Join the Meeting Place for Moms!
Talk to other moms, share advice, and have fun!

(minimum 6 characters)

News & Politics News & Politics

What Everyone Forgets When Debating Gun Control

Posted by   + Show Post

 

In the wake of the Aurora mass shooting, the usual pattern is playing out with respect to gun control. People such as Mayor Michael Bloomberg, Piers Morgan, and Bill Moyers are beating the drum to restrict firearm ownership, as others try to beat them back. One side says we'd be safer if guns were rarer; the other says that more guns equal less crime. One side says guns kill people, the other that people kill people. Facts and feelings are bandied back and forth (although one side specializes in the facts and the other in the feelings), but in all the commentary, some of which is very good, one point is universally missed.

For the sake of argument, let's accept the supposition that outlawing firearms would save lives. Does it logically follow from this that guns should be restricted or banned?

Well, it would certainly save lives and countless injuries if people didn't engage in mountain-climbing, hang-gliding, motorcycle-racing, trampolining, big-wave surfing, cave-diving, heli-skiing, and a host of other dangerous activities. And, like guns, knives and baseball bats are common murder weapons. Does it logically follow that these items and activities should be banned?

The point is that we never treat saving lives as the only imperative when devising policy. If we did, we'd perhaps consider reducing speed limits on highways to 5 mph, since this might save most of the 43,000 lives lost on the road each year. Speaking of which, since 40 percent of those deaths are alcohol-related, we can consider resurrecting Prohibition, too.

Now, since gun-control advocates think they have morality on their side, they may want to ponder a question: is it moral to sacrifice 43,000 lives just so we can be free to zip around at 55 or 65 mph? The answer here is that the safety imperative is balanced against an economic one, in that too much productivity would be lost with a five-mph speed limit.

But sometimes far more trivial things trump the safety imperative. No one needs to drink alcohol, go rock-climbing, or play baseball when doing so necessitates the availability of a dangerous weapon. So, imagine that, we're actually placing fun and enjoyment ahead of saving lives. In fact, some among us will even tolerate death on a massive scale if we think the reason is good enough. An example is when the anti-gun left is willing to accept 1.2 million killings a year through abortion.

So if we'll accept death through fun, should we question death through the gun? As with dangerous recreation, the enjoyment justification exists with firearms, too, in the form of target and sport shooting. As with driving, an economic justification exists in that revenue is collected from hunters and because some poorer rural Americans help feed themselves through hunting. But there is something here that is a true imperative, one that's greater than most any other:

Thwarting evil.

The apocryphal saying, "God made some men big and others small, but Samuel Colt made them equal," gets at the point here. Whether it's a smaller person or a smaller group, firearms tend to even the odds. They help create parity, and that's not what criminals want -- they want easy prey. Thus, like a predator in the wilds that generally won't attack a creature more than half its size, even if a criminal is armed himself, he'll be reluctant to tackle a target that can target him back.

Even more significantly, as Prohibition, prostitution, and drugs have proven, illegal isn't synonymous with unavailable. So, again, let's assume that a gun criminalization that left firearms in the hands of a few criminals did save lives overall. What should we conclude if those armed miscreants could nonetheless ply their dark trade with little resistance? What should we feel if good people were declawed and rendered powerless to thwart their evil?

A virtuous, justice-oriented person should find this intolerable to the point of outrage.

He should quote Emiliano Zapata and say, "It's better to die on your feet than live on your knees." Yet better still is to live on your feet. And a gun in the hand makes that more likely.

As for debating the Second Amendment, there's nothing wrong with using facts to refute the notion that more guns equal more deaths. But this should be only part of the debate, not the debate itself. Otherwise, we miss some great principles, one of which is that life at all costs is too great a cost. Living is about more than just life, and whether the matter is sports that can kill, drink that can kill, or guns that can kill, you can't really live if you're suffocated with a Big-Brother bubble-wrap mentality.



(American Thinker)

by on Jul. 26, 2012 at 9:46 PM
Replies (51-60):
imamomzilla
by on Jul. 28, 2012 at 7:46 PM
1 mom liked this

 "Laws" knows? Have you been drinking? We all know what a perfectionist you are when it comes to spelling and grammar.

 Been down on your luck, eh? :-(

The offer for a hug still stands.

Quoting Della529:

 I am so glad to hear you protect one of your 'saintly' sisters.  Laws knows the dawg would have liked to have had a gun when he was beat up the side of his head with the dead chicken.

Quoting imamomzilla:

 Aw.Chin up, Della...no one is perfect.

hugging

Quoting Della529:

 If it weren't fer bad luck, I'd have no luck at all...

Quoting PeeperSqueak:

If it wasn't for double standards, liberals would have no standards at all ; )

 

 

BigRoni
by Member on Jul. 28, 2012 at 7:54 PM


Quoting Tea4Tas:


Quoting BigRoni:


Quoting Tea4Tas:


Quoting BigRoni:


Quoting Tea4Tas:


Quoting BigRoni:

My best friend lost both of her sons to gun violence. Back in 2002 her youngest son was killed at the age of 3, a bullet went through her window and hit the baby sleeping in his bed, they lived on a first floor apartment here in the city. Her oldest was killed last year. Wrong place, wrong time. Innocent. 15 years old. Something must be done. I'm a strong supporter of our 2nd ammendment, but, after watching my best friend in the world go through this twice, I strongly feel that we have to change some things.

Your point might be valid if the shooters in both cases had purchased the weapons legally. But what are the odds of that?

Okay, I'm new here so, I'm not trying to ruffle any feathers but, there really was no point that I was trying to make except for that something does need to change as far as our gun laws are concerned. Now, as I stated, I am a firm believer in our 2nd amendment, but, it's not just law-abiding citizens who are getting a hold of guns, criminals are too. And from my personal experience that I shared, gun violence is devastating to our communities. Now maybe, you have not had to console a friend or loved one who has lost someone precious and dear to them because of senseless violence. If you haven't, may you continue to be blessesd in that way. But, I had to be there for my best friend not once but twice. And that changes things. I was going through some posts today and someone posted two stories about two children who were killed because of gun violence. How many innocent people have to die so that we can have our guns?

You aren't making sense.  That's like saying that because people drive cars drunk, we need to make it harder to buy cars!

IF legally purchased guns aren't the issue, then CHANGING the laws doesn't help.

Now making stiffer penalties for having buying or selling guns illegally might make sense in that case.

Let's take FULLY automatic weapons. Do you think making them harder to obtain would be helpful, yes, or no?

How am I not making any sense to you? I can see if I were talking about banning guns, keeping Americans fro owning guns. I'm not. I'm acknowledging that we do have a problem in this country, people are dying because people who are up to no good are getting a hold of them. Now maybe you don't care too much about innocent people being killed by bullets, but I do. And so do many Americans. Just as people have the right to bare arms, people also have a right to not be killed in their homes by stray bullets coming through their windows and walls. People have a right to go to the park and make it home at night. People have a right to not have to go searching for their children to just find them laying dead in a park. So, please tell me what do you think we should do about gun violence? How can we stop innocent people from dying from bullets not meant for them?

You didn';t answer my question. What should we do about fully automatic weapons?

Oh and again-if the guns being used are ALREADY owned illegally, how would changing the laws change anything?

Illegal is illegal-how are you going to make them MORE illegal?

Or are you claiming the guns used in drive by shootings are purchased legally?

Wow!!! Am I running for public office because I feel like I'm being vetted here!!! LOL! No, seriously, I'll bite and take a stab at answering your questions. Hopefully, you'll return the favor. But, I must say, that I'm actually enjoying our discussion... thank you for engaging me... Okay. I think there should be a ban on fully automatic weapons. Why do people outside of the military need fully automatic weapons in the first place? Some things that I think might help to keep guns out of the hands of criminals are: 1. going after the source - the gun dealers. They should not be let off the hook if it is found out that someone purchased a gun from that should have not been able to. 2. go after those who help criminals obtain fraudulent identification. 3. Make it where people cannot purchase guns outside of their home state. I also feel that there has to be some way to keep guns out of the hands of the mentally ill. if someone was convicted of domestic violence - no guns. And if someone who has a gun permit ends up being convicted of domestic violence - they should have their permit revoked.

Ednarooni160
by Eds on Jul. 28, 2012 at 8:00 PM


Quoting Della529:

I believe in the "truth"..and common sense..  Look at the British..see how HAPPY they are?


 Did you read the snopes article?

Are you British?  If not, aren't you glad we kicked their ass back to the other side of the pond?

Here's how I see it, even if the tapes SHOWED the two drinking on his lawn an hour  (who knows HOW big his lawn is) BEFORE they and/or the male kicked down the door..he "deserved" the right to defend himself..even if he now feels guilty for it.  I guess he could have NOT defended himself..maybe he wouldn't have been there to EVEN step down or speak of it at all if he had chosen that route...  You think he would NOT defend himself again, if someone kicked down the door?  I'm betting he would..

Tea4Tas
by on Jul. 28, 2012 at 8:06 PM


Quoting BigRoni:

 

Quoting Tea4Tas:

 

Quoting BigRoni:

 

Quoting Tea4Tas:

 

Quoting BigRoni:

 

Quoting Tea4Tas:

 

Quoting BigRoni:

My best friend lost both of her sons to gun violence. Back in 2002 her youngest son was killed at the age of 3, a bullet went through her window and hit the baby sleeping in his bed, they lived on a first floor apartment here in the city. Her oldest was killed last year. Wrong place, wrong time. Innocent. 15 years old. Something must be done. I'm a strong supporter of our 2nd ammendment, but, after watching my best friend in the world go through this twice, I strongly feel that we have to change some things.

Your point might be valid if the shooters in both cases had purchased the weapons legally. But what are the odds of that?

Okay, I'm new here so, I'm not trying to ruffle any feathers but, there really was no point that I was trying to make except for that something does need to change as far as our gun laws are concerned. Now, as I stated, I am a firm believer in our 2nd amendment, but, it's not just law-abiding citizens who are getting a hold of guns, criminals are too. And from my personal experience that I shared, gun violence is devastating to our communities. Now maybe, you have not had to console a friend or loved one who has lost someone precious and dear to them because of senseless violence. If you haven't, may you continue to be blessesd in that way. But, I had to be there for my best friend not once but twice. And that changes things. I was going through some posts today and someone posted two stories about two children who were killed because of gun violence. How many innocent people have to die so that we can have our guns?

You aren't making sense.  That's like saying that because people drive cars drunk, we need to make it harder to buy cars!

IF legally purchased guns aren't the issue, then CHANGING the laws doesn't help.

Now making stiffer penalties for having buying or selling guns illegally might make sense in that case.

Let's take FULLY automatic weapons. Do you think making them harder to obtain would be helpful, yes, or no?

How am I not making any sense to you? I can see if I were talking about banning guns, keeping Americans fro owning guns. I'm not. I'm acknowledging that we do have a problem in this country, people are dying because people who are up to no good are getting a hold of them. Now maybe you don't care too much about innocent people being killed by bullets, but I do. And so do many Americans. Just as people have the right to bare arms, people also have a right to not be killed in their homes by stray bullets coming through their windows and walls. People have a right to go to the park and make it home at night. People have a right to not have to go searching for their children to just find them laying dead in a park. So, please tell me what do you think we should do about gun violence? How can we stop innocent people from dying from bullets not meant for them?

You didn';t answer my question. What should we do about fully automatic weapons?

Oh and again-if the guns being used are ALREADY owned illegally, how would changing the laws change anything?

Illegal is illegal-how are you going to make them MORE illegal?

Or are you claiming the guns used in drive by shootings are purchased legally?

Wow!!! Am I running for public office because I feel like I'm being vetted here!!! LOL! No, seriously, I'll bite and take a stab at answering your questions. Hopefully, you'll return the favor. But, I must say, that I'm actually enjoying our discussion... thank you for engaging me... Okay. I think there should be a ban on fully automatic weapons. Why do people outside of the military need fully automatic weapons in the first place?

They were made illegal for civilians in the 1980's-and registration has been required since the 1930's

Some things that I think might help to keep guns out of the hands of criminals are: 1. going after the source - the gun dealers. They should not be let off the hook if it is found out that someone purchased a gun from that should have not been able to.

They get prosecuted-strict records have to be kept.

 2. go after those who help criminals obtain fraudulent identification.

Done already-as a consequence of 9/11-and gun ourchases require a criminal background check-in many states it requires fingerprinting

3. Make it where people cannot purchase guns outside of their home state.

Done in many states-but not all-gun laws are by state-not all Federal.

I also feel that there has to be some way to keep guns out of the hands of the mentally ill.

Already illegal to purchase or own. But Hippa has complicated this

if someone was convicted of domestic violence - no guns. And if someone who has a gun permit ends up being convicted of domestic violence - they should have their permit revoked.

Again that is common practice-most states have that law-you can also lose your guns for threatening to use them-in fact it is about the only circumstances under which the government can seize something of value legally purchased and NOT used illegally-and keep it/them. There have been cases where collectors lost 50K or more in guns-and had to hire a Lawyer to be allowed to sell them.

Those are all current laws. You did know that right?

You also do know this:

In 1995 there were over 240,000 machine guns registered with the ATF. (Zawitz, Marianne,Bureau of Justice Statistics, Guns Used in Crime [PDF].) About half are owned by civilians and the other half by police departments and other governmental agencies (Gary Kleck, Targeting Guns: Firearms and Their Control, Walter de Gruyter, Inc., New York, 1997.)

Since 1934, there appear to have been at least two homicides committed with legally owned automatic weapons. One was a murder committed by a law enforcement officer (as opposed to a civilian). On September 15th, 1988, a 13-year veteran of the Dayton, Ohio police department, Patrolman Roger Waller, then 32, used his fully automatic MAC-11 .380 caliber submachine gun to kill a police informant, 52-year-old Lawrence Hileman. Patrolman Waller pleaded guilty in 1990, and he and an accomplice were sentenced to 18 years in prison. The 1986 'ban' on sales of new machine guns does not apply to purchases by law enforcement or government agencies.

 

So in 78 YEARS there have been 2 deaths by LEGALLY owned fully automatic weapons. 

 

The other homicide, possibly involving a legally owned machine gun, occurred on September 14, 1992, also in Ohio (source

 

A Good Argument for Gun Registration?

An observant reader would think the strict registration requirements and extremely low rates of crime committed with legally owned automatic weapons are powerful arguments for "sensible" gun control. However an even keener reader notices that despite the sterling record of auto-weapons owners for over fifty years, and despite: registration, police approval, state approval, special taxes, waiting periods, and extensive background checks, in 1986, ownership of newly manufactured automatic weapons was prohibited to civilians.

 

ALL of the death occured after they made it illegal for ANY civilian to purchase any fully automatic weapon (of course one of the killings was done by a police officer....So how did that kind of draconian law making help anything? It sure didn't stop criminals did it?

BigRoni
by Member on Jul. 28, 2012 at 8:35 PM


Quoting Tea4Tas:


Quoting BigRoni:


Quoting Tea4Tas:


Quoting BigRoni:


Quoting Tea4Tas:


Quoting BigRoni:


Quoting Tea4Tas:


Quoting BigRoni:

My best friend lost both of her sons to gun violence. Back in 2002 her youngest son was killed at the age of 3, a bullet went through her window and hit the baby sleeping in his bed, they lived on a first floor apartment here in the city. Her oldest was killed last year. Wrong place, wrong time. Innocent. 15 years old. Something must be done. I'm a strong supporter of our 2nd ammendment, but, after watching my best friend in the world go through this twice, I strongly feel that we have to change some things.

Your point might be valid if the shooters in both cases had purchased the weapons legally. But what are the odds of that?

Okay, I'm new here so, I'm not trying to ruffle any feathers but, there really was no point that I was trying to make except for that something does need to change as far as our gun laws are concerned. Now, as I stated, I am a firm believer in our 2nd amendment, but, it's not just law-abiding citizens who are getting a hold of guns, criminals are too. And from my personal experience that I shared, gun violence is devastating to our communities. Now maybe, you have not had to console a friend or loved one who has lost someone precious and dear to them because of senseless violence. If you haven't, may you continue to be blessesd in that way. But, I had to be there for my best friend not once but twice. And that changes things. I was going through some posts today and someone posted two stories about two children who were killed because of gun violence. How many innocent people have to die so that we can have our guns?

You aren't making sense.  That's like saying that because people drive cars drunk, we need to make it harder to buy cars!

IF legally purchased guns aren't the issue, then CHANGING the laws doesn't help.

Now making stiffer penalties for having buying or selling guns illegally might make sense in that case.

Let's take FULLY automatic weapons. Do you think making them harder to obtain would be helpful, yes, or no?

How am I not making any sense to you? I can see if I were talking about banning guns, keeping Americans fro owning guns. I'm not. I'm acknowledging that we do have a problem in this country, people are dying because people who are up to no good are getting a hold of them. Now maybe you don't care too much about innocent people being killed by bullets, but I do. And so do many Americans. Just as people have the right to bare arms, people also have a right to not be killed in their homes by stray bullets coming through their windows and walls. People have a right to go to the park and make it home at night. People have a right to not have to go searching for their children to just find them laying dead in a park. So, please tell me what do you think we should do about gun violence? How can we stop innocent people from dying from bullets not meant for them?

You didn';t answer my question. What should we do about fully automatic weapons?

Oh and again-if the guns being used are ALREADY owned illegally, how would changing the laws change anything?

Illegal is illegal-how are you going to make them MORE illegal?

Or are you claiming the guns used in drive by shootings are purchased legally?

Wow!!! Am I running for public office because I feel like I'm being vetted here!!! LOL! No, seriously, I'll bite and take a stab at answering your questions. Hopefully, you'll return the favor. But, I must say, that I'm actually enjoying our discussion... thank you for engaging me... Okay. I think there should be a ban on fully automatic weapons. Why do people outside of the military need fully automatic weapons in the first place?

They were made illegal for civilians in the 1980's-and registration has been required since the 1930's

Some things that I think might help to keep guns out of the hands of criminals are: 1. going after the source - the gun dealers. They should not be let off the hook if it is found out that someone purchased a gun from that should have not been able to.

They get prosecuted-strict records have to be kept.

 2. go after those who help criminals obtain fraudulent identification.

Done already-as a consequence of 9/11-and gun ourchases require a criminal background check-in many states it requires fingerprinting

3. Make it where people cannot purchase guns outside of their home state.

Done in many states-but not all-gun laws are by state-not all Federal.

I also feel that there has to be some way to keep guns out of the hands of the mentally ill.

Already illegal to purchase or own. But Hippa has complicated this

if someone was convicted of domestic violence - no guns. And if someone who has a gun permit ends up being convicted of domestic violence - they should have their permit revoked.

Again that is common practice-most states have that law-you can also lose your guns for threatening to use them-in fact it is about the only circumstances under which the government can seize something of value legally purchased and NOT used illegally-and keep it/them. There have been cases where collectors lost 50K or more in guns-and had to hire a Lawyer to be allowed to sell them.

Those are all current laws. You did know that right?

You also do know this:

In 1995 there were over 240,000 machine guns registered with the ATF. (Zawitz, Marianne,Bureau of Justice Statistics, Guns Used in Crime [PDF].) About half are owned by civilians and the other half by police departments and other governmental agencies (Gary Kleck, Targeting Guns: Firearms and Their Control, Walter de Gruyter, Inc., New York, 1997.)

Since 1934, there appear to have been at least two homicides committed with legally owned automatic weapons. One was a murder committed by a law enforcement officer (as opposed to a civilian). On September 15th, 1988, a 13-year veteran of the Dayton, Ohio police department, Patrolman Roger Waller, then 32, used his fully automatic MAC-11 .380 caliber submachine gun to kill a police informant, 52-year-old Lawrence Hileman. Patrolman Waller pleaded guilty in 1990, and he and an accomplice were sentenced to 18 years in prison. The 1986 'ban' on sales of new machine guns does not apply to purchases by law enforcement or government agencies.


So in 78 YEARS there have been 2 deaths by LEGALLY owned fully automatic weapons. 


The other homicide, possibly involving a legally owned machine gun, occurred on September 14, 1992, also in Ohio (source


A Good Argument for Gun Registration?

An observant reader would think the strict registration requirements and extremely low rates of crime committed with legally owned automatic weapons are powerful arguments for "sensible" gun control. However an even keener reader notices that despite the sterling record of auto-weapons owners for over fifty years, and despite: registration, police approval, state approval, special taxes, waiting periods, and extensive background checks, in 1986, ownership of newly manufactured automatic weapons was prohibited to civilians.


ALL of the death occured after they made it illegal for ANY civilian to purchase any fully automatic weapon (of course one of the killings was done by a police officer....So how did that kind of draconian law making help anything? It sure didn't stop criminals did it?

I should have made myself more clear. I'm talking about on a federal level not state level. Now, what do you suppose should/could be done so no more parents have to suffer like my best friend did? Or do you feel that the lives of her two sons means absolutely nothing because Americans need their guns?

Tea4Tas
by on Jul. 28, 2012 at 9:08 PM
1 mom liked this


Quoting BigRoni:

 

Quoting Tea4Tas:

 

Quoting BigRoni:

 

Quoting Tea4Tas:

 

Quoting BigRoni:

 

Quoting Tea4Tas:

 

Quoting BigRoni:

 

Quoting Tea4Tas:

 

Quoting BigRoni:

My best friend lost both of her sons to gun violence. Back in 2002 her youngest son was killed at the age of 3, a bullet went through her window and hit the baby sleeping in his bed, they lived on a first floor apartment here in the city. Her oldest was killed last year. Wrong place, wrong time. Innocent. 15 years old. Something must be done. I'm a strong supporter of our 2nd ammendment, but, after watching my best friend in the world go through this twice, I strongly feel that we have to change some things.

Your point might be valid if the shooters in both cases had purchased the weapons legally. But what are the odds of that?

Okay, I'm new here so, I'm not trying to ruffle any feathers but, there really was no point that I was trying to make except for that something does need to change as far as our gun laws are concerned. Now, as I stated, I am a firm believer in our 2nd amendment, but, it's not just law-abiding citizens who are getting a hold of guns, criminals are too. And from my personal experience that I shared, gun violence is devastating to our communities. Now maybe, you have not had to console a friend or loved one who has lost someone precious and dear to them because of senseless violence. If you haven't, may you continue to be blessesd in that way. But, I had to be there for my best friend not once but twice. And that changes things. I was going through some posts today and someone posted two stories about two children who were killed because of gun violence. How many innocent people have to die so that we can have our guns?

You aren't making sense.  That's like saying that because people drive cars drunk, we need to make it harder to buy cars!

IF legally purchased guns aren't the issue, then CHANGING the laws doesn't help.

Now making stiffer penalties for having buying or selling guns illegally might make sense in that case.

Let's take FULLY automatic weapons. Do you think making them harder to obtain would be helpful, yes, or no?

How am I not making any sense to you? I can see if I were talking about banning guns, keeping Americans fro owning guns. I'm not. I'm acknowledging that we do have a problem in this country, people are dying because people who are up to no good are getting a hold of them. Now maybe you don't care too much about innocent people being killed by bullets, but I do. And so do many Americans. Just as people have the right to bare arms, people also have a right to not be killed in their homes by stray bullets coming through their windows and walls. People have a right to go to the park and make it home at night. People have a right to not have to go searching for their children to just find them laying dead in a park. So, please tell me what do you think we should do about gun violence? How can we stop innocent people from dying from bullets not meant for them?

You didn';t answer my question. What should we do about fully automatic weapons?

Oh and again-if the guns being used are ALREADY owned illegally, how would changing the laws change anything?

Illegal is illegal-how are you going to make them MORE illegal?

Or are you claiming the guns used in drive by shootings are purchased legally?

Wow!!! Am I running for public office because I feel like I'm being vetted here!!! LOL! No, seriously, I'll bite and take a stab at answering your questions. Hopefully, you'll return the favor. But, I must say, that I'm actually enjoying our discussion... thank you for engaging me... Okay. I think there should be a ban on fully automatic weapons. Why do people outside of the military need fully automatic weapons in the first place?

They were made illegal for civilians in the 1980's-and registration has been required since the 1930's

Some things that I think might help to keep guns out of the hands of criminals are: 1. going after the source - the gun dealers. They should not be let off the hook if it is found out that someone purchased a gun from that should have not been able to.

They get prosecuted-strict records have to be kept.

 2. go after those who help criminals obtain fraudulent identification.

Done already-as a consequence of 9/11-and gun ourchases require a criminal background check-in many states it requires fingerprinting

3. Make it where people cannot purchase guns outside of their home state.

Done in many states-but not all-gun laws are by state-not all Federal.

I also feel that there has to be some way to keep guns out of the hands of the mentally ill.

Already illegal to purchase or own. But Hippa has complicated this

if someone was convicted of domestic violence - no guns. And if someone who has a gun permit ends up being convicted of domestic violence - they should have their permit revoked.

Again that is common practice-most states have that law-you can also lose your guns for threatening to use them-in fact it is about the only circumstances under which the government can seize something of value legally purchased and NOT used illegally-and keep it/them. There have been cases where collectors lost 50K or more in guns-and had to hire a Lawyer to be allowed to sell them.

Those are all current laws. You did know that right?

You also do know this:

In 1995 there were over 240,000 machine guns registered with the ATF. (Zawitz, Marianne,Bureau of Justice Statistics, Guns Used in Crime [PDF].) About half are owned by civilians and the other half by police departments and other governmental agencies (Gary Kleck, Targeting Guns: Firearms and Their Control, Walter de Gruyter, Inc., New York, 1997.)

Since 1934, there appear to have been at least two homicides committed with legally owned automatic weapons. One was a murder committed by a law enforcement officer (as opposed to a civilian). On September 15th, 1988, a 13-year veteran of the Dayton, Ohio police department, Patrolman Roger Waller, then 32, used his fully automatic MAC-11 .380 caliber submachine gun to kill a police informant, 52-year-old Lawrence Hileman. Patrolman Waller pleaded guilty in 1990, and he and an accomplice were sentenced to 18 years in prison. The 1986 'ban' on sales of new machine guns does not apply to purchases by law enforcement or government agencies.

 

So in 78 YEARS there have been 2 deaths by LEGALLY owned fully automatic weapons. 

 

The other homicide, possibly involving a legally owned machine gun, occurred on September 14, 1992, also in Ohio (source

 

A Good Argument for Gun Registration?

An observant reader would think the strict registration requirements and extremely low rates of crime committed with legally owned automatic weapons are powerful arguments for "sensible" gun control. However an even keener reader notices that despite the sterling record of auto-weapons owners for over fifty years, and despite: registration, police approval, state approval, special taxes, waiting periods, and extensive background checks, in 1986, ownership of newly manufactured automatic weapons was prohibited to civilians.

 

ALL of the death occured after they made it illegal for ANY civilian to purchase any fully automatic weapon (of course one of the killings was done by a police officer....So how did that kind of draconian law making help anything? It sure didn't stop criminals did it?

I should have made myself more clear. I'm talking about on a federal level not state level. Now, what do you suppose should/could be done so no more parents have to suffer like my best friend did? Or do you feel that the lives of her two sons means absolutely nothing because Americans need their guns?

I feel that changing the laws will do NOTHING for her or her children. The guns that killed those kids were not purchased legally. Changing the laws won't change anything except for LEGAL purchases.

I would love to see Federal laws changed-because then they would have to have FEDERAL carry permits. I am all for that.
So instead of me having to leave my gun behind when I travel, I could carry it on any road trip I took.

By the way most of the laws you suggested are already laws in MOST (if not all states)

If stricter gun laws helped to reduce crimes, wouldn't NYC (which allows virtually NO civilians to carry or own a weapon) have the lowest crime rates in the country?   Wouldn't the people of NYC be safe from drive bys?  because the gun laws there are VERY strict-and the neighboring states require CCP's for purchase.

In New York City, long known for strict regulation of all types of weapons, only 19 percent of the 390 homicides in 1960 involved pistols. By 1972, this proportion had jumped to 49 percent of 1,691. In 1973, according to the New York Times, there were only 28,000 lawfully possessed handguns in the nation’s largest city, but police estimated that there were as many as 1.3 million illegal handguns there.

blondekosmic15
by Blonde on Jul. 29, 2012 at 2:46 AM
1 mom liked this

 

Quoting Della529:

 This is a much deeper issue than analogies and anecdotal evidence.

And LOL at JAMBO's ditty about the right to keep and bear arms being a G-d given right.  That should be on record as one of the most ridiculous comments on the entire site.

Don't laugh too hard Della. Jesus is completely aware of evil ppl. in the world and the need for responsible individuals to have guns for self-protection. He told Peter this. Swords for weapons in their time and guns in current times.

Luke 22:36
Jesus
said:

"... he that hath no
sword, let him sell his garment, and buy one."
blondekosmic15
by Blonde on Jul. 29, 2012 at 2:54 AM
1 mom liked this

 

Quoting LIMom1105:

So, God wrote the 2nd amendment?

What about the commandment Thou Shalt Not Kill?

Why is any discussion about gun CONTROL, not gun BANS (because I have yet to see anyone say all guns be banned) not allowed?

Where does God say we are to disarm and let ppl kill us!?






Quoting Jambo4:



 

blondekosmic15
by Blonde on Jul. 29, 2012 at 3:23 AM

 

Quoting BigRoni:

My best friend lost both of her sons to gun violence. Back in 2002 her youngest son was killed at the age of 3, a bullet went through her window and hit the baby sleeping in his bed, they lived on a first floor apartment here in the city. Her oldest was killed last year. Wrong place, wrong time. Innocent. 15 years old. Something must be done. I'm a strong supporter of our 2nd ammendment, but, after watching my best friend in the world go through this twice, I strongly feel that we have to change some things.

I am very sorry for your friend's loss of her 2 sons. I have 2 sons. I can't even imagine this. No greater pain than the loss of a child~

blondekosmic15
by Blonde on Jul. 29, 2012 at 3:27 AM
1 mom liked this

Packing Heat and Trusting Providence: Why I Own a Handgun

Being a pro-life woman means protecting my life, too.

I was reminded of God’s sovereign protection in yet another incident. I was running uphill on a two-mile stretch of a private, uninhabited dirt road when I saw an older model car with an out-of-state plate parked up ahead. A man was leaning against the car smoking a cigarette. Quickly, I pulled my phone from the pack that holds all my necessaries and called my mother, whom I knew to be home. I stayed on the phone with her as I ran a wide berth around the man and his car. As I crested the hill, I saw a police car sitting at the top. Unbeknownst to me, the officer, from his elevated position at the crossroads, had been able to see us the entire time and waited for me to arrive safely.

Yes, God is watching over me. Yet, I am still called to wisdom and good stewardship of all the gifts he’s given me, including my life and health.

What about you? What self-defense strategies do you or the women in your life employ?

Continued......

http://blog.christianitytoday.com/women/2012/07/why-i-own-a-handgun.html

Add your quick reply below:
You must be a member to reply to this post.
Join the Meeting Place for Moms!
Talk to other moms, share advice, and have fun!

(minimum 6 characters)