Guns in wake of Virginia

[AZCEP]

Where exactly did you get the notion of getting more guns to people?

The statement was to not prevent those that wish to legally obtain them from doing so. The children that are killed are a combination of lack of supervision, and irresponsible behavior with the firearm. Many are also criminal activities. Obviously, not the ideal situation for a potentially lethal tool to be in, but we allow this same group into automobiles with equally inadequate supervision.

[MedicNorth]

I don't think that you can put automobiles and guns into the same category. An automobile has a specific purpose - that is to transport people and goods from one place to another. A gun, too, has a specific purpose - it is designed to kill things and people.

Stepping beyond semantics, don't people see that the culture that put so many firearms into the hands of its people is suffering as a result of it? The United States, with its "Right to Bear Arms" amendment, has an incredibly high violent crime rate, a disturbing level of gun-related crime, and a massive number of gun-related deaths - many more so than any other similar country with more stringent limits and controls.

These levels are so high, in fact, that more and more people are buying guns to protect themselves from the guys with guns, and the vicious circle continues.

I'm not sure if it is to the point that it can't be changed. Perhaps there are too many weapons out there, both legal and illegal, to put back the clock, even if there was a will to do so. Perhaps there is nothing wrong in the US that is related to guns. I think the statistics, regardless of how you use them, show differently. I wish you the best in solving the problems, because I can honestly say that I truly don't understand them, except as an outside foreign observer who has never owned, or even wanted to own, a gun.

[AZCEP]

The point being that if you are going to restrict access to one tool, you will need to further restrict all of the other ones also.

Once the precedent is set with the elimination of a constitutionally guaranteed right, where does it end? Nobody wants to give up the right to free speach or assembly, but so many are willing to give up this one. Why is that? What makes you think the government will stop there?

[Eydawn]

Keep in mind the CDC statistics are also skewed by including gang violence victims in the "children" category. All the 16 year old gangsters in California, etc who blow each other away are still technically children and get put in that category. Not just referencing the 10 year old sheltered suburban boys, or drive by victims... Not to invalidate the point, just adding some more context for it. Also, since you've got the reference right off the bat (North? Was that you that did that?), can we get the numbers for bike accidents, child poisonings, car accidents and other child accidental death? I actually just want to see those numbers out of curiosity.

Wendy

CO EMT-B

MI EMT-B

[MedicNorth]

but so many are willing to give up this one. Why is that? What makes you think the government will stop there?

I think the thing that will control the government is the concept that the people need to really WANT to control firearms and let them know about it. That way it is the people who are in control - it is not a bleeding heart politician making the move, it is people who are fed up and not willing to take it any more. Government policy changes that are forced on you lead to additional government interference and erosion of rights. Changes that are forced by the populace are different, and the government would not dare to infringe further.

People are often willing to give up freedoms in exchange for security - just look at what has happened in the States and other countries after 9-11. It doesn't mean rolling over and giving them all up. We have a very strong and comprehensive charter of rights in Canada, but we don't have the right to bear arms, especially concealed or sidearms. There haven't been, to my perception, any further erosions!

It isn't a simple solution, and there is no magic pill that will solve everything. Like everything else, all you can do is hope to improve things a bit at a time

[Michael]

[web:57230923ca]http://www.reason.com/news/show/119763.html[/web:57230923ca]

[MedicNorth]

Michael - you have the most amazing talent for throwing things into a perspective that is realistic. Is that practiced, or just a God given talent?

[scratrat]

The point being that if you are going to restrict access to one tool, you will need to further restrict all of the other ones also.

Once the precedent is set with the elimination of a constitutionally guaranteed right, where does it end? Nobody wants to give up the right to free speach or assembly, but so many are willing to give up this one. Why is that? What makes you think the government will stop there?

That was my point, only you voiced it much, much, better than I did..

[scratrat]

MEDICNORTH...

Here is my problem with your solution of cutting out guns, if that is in fact what I read. I noticed you said Canada does not allow gun ownership or at least sidearms. Here's my reasoning why I feel you should be afforded the right to bears, IF, and ONLY if you can prove you should, IE background checks, mental health facility checks like New Jersey does, and so on. Not just a safety course.

My grandfather gave me a German WWII P38 that he commandeered as captured enemy equipment. The army let him keep it. Anyway, I cleaned it and took it to the range to see if it still worked, and it did. It jammed every now and again, for reasons I'm not going to delve into right now. So I had this one gun locked at home and I still had ammunition for it, but I keep the gun away, since it's worth a lot. I had to tell you all that for this.

My wife woke me up and said someone was staring through our front window. I loaded the gun and went downstairs, unfortunately knowing it occasionally misfired or jammed. I checked everything out as best I could and left it at that. No, I do not have grandeurs of being a cop or being in a shoot out. I was protecting my family. So I called the non-emergency line for the police, since my wife was so freaked out. I knew the dispatcher, so I told her the story and asked to just send someone through the neighborhood for a check. Being in a small town at the time, we had one, count one, officer on duty at the time. I found out the next day, from the dispatcher, that the female officer waited for well over 2 hours before doing a driveby, because "I don't want to go alone". So she waited for another officer to come on shift. I went that day for apply to purchase a new gun. One that wouldn't misfire. So what happens when that person opens the window, and climbs in? What happens when that officer is too scared to help? I am supposed to just roll over and hope to God someone shows up to save me and my family? I've got 3 kids that are my world, and I'll be damned if I'm ever going to stand by while they are harmed.

Next story, I now live in Florida outside the city limits. This means where are covered by the county sheriff. My wife called for an aggressive dog that climbed INTO our minivan and almost bite my child. She fended it off with a PVC pipe. Know how long she waited for ANYONE including animal control and the sheriff? 8 hours. 8 hours and numerous phone calls. I understand that animal control is not the sheriff's duty, however, when it threatens the public, it now becomes their job. They were too busy was the answer. This doesn't illustrate the gun point, although rest assured that if it did bite my child, I wouldn't think twice about putting a bullet in it. This is more of a 'see how long the police can take' point. And for all the cops, I'm not flaming you either. I understand your job and what comes first. But 8 hours?

So, MEDICNORTH, I'm not trying to flame you or anyone else. But honestly, what am I going to do? Not protect my family? What happens when someone breaks in and threatens my family? These two cases illustrate my point. What happens when I call and "they are too busy"? Have this ever happened to you? Has anyone ever broken into your home, and you've had to wait in excess for police? Granted, my house wasn't actually broken in to, but it could have been. Or the guy could have returned or went to a different house since the police never bothered to investigate my concerns.

That being said, I own a 40 caliber handgun that I use at the range, and as my home protection.

I do NOT believe that ANYONE deserves the right to own things such as, AK-47, AR-15 (or at least the ones that are automatic and high capacity magazines), and so on. No one should be allowed to purchase these types of rifles. I know that in New Jersey, I believe, that maximum numbers of rounds for a rifle is 6, and 12 for a handguns. My gun holds 12 rounds. I'd be more than happy to lower that to 4 or 6 or whatever. At least 4 rounds to ensure I hit the target in question. I think some of these NRA freaks are out of control. There are certain weapons that have no place in this world, save those for police and military.

The problem is the gun sales. They may check NCIC, but that shows criminal history, I don't believe it shows mental health, although I could be wrong. I know that in New Jersey, they check all hospitals and out patient clinics within X miles from your current, and previous addresses. If you have ever been admitted for a mental disease of any kind, guess what? No gun. No, that doesn't mean that they can't go acquire illegally. But something needs to be done on that aspect to. I just don't know what. I know banning sales altogether, is not the answer,.

[Scaramedic]

A cute but weird story to lighten up the thread a bit.

Grandma's gotta gun.

Peace,

Marty