alone but rather the combination of things which lead the gun to be used in such a manner. While playing in the schoolyard as a child I was hit with snowballs. Never once did I get angry with a snowball. That being said, I do recall individuals who were particularly nasty and lacking in sportsmanship. (Though, such people are not the issue either) Little can be defined to identify this breed that would commit such acts as we have all heard. We will consider the individual behind the gun and the state of mind required to bring them there.
There is much to be said for losing gracefully. Television today says we all have a bully problem in our respective schools. I was bullied in school and bullied others also. I think in some capacity most of us have been on both sides of that situation. It is foolish to believe that bulling stops when we leave school. Each of us is bullied every time an authority figure exerts control. Who likes the cop that gives them a speeding ticket? We deal with it! As individuals, we are able to accept we were speeding and take the fine.
(We are also wise to fight it in court through proper protocols rather than argue with the officer) We have just lost gracefully and to a bully no less. Feel happy; but we all know someone who can’t do that simple thing. They will argue and if not increase the fine, at least prevent any lenience.
Further, if one were not able to lose gracefully, a suitable justification to counter the feelings of loss with no respect might be to consider yourself superior to the one who beat you. At that point the individual is blind to their own motives; they are just fabricating a reason for their feelings which allows them to remain in control.
Any person who buys their own propaganda is in for trouble. A person who elects to a life of unlimited customization for comfort and ideals (time killing garbage products and reinforcing sources of information) with no concern for views against said ideals and who also refuses to compromise will never know empathy or compassion. Someone might enjoy a daily routine which limited their social interactions as well as skewed their perception of appropriate actions in social settings. Not to blame movies, televisions, etc. but to blame specifically the little soul who was unable to lose gracefully. This person prefers things which can’t argue, and will seek them out in preference.
In this situation, the weapon wielders are simply reaffirming their own respective beliefs and not thinking rationally. Millions of people live like this, big deal! On its own we have nothing more than that feeling we get when our buttons are pushed by someone who really knows us. Our answer lies with the sum of the parts. Education can go a long way but ultimately there is a person who can’t see the big picture for their own ideals.
If a small soul has an idea of faith which is broadly based and subject to questions we are still in the clear. It is, in fact, healthy. There is however, a person who will have a very specific faith. Perhaps it is a faith to an ideal which is based in an artificially reinforced reality lacking empathy and responsibility, but heavy on superiority and offering a solution. What have we here then, eh? Education must be more than learning a sterilized version of history, science and arts. An education requires social development as its core.
In place of a gun, one could have a bomb. Bombs are easily constructed and generally involve more casualties than a random act of violence committed with a firearm would. On the other hand, the knife is also effective, along with countless other things, though perhaps less efficient when one aims to hurt many. Regardless of weapons, the point here is that fear should be placed with the ignorant, self-aggrandizing and uneducated people (with specific emphasis on social education) whom never learned how to lose gracefully and will not suffer another’s point of view. Such people simply believe they are the way and this is the fear that lives among us all. How can we as a people modify the system to
minimize the existence of such individuals?
Balance is the key to controlling all things. If we simply look at the tools these people use, we will never see the parts of the mechanism which may be manipulated to affect balance. It is possible to have a society which allows for firearms while maintaining a relatively low gun death rate as well as eliminating individuals who would commit mass murder.
All weapons, regardless of their name and construction, are but paperweights without an individual to wield them. Going farther, we see that many people who wield weapons are doing so for the benefit of our respective society, or simply for hunting and target shooting. I maintain that most people are good people, though ignorant. A safer environment will never be gained through the restriction of weapons alone. To make our environment safer we need to ensure that people are offered a proper education, not just in the sciences, but also in the social realm. Our goal should be to educate the good people out there, while identifying the small souls before they pick up any weapon or take any action.
Could Guns in the Denver Theater Have Prevented the Massacre by DeadpoolDeadcool
Many people view all gun owners as religious, bible humping people. Well, this most definitely is not the case with me. I don’t desire to have religion is my life at all. I have been around guns for quite some time now and have learned to handle them safely and with respect. Many people have an anti-gun state of mind, and this is understandable. But there are things about guns that are very positive.
America is about freedom, freedom to do what you wish so long as it doesn’t harm anyone else. And it can be argued that guns are made to harm people, but in most cases they are used for recreational purposes. It is a freedom that we have been given, some may choose not to utilize that freedom, but that doesn’t mean no one can. I don’t think it is a “god given freedom”, but it is a freedom of survival.
If someone comes at you with intensions to harm you, you should be able to defend yourself. A gun gives you the upper hand in that survival situation. America was founded knowing that the government can turn on the people at any time and that the people need a way to defend themselves from the government. Now, this is highly unlikely to happen, but it is just in case. We’ve all seen police brutality videos, even on this site, and we know what happens in them. If a cop has a gun, I should have one. Not all cops are bad, but again, it is just in case. In a way, the 2nd amendment keeps the 1st amendment safe. Who’s to say the government doesn’t take away your freedom of speech? With guns in the hands of the people, they can’t.
Gun safety is a major part of it, as well as the government making sure that guns don’t fall into the wrong hands. As a gun owner, you need to undergo certain courses and safety classes to own a firearm. They have extensive background checks that bars felons from legally obtaining firearms. Criminals are always going to have guns, and to fight them, we need them. Some people do obtain firearms legally and kill people with them. This is the fault of the government, not the gun owners.
James Holmes spent over 14,000 dollars in a short time span on weapons, ammo, armor, and explosive making ingredients. This all slipped past the government. They should have had the ATF or some similar government agency at his apartment the second they saw a man was purchasing thousands of rounds of ammo and explosive making devices. If this nut had obtained the weapons, armor, and explosives illegally, then it would be more understandable that the government didn’t catch on. As of 2010, it is legal for people affiliated with terrorist organizations, in the US, to purchase firearms and explosives.
So they want to stop citizens from obeying the gun laws and keep terrorists buying weapons to kill people. Not a good thing to have happen. So, the government is always responsible for these massacres due to the fact they don’t enforce laws. They may institute them, but they do not enforce them strictly enough.
As for people saying that someone with a gun would have changed the events in Aurora, is pretty dumb. The man was fully armored, head to toe. The only part of his body that was not armored was his eyes. Even if you hit him in the torso, a .38 will not penetrate whatever armor he had. It was a dark, cramped, and chaotic scene. There is no way someone could have reacted and taken down this guy. If they had more than 2 people, maybe, but still those are not good odds. This guys was prepared for war, nothing short of a high powered rifle could have stopped this guy. What should have been outlawed is whatever body armor he had. That is the main thing that was concerning to me. If someone did have a gun in the theatre, they could have stopped him if he hadn’t been wearing body armor.
In closing, I would like to say that no one is right or wrong in this situation. Things like these happen and banning guns isn’t going to come close to preventing them. What will help is interviews with government employed people so they can determine whether or not you are a responsible and mentally stable citizen. Clearly Holmes was a nut, anyone could have guessed that. What people need to do is approach this with a non biased and level headed view. Then you can properly analyze the situation.