One More Gun Death Too Many -- and Three Things You Can Do About It

Are there gangs in the area?

LV

Laws against guns won't stop gun use any more than laws against drugs stop drug use. Laws prohibiting gun ownership only make the gun trade more lucrative for criminal organizations. And the only people who will obey them are the good citizens who only use guns for self defense.

I believe if most responsible gun owners in this nation came a bit more face-to-face with the realities Shane is discussing they would see the sanity of regulation.

Regulation of gun trade and ownership is primarily a way of providing legal avenues of legal ownership--not about restricting the freedom to own and bear.

Yes it makes sense to limit the number of nuclear weapons and whether my neighbor can detonate bombs, run a weapons range, fire off shot-guns at passing cars, or buy 300 handguns a year.

This is simply not true. Those in favor of stricter gun legislation have one goal in mind: to take guns out of the hands of the people.
It has been proven in every single jurisdiction in which upstanding citizens have had their rights to purchase firearms restricted, crime has increased. Likewise, in states where it has become legal for citizens to carry guns, crime has decreased.
No amount of gun regulation or hassling of gun shop owners will solve gun violence. It will only make it more difficult for honest people to protect themselves.

Legislation won't help because criminals will still get guns. For some reason they don't have a lot of respect for laws. Criminals tend to go jurisdictions that have strict gun control laws to commit robberies for obvious reasons. Look at Washington DC. We need less, not more, gun control legislation. Anyway, if it is my right to keep and bear arms, why do I have to have a permit? I have one, including a concealed weapons permit, but I am a little confused as to why I have to get the government's permission to exercise a "right."

Please specify what isn't true.

I thought that was evident in my reply. My apologies for not clarifying. This is what is not true:
"Regulation of gun trade and ownership is primarily a way of providing legal avenues of legal ownership--not about restricting the freedom to own and bear."
To the contrary, the motivation behind those pushing for further regulation is to impede honest citizens from legally obtaining firearms. By definition, criminals are not as affected by regulation as law abiding citizens are.

It doesn't surprise me you have a concealed weapons permit.

Why don't you respond to letjusticerolldown's last paragraph?

Do you want any restrictions? How about machine guns. Where do you draw the limit?

I only have a 22 gauge to target shoot (and kill varmets) but don't use it to protect myself. That's a big mistake.

Yea, it gives me a measure of peace of mind. We've had home
invasions in the community in which we live, and there have been
several murders. I like the idea of being able to protect myself
and my family. My wife also has one. In fact she got one first. I
usually don't carry a gun. She does almost all the time. My daughter
also has a gun and they both keep them readily available in the
house. I like the idea of not only criminals having guns.

A word of advice to my friends here,

This is an issue that you ain't going to make a difference. A quote from Acts applies here: "It is hard to kick against the pricks." I suspect that Charlton Heston's first question when he arrives in heaven will be, "where's the armory?"

Look, as I have aged and embraced great-grandparenthood, I have contemplated that maybe I should buy a gun and learn to shoot it. Then I think about the consequences of one of my little precious ones finding it and hurting herself. And I even wonder if I could live with the thought that I took the life of a teenager attempting to steal my hi-fi set. So, no, I think that I will leave it up to all of those "true Christians" to hold onto their guns with their cold dying hands.

I didn't reply because this discussion is not about nuclear weapons or gun ranges. These are already regulated, and have no bearing on the story whatsoever. There was also no mention of someone buying 300 guns per year in the story, though I have plenty of friends who do so, legally, and do not resell them to "kids".

You do not have a 22 gauge, as no such gun exists. Perhaps you have a .22 caliber. I'm so sorry to hear you have a "varmint" issue. Personally, I only shoot animals I intend to eat.
While not a favorite choice for self protection, the best gun with which to protect yourself is the gun you have. I frequently carry a .22 semi-auto Beretta when wearing summer clothing that doesn't allow for easy concealment of my .40 caliber.

Does "roadhunter" really know the motives of those pushing for further regulations? Has God given him eyes to see into the hearts of those with whom he disagrees? In my state, one with very few restrictions on gun ownership, it is illegal to hunt from the road? Does roadhunter's tag indicate that's what he does?

@fundamentalist

So what's your solution then? What are you for?

Unfortunately, when we see stories of all of the gun deaths, too many people get the idea that if only we could outlaw the guns, then the gun deaths would cease.

Not true. In Washington, D.C. where there are some of the strictest gun laws on the books, the murder rate goes ever higher and higher. Going after guns, rather than the lawless people and their choices, isn't going to solve the problem.

Again, I apologize for not being clear. However, I must say, no god has given me the eyes to see into others' hearts. I have, however, been able to use my intelligence, along with my myriad contacts in local, state, and Federal law enforcement, to form my opinions based on facts.
I do believe that many people who are behind tighter gun regulations are sincere in their belief that such will limit gun violence. They are mistaken.
When I spoke of those pushing for further regulations, I was speaking of politicians and activist groups with an agenda.
Often, the word "ignorant" is taken as an insult, but when I say that most individuals pushing for tighter regulations are ignorant, I mean it in the true sense of the word. They simply have not yet learned the facts.
My "handle" or "tag" indicates I started a small hunting club known as the T-Town Roadhunters. The moniker is sarcastic, as, though I am in Oklahoma (now let's talk about few regulations!), I despise unethical hunters and their techniques.
I certainly couldn't expect you, or anyone else to know that, so I understand your questioning the name. Believe me...it's a joke.
Want to learn more about me? Just check out my photos at http://www.flickr.com/photos/roadhunter/
I hope you'll realize that those depicting scense such as "A Typical Okie Sunday Morning at http://www.flickr.com/photos/roadhunter/2408250... are also purely sarcastic.
If everyone who is putting their energy behind fighting guns would put it, instead, behind stopping smoking or driving without seatbelts, they'd save a lot more lives.

What are the statistics for having a gun in your own house for protection. Are you likely to injure someone in your family or an intruder?

Why are gun owners (most likely hunters) so worried about the loss of their guns? Where has the gov't tried to take away guns for hunting? Has the NRA told any "half truths" on behalf of themselves and have they smeared any politicians needlessly? (I'm personally tired of their phone calls fearing me into giving them money-their whole operation is built on fear).

So, the problem isn't with people like you and sportsmen using guns. The problem is with criminals using guns. And if the answer isn't to call for tighter regulation (which seems to work well in some countries like Japan, the UK and Canada, by the way), what is the answer? What do you suggest? More to the point, how can the NRA get involved in specific, concrete steps to stop gun violence?

I'm not Roadhunter, but here are some suggestions for concrete, specific steps to stop gun violence:

1. This is a big one: This will take a lot more time and effort than simply passing more laws against guns. Educate people on the realities of violence; do some large-scale work on anger management. Japan, the UK, and Canada are less violent not because they regulate guns but because their cultures simply are less violent; people in these cultures are more skilled in controlling and managing their anger.

People in the U.S. need far more education on how to control their anger. If guns are banned, then angry Americans will go to using knives, baseball bats, and other weapons. To repeat a cliche: guns (knives, baseball bats, or other weapons) don't kill or maim people -- it is people who kill or maim other people. Americans need to learn this salient fact.

2. Educate people on gun safety (and safety with other weapons). The NRA has some programs to teach people on how to safely use guns. If more people received this sort of education on gun safety, there would be less fear of guns. There would also be more reponsible use of guns; there would be far less accidental shootings.

3. End the so-called "war on drugs." Legalize and regulate drugs in similar ways that alcohol is legal and regulated. Some of the biggest excuses for getting angry and opening fire are the drug gangs and organized cartels that battle each other over territory.

Back in the days when there was alcohol prohibition, there were alcohol gangs killing each other. In this day of drug prohibition, there are drug gangs killing each other. Prohibition didn't work for alcohol and it's not working for other drugs.

To sum up: one can pass a ton of anti-gun ordinances and the violence would still go on. People will either get illegal guns or resort to using other weapons.

We do have a 2nd Amendment to the Contitution that guarantees the right to bear arms. The Supreme Court recently has defined this right as an individual right. We need to stop fighting with the 2nd Amendment and take measures as I've outlined above.

The constitutional provision to bear arms is regulation. It provides legal avenue. Every law, court decision and policy regulation further defines the parameters and enables that right.

The purpose of highway laws is not to stop driving or transport over the highways. It is a massive complex of federal, state and local laws that allows for the planning, building, maintenance, operation and usage of highways.

The purpose of laws governing transmission of electricity across the nation are not in place so we have no transmission; it is to enable an activity within boundaries.

An activity that is not effectively enabled within solid parameters will ultimately destroy (e.g. financial services). At this point, it is the gun owners and NRA that most threaten the right to bear arms. Until they back reasonable regulation they face a backlash in which the right will be quickly and dramatically slashed.

"The constitutional provision to bear arms is regulation. It provides legal avenue. Every law, court decision and policy regulation further defines the parameters and enables that right."

A recent Supreme Court decision defined the right to bear arms, in the 2nd Amendment, as an individual right.

There are (and should be) reasonable limits. Anyone caught commiting crimes with guns should be arrested and prosecuted. Same with anyone using knives, baseball bats, or other weapons.

"Why are gun owners (most likely hunters) so worried about the loss of their guns?"

Because there are truly gun-phobic people around. In Washington D.C. ALL handguns were banned (not regulated) until the Supreme Court threw that law out on the grounds that it violated the 2nd Amendment.

There are some people (I read about them every day, even here) that believe that what the U.S. government needs to do is confiscate and ban guns, as they do in some other countries. These people believe that gun crime will magically disappear if guns are banned. Which is an illusion, a very simplistic "solution."

If all guns were confiscated and banned, then angry Americans would turn on each other with knives, baseball bats, or other weapons. What we need are solid educational programs that will help Americans learn how to control their anger without using guns, knives, baseball bats, or other weapons. For a person who respects the law, a gun may very well be the only line of self-defense.

I would add that we stop this odd worship of guns as evidenced in movies, music, TV, and the killing of cyber villains in video games. There's this "cool" factor to guns, when the fact is they simply aren't.

Thanks Roadie! Are you an Okie? Re: your comment about "ignorant"--lsomeone
has said, "Ignorance is curable. Stupidity is terminal." I'm of mixed mind
about gun control and second amendment. I don't think I'm stupid. Plead
guilty to ignorance on some issues.