CDZ Fear and guns....a discussion.

[Luddly Neddite]

CDZ is not my strong point but I would say they are Gun-a-phobic.
Its not gun owners they are afraid at least not directly. They fear the gun, it is just a man made object with no ability to arm or fire itself.
And in many cases just the sight of one sets them off kind of like mice or spiders.

I only put this here because it gets old when the anti 2nd Amendment types start talking about the male sex organ....I thought at least here they won't be able to get that childish........I am betting they don't post on this...

Truth hurts, huh.

Its true that those who carry guns all the time are afraid. Its also true that they are using guns to make up for the courage (call it balls/penis, if you like) they lack.

That's why they make up lies about President Obama, "gun grabbers" and "anti2nd Amendment".

 

[2aguy]

" If not for the knee-jerk reaction of these people we could address the problem of gun violence in exactly the same way we deal with other health threats..." Your words. What is it you do not understand, you stated what the issue is and now you are going to play dumb, as if I brought this up? That is disingenuous at best.

Now, state your case that pertains to the issue YOU defined.

OK. Forgive me, I found your initial post to be incomprehensible. You referred to "it" without defining what "it" was. Then you said:

"If you, truely want to "...address the problem of gun violence in exactly the same way we deal with other health threats..." then address it already. Otherwise you are wasting everyone's time."

I have no idea what this is supposed to mean. My initial statement was:

"exactly the same way we deal with other health threats, automotive death, smoking, workplace safety."

What do you expect me to do? I was referring to "we", meaning American society. We address the problem of gun violence deaths differently than we do any other major cause of death. There have been many controversies in automotive safety, but nothing like the barrage of absolute obstructionism that greets any and all attempts to deal with the problem of gun deaths.

At the beginning of this thread I posted a partial list of absurdities, which elicited no reaction except something about liberals suppressing Christian faith healing, which was a surefire way to cure mental illness.

CDZ - Fear and guns....a discussion.

What do you expect me to do?

Define, exactly, how "we" should go about addressing the issue.

"We" implies public policy. Public policy is a process of dealing with problems. Step one, is there a problem? I say, yes. There is a problem. The problem is the disproportionate number of US citizens who meet their end through the use of firearms, as compared to other countries.

Now, of course, there are many who deny the value of the rest of the world. Who deny the existence of soft power. Who are threatened by globalization and the ever increasing diversity that such a trend creates in modern societies. I am sorry for their anxiety, but I can't share it. The rest of the world is important and soft power is power. Anything that diminishes it makes us less safe and less prosperous.

There are, of course, many other problems, many factors which go into driving our gun death numbers up. They must be examined and dealt with individually. The spectacular, headline grabbing deaths aren't important, in the overall picture, even though they are, of course, individual tragedies. The main cause of gun death numbers are suicide and inner city violence. That is where we need to concentrate our efforts. There is no reason not to treat these deaths exactly as we treat any others. We should employ the flawed process of marshaling our experts and trying to come up with solutions. Flawed, but it has worked many, many times. Unleash the brain trust and they'll give you an A bomb, or the internet.

So, as I read it, and correct me if I am wrong, but the problem is that there are more gun-related deaths, per capita, in the U.S. than other, I assume industrialized, countries. If this is correct, do you have verifiable statistics that one could reveiw to support such a claim? Furthermore, are you simply attempting to define the problem, loosly, or are you working towards accually addressing it? If you mean to address it, how would you go about it? If you are simply attempting to define the problem, then I would argue that you have done a respectable job, considering the other "attempts" I have seen, of doing so. However, The definition of the problem you present, IMO, still falls short. The problem, IMO, is not the deaths (though tragic), it is why the deaths are occuring. That, my freind, is the real problem. A problem which I am wholly unprepared, and unqualified to define, much less discuss. I have theories, but nothing to substantiate them other than my own, subjective, observations. This is the area that I beleive needs to be defined, studied and addressed.

It is not the guns that are the problem, it is the people using them. Until we, as a "global" society accept this fact and address it properly, the problem will persist, and may indeed become worse.

Here is an example to clearly define what I mean:

• A person goes to the doctor because they are ill. The doctor, through various tests, determines that the person is dying. They go about treating the symptoms of the ailment, without really discovering what the illness is, and tell the patient, "At least we are doing something."
• Same person goes to a different doctor and, through further testing, it is determined they are dying of cancer. This second doctor defines, in detail, what the illness is, ie lung cancer. They then go about treating the specific type of cancer discovered. Wouldn't you know, the patient, through thourogh investigation/study, and proper treatment, gets better.

Which senario do you think is better? Which senario do you think is being modeled in the "gun debate"?

"So, as I read it, and correct me if I am wrong, but the problem is that there are more gun-related deaths, per capita, in the U.S. than other, I assume industrialized, countries."

It's not a question of fact, it's a matter of gossip. Countries are terrible gossips. And what do they whisper about us? "Wild Wild West". Uncivilized.

U.S. Gun Policy: Global Comparisons

As for the rest, well, I have no specifics to offer you. I agree that dealing with symptoms is pointless. I am not at all sure how the role guns play in suicides should be characterized, a symptom or part of the disease. I've certainly read opinions that the easy availability of firearms contributes to suicide rates. That seems self-evident to me, but I am more than willing to submit the proposition to analysis by experts, flawed though they may be. I was glad to find that the CDC had discovered information which seemed to support the idea of firearms being useful for home and personal security. You never know what you'll find before the study is conducted.

You do realize that Japan, South Korea and China…have almost 0 access to guns for their citizens, and yet their suicide rate is far higher than ours…right? And even countries in Europe with less access to guns than we have have higher rates of suicide than we do….right?

And as the one article I posted pointed out…..gun crime is not a disease, and treating it as such does not help solve the problem or help study it.

 

[2aguy]

CDZ is not my strong point but I would say they are Gun-a-phobic.
Its not gun owners they are afraid at least not directly. They fear the gun, it is just a man made object with no ability to arm or fire itself.
And in many cases just the sight of one sets them off kind of like mice or spiders.

I only put this here because it gets old when the anti 2nd Amendment types start talking about the male sex organ....I thought at least here they won't be able to get that childish........I am betting they don't post on this...

Truth hurts, huh.

Its true that those who carry guns all the time are afraid. Its also true that they are using guns to make up for the courage (call it balls/penis, if you like) they lack.

That's why they make up lies about President Obama, "gun grabbers" and "anti2nd Amendment".

Wrong…fear has nothing to do with it. Understanding and rational thought do. Are we likely, most of us, to be a victim of a crime? No. Are people every single day victims of violent crimes? Yes. Do we know if on any particular day we will be a victim of a life changing crime? No. Does carrying a gun offer a chance at keeping that crime from changing our lives if we happen to be a victim? Yes.

This is fear…..2-3 AR-15s, maybe are used each year to commit any form of crime…….so therefore you demand that all 3,750,000 of them be banned from private ownership.

That is fear of an object that is not used to harm anyone or to commit crimes.

 

[2aguy]

CDZ is not my strong point but I would say they are Gun-a-phobic.
Its not gun owners they are afraid at least not directly. They fear the gun, it is just a man made object with no ability to arm or fire itself.
And in many cases just the sight of one sets them off kind of like mice or spiders.

I only put this here because it gets old when the anti 2nd Amendment types start talking about the male sex organ....I thought at least here they won't be able to get that childish........I am betting they don't post on this...

Truth hurts, huh.

Its true that those who carry guns all the time are afraid. Its also true that they are using guns to make up for the courage (call it balls/penis, if you like) they lack.

That's why they make up lies about President Obama, "gun grabbers" and "anti2nd Amendment".

This is fear. There are over 357, 000,000 million guns in private hands. There were a total of 505 accidental gun deaths in 2013……demanding based on those numbers that all guns be banned and and only the police and military have access to them….that is fear.

 

[ChrisL]

" If not for the knee-jerk reaction of these people we could address the problem of gun violence in exactly the same way we deal with other health threats..." Your words. What is it you do not understand, you stated what the issue is and now you are going to play dumb, as if I brought this up? That is disingenuous at best.

Now, state your case that pertains to the issue YOU defined.

OK. Forgive me, I found your initial post to be incomprehensible. You referred to "it" without defining what "it" was. Then you said:

"If you, truely want to "...address the problem of gun violence in exactly the same way we deal with other health threats..." then address it already. Otherwise you are wasting everyone's time."

I have no idea what this is supposed to mean. My initial statement was:

"exactly the same way we deal with other health threats, automotive death, smoking, workplace safety."

What do you expect me to do? I was referring to "we", meaning American society. We address the problem of gun violence deaths differently than we do any other major cause of death. There have been many controversies in automotive safety, but nothing like the barrage of absolute obstructionism that greets any and all attempts to deal with the problem of gun deaths.

At the beginning of this thread I posted a partial list of absurdities, which elicited no reaction except something about liberals suppressing Christian faith healing, which was a surefire way to cure mental illness.

CDZ - Fear and guns....a discussion.

What do you expect me to do?

Define, exactly, how "we" should go about addressing the issue.

"We" implies public policy. Public policy is a process of dealing with problems. Step one, is there a problem? I say, yes. There is a problem. The problem is the disproportionate number of US citizens who meet their end through the use of firearms, as compared to other countries.

Now, of course, there are many who deny the value of the rest of the world. Who deny the existence of soft power. Who are threatened by globalization and the ever increasing diversity that such a trend creates in modern societies. I am sorry for their anxiety, but I can't share it. The rest of the world is important and soft power is power. Anything that diminishes it makes us less safe and less prosperous.

There are, of course, many other problems, many factors which go into driving our gun death numbers up. They must be examined and dealt with individually. The spectacular, headline grabbing deaths aren't important, in the overall picture, even though they are, of course, individual tragedies. The main cause of gun death numbers are suicide and inner city violence. That is where we need to concentrate our efforts. There is no reason not to treat these deaths exactly as we treat any others. We should employ the flawed process of marshaling our experts and trying to come up with solutions. Flawed, but it has worked many, many times. Unleash the brain trust and they'll give you an A bomb, or the internet.

So, as I read it, and correct me if I am wrong, but the problem is that there are more gun-related deaths, per capita, in the U.S. than other, I assume industrialized, countries. If this is correct, do you have verifiable statistics that one could reveiw to support such a claim? Furthermore, are you simply attempting to define the problem, loosly, or are you working towards accually addressing it? If you mean to address it, how would you go about it? If you are simply attempting to define the problem, then I would argue that you have done a respectable job, considering the other "attempts" I have seen, of doing so. However, The definition of the problem you present, IMO, still falls short. The problem, IMO, is not the deaths (though tragic), it is why the deaths are occuring. That, my freind, is the real problem. A problem which I am wholly unprepared, and unqualified to define, much less discuss. I have theories, but nothing to substantiate them other than my own, subjective, observations. This is the area that I beleive needs to be defined, studied and addressed.

It is not the guns that are the problem, it is the people using them. Until we, as a "global" society accept this fact and address it properly, the problem will persist, and may indeed become worse.

Here is an example to clearly define what I mean:

• A person goes to the doctor because they are ill. The doctor, through various tests, determines that the person is dying. They go about treating the symptoms of the ailment, without really discovering what the illness is, and tell the patient, "At least we are doing something."
• Same person goes to a different doctor and, through further testing, it is determined they are dying of cancer. This second doctor defines, in detail, what the illness is, ie lung cancer. They then go about treating the specific type of cancer discovered. Wouldn't you know, the patient, through thourogh investigation/study, and proper treatment, gets better.

Which senario do you think is better? Which senario do you think is being modeled in the "gun debate"?

"So, as I read it, and correct me if I am wrong, but the problem is that there are more gun-related deaths, per capita, in the U.S. than other, I assume industrialized, countries."

It's not a question of fact, it's a matter of gossip. Countries are terrible gossips. And what do they whisper about us? "Wild Wild West". Uncivilized.

U.S. Gun Policy: Global Comparisons

As for the rest, well, I have no specifics to offer you. I agree that dealing with symptoms is pointless. I am not at all sure how the role guns play in suicides should be characterized, a symptom or part of the disease. I've certainly read opinions that the easy availability of firearms contributes to suicide rates. That seems self-evident to me, but I am more than willing to submit the proposition to analysis by experts, flawed though they may be. I was glad to find that the CDC had discovered information which seemed to support the idea of firearms being useful for home and personal security. You never know what you'll find before the study is conducted.

As to the first part of your post, who cares?

The last paragraph, now you are blaming guns for people committing suicide? It was the gun's fault or the gun was just a convenient tool at the time, and if the gun hadn't been there, they would have used another tool to accomplish their goal?

Just because some people are mentally ill, is no reason that the rest of us should have the government infringing upon our rights.

 

[Luddly Neddite]

CDZ is not my strong point but I would say they are Gun-a-phobic.
Its not gun owners they are afraid at least not directly. They fear the gun, it is just a man made object with no ability to arm or fire itself.
And in many cases just the sight of one sets them off kind of like mice or spiders.

I only put this here because it gets old when the anti 2nd Amendment types start talking about the male sex organ....I thought at least here they won't be able to get that childish........I am betting they don't post on this...

Truth hurts, huh.

Its true that those who carry guns all the time are afraid. Its also true that they are using guns to make up for the courage (call it balls/penis, if you like) they lack.

That's why they make up lies about President Obama, "gun grabbers" and "anti2nd Amendment".

Wrong…fear has nothing to do with it. Understanding and rational thought do. Are we likely, most of us, to be a victim of a crime? No. Are people every single day victims of violent crimes? Yes. Do we know if on any particular day we will be a victim of a life changing crime? No. Does carrying a gun offer a chance at keeping that crime from changing our lives if we happen to be a victim? Yes.

This is fear…..2-3 AR-15s, maybe are used each year to commit any form of crime…….so therefore you demand that all 3,750,000 of them be banned from private ownership.

That is fear of an object that is not used to harm anyone or to commit crimes.

I have no fear of an inanimate object and have never heard of anyone being afraid of an inanimate object.

Its the Mighty Mouse froot loop behind the gun we should (fear is too strong a word) be aware of and avoid.

If I see a hero-wannabe froot loop carrying a gun, I will always call the police and vacate the area. That's simply the smart thing to do.

 

[LTCArmyRet]

this is in the CDZ because it gets a little old when some start talking sex organs and guns.....

soooo....

We are constantly told that if you carry a gun you are afraid.

Is this true.

No.

Carrying a gun for self defense is a rational response to the reality that even though I know where I live is ver safe, there are still criminals out there and that you never know when one will target you. These things happen every day, in every state, in every country.

How much fear goes into carrying a gun...for me....there is about as much emotion to carrying a gun as there is carrying my cell phone.

Now....the other side...the one that is constantly accusing my side of being afraid.....I believe that fear is what they feel....especially about guns. The don't like people, but they hate guns in the hands of people.

For example.

There are over 3,700,000 AR-15s in private hands in this country.

Each year maybe, maybe, 2-3 are used in any type of crime or even a mass shooting.

With those numbers, those who I believe fear guns want all AR-15s banned from private hands. To me, that is real fear. The numbers show that the odds of being a victim of a violent attack by an attacker with an AR-15 are so remote...you would actually have more of a chance of running into Big Foot and Elvis having Lunch with Aliens.....

And yet, they call for all AR-15s and other rifles like it to be completely banned.

And yet even if AR-15s are completely banned, there is not one crime that is committed on those rare occasions where an AR-15 is used that cannot be done to the same effect with a pistol, shot gun or other rifle or a combination of those......

Yet we are called scaredy cats for wearing a gun like we wear a cell phone or buckle our seat belts.

To a rational person....who sounds more afraid of guns...who sounds more filled with actual fear...?

ALL GUNS ARE WRONG IN A CIVILIZED SOCIETY

So you would argue that a communist society IS a "civilized society?"

Australia...IS

You do know the crime rate is UP since you went to single shots. Oh and the ILLEGAL importation of firearms by and to criminals is also up.

As says your discredited NRA who were kicked out of Australia years ago as UNDESIREABLES ........ after the buy back the crime rate with Guns went down.so your point was ???? steve

AUSTRALIA: MORE VIOLENT CRIME DESPITE GUN BAN

AUSTRALIA: MORE VIOLENT CRIME DESPITE GUN BAN
April 13, 2009

It is a common fantasy that gun bans make society safer. In 2002 -- five years after enacting its gun ban -- the Australian Bureau of Criminology acknowledged there is no correlation between gun control and the use of firearms in violent crime. In fact, the percent of murders committed with a firearm was the highest it had ever been in 2006 (16.3 percent), says the D.C. Examiner.

Even Australia's Bureau of Crime Statistics and Research acknowledges that the gun ban had no significant impact on the amount of gun-involved crime:

• In 2006, assault rose 49.2 percent and robbery 6.2 percent.
• Sexual assault -- Australia's equivalent term for rape -- increased 29.9 percent.
• Overall, Australia's violent crime rate rose 42.2 percent.

- See more at: AUSTRALIA: MORE VIOLENT CRIME DESPITE GUN BAN


YOU WERE SAYING???

 

[2aguy]

CDZ is not my strong point but I would say they are Gun-a-phobic.
Its not gun owners they are afraid at least not directly. They fear the gun, it is just a man made object with no ability to arm or fire itself.
And in many cases just the sight of one sets them off kind of like mice or spiders.

I only put this here because it gets old when the anti 2nd Amendment types start talking about the male sex organ....I thought at least here they won't be able to get that childish........I am betting they don't post on this...

Truth hurts, huh.

Its true that those who carry guns all the time are afraid. Its also true that they are using guns to make up for the courage (call it balls/penis, if you like) they lack.

That's why they make up lies about President Obama, "gun grabbers" and "anti2nd Amendment".

Wrong…fear has nothing to do with it. Understanding and rational thought do. Are we likely, most of us, to be a victim of a crime? No. Are people every single day victims of violent crimes? Yes. Do we know if on any particular day we will be a victim of a life changing crime? No. Does carrying a gun offer a chance at keeping that crime from changing our lives if we happen to be a victim? Yes.

This is fear…..2-3 AR-15s, maybe are used each year to commit any form of crime…….so therefore you demand that all 3,750,000 of them be banned from private ownership.

That is fear of an object that is not used to harm anyone or to commit crimes.

I have no fear of an inanimate object and have never heard of anyone being afraid of an inanimate object.

Its the Mighty Mouse froot loop behind the gun we should (fear is too strong a word) be aware of and avoid.

If I see a hero-wannabe froot loop carrying a gun, I will always call the police and vacate the area. That's simply the smart thing to do.

Yes…..over 357 million guns in private hands……and less than 8,124 guns were used to commit murder…murder committed by criminals, violent criminals with long histories of violence and crime…murdering other criminals….that leaves about 356,991,876 million guns in the hands of normal gun owners who commit no crimes, hurt no one…

So no, you shouldn't fear normal gun owners……they don't commit crimes….fear the criminal sub culture created by democrat policies….they actually commit crimes….

 

[ChrisL]

CDZ is not my strong point but I would say they are Gun-a-phobic.
Its not gun owners they are afraid at least not directly. They fear the gun, it is just a man made object with no ability to arm or fire itself.
And in many cases just the sight of one sets them off kind of like mice or spiders.

I only put this here because it gets old when the anti 2nd Amendment types start talking about the male sex organ....I thought at least here they won't be able to get that childish........I am betting they don't post on this...

Truth hurts, huh.

Its true that those who carry guns all the time are afraid. Its also true that they are using guns to make up for the courage (call it balls/penis, if you like) they lack.

That's why they make up lies about President Obama, "gun grabbers" and "anti2nd Amendment".

Wrong…fear has nothing to do with it. Understanding and rational thought do. Are we likely, most of us, to be a victim of a crime? No. Are people every single day victims of violent crimes? Yes. Do we know if on any particular day we will be a victim of a life changing crime? No. Does carrying a gun offer a chance at keeping that crime from changing our lives if we happen to be a victim? Yes.

This is fear…..2-3 AR-15s, maybe are used each year to commit any form of crime…….so therefore you demand that all 3,750,000 of them be banned from private ownership.

That is fear of an object that is not used to harm anyone or to commit crimes.

I have no fear of an inanimate object and have never heard of anyone being afraid of an inanimate object.

Its the Mighty Mouse froot loop behind the gun we should (fear is too strong a word) be aware of and avoid.

If I see a hero-wannabe froot loop carrying a gun, I will always call the police and vacate the area. That's simply the smart thing to do.

And how often have you experienced this phenomenon?

 

[oldsoul]

" If not for the knee-jerk reaction of these people we could address the problem of gun violence in exactly the same way we deal with other health threats..." Your words. What is it you do not understand, you stated what the issue is and now you are going to play dumb, as if I brought this up? That is disingenuous at best.

Now, state your case that pertains to the issue YOU defined.

OK. Forgive me, I found your initial post to be incomprehensible. You referred to "it" without defining what "it" was. Then you said:

"If you, truely want to "...address the problem of gun violence in exactly the same way we deal with other health threats..." then address it already. Otherwise you are wasting everyone's time."

I have no idea what this is supposed to mean. My initial statement was:

"exactly the same way we deal with other health threats, automotive death, smoking, workplace safety."

What do you expect me to do? I was referring to "we", meaning American society. We address the problem of gun violence deaths differently than we do any other major cause of death. There have been many controversies in automotive safety, but nothing like the barrage of absolute obstructionism that greets any and all attempts to deal with the problem of gun deaths.

At the beginning of this thread I posted a partial list of absurdities, which elicited no reaction except something about liberals suppressing Christian faith healing, which was a surefire way to cure mental illness.

CDZ - Fear and guns....a discussion.

What do you expect me to do?

Define, exactly, how "we" should go about addressing the issue.

"We" implies public policy. Public policy is a process of dealing with problems. Step one, is there a problem? I say, yes. There is a problem. The problem is the disproportionate number of US citizens who meet their end through the use of firearms, as compared to other countries.

Now, of course, there are many who deny the value of the rest of the world. Who deny the existence of soft power. Who are threatened by globalization and the ever increasing diversity that such a trend creates in modern societies. I am sorry for their anxiety, but I can't share it. The rest of the world is important and soft power is power. Anything that diminishes it makes us less safe and less prosperous.

There are, of course, many other problems, many factors which go into driving our gun death numbers up. They must be examined and dealt with individually. The spectacular, headline grabbing deaths aren't important, in the overall picture, even though they are, of course, individual tragedies. The main cause of gun death numbers are suicide and inner city violence. That is where we need to concentrate our efforts. There is no reason not to treat these deaths exactly as we treat any others. We should employ the flawed process of marshaling our experts and trying to come up with solutions. Flawed, but it has worked many, many times. Unleash the brain trust and they'll give you an A bomb, or the internet.

So, as I read it, and correct me if I am wrong, but the problem is that there are more gun-related deaths, per capita, in the U.S. than other, I assume industrialized, countries. If this is correct, do you have verifiable statistics that one could reveiw to support such a claim? Furthermore, are you simply attempting to define the problem, loosly, or are you working towards accually addressing it? If you mean to address it, how would you go about it? If you are simply attempting to define the problem, then I would argue that you have done a respectable job, considering the other "attempts" I have seen, of doing so. However, The definition of the problem you present, IMO, still falls short. The problem, IMO, is not the deaths (though tragic), it is why the deaths are occuring. That, my freind, is the real problem. A problem which I am wholly unprepared, and unqualified to define, much less discuss. I have theories, but nothing to substantiate them other than my own, subjective, observations. This is the area that I beleive needs to be defined, studied and addressed.

It is not the guns that are the problem, it is the people using them. Until we, as a "global" society accept this fact and address it properly, the problem will persist, and may indeed become worse.

Here is an example to clearly define what I mean:

• A person goes to the doctor because they are ill. The doctor, through various tests, determines that the person is dying. They go about treating the symptoms of the ailment, without really discovering what the illness is, and tell the patient, "At least we are doing something."
• Same person goes to a different doctor and, through further testing, it is determined they are dying of cancer. This second doctor defines, in detail, what the illness is, ie lung cancer. They then go about treating the specific type of cancer discovered. Wouldn't you know, the patient, through thourogh investigation/study, and proper treatment, gets better.

Which senario do you think is better? Which senario do you think is being modeled in the "gun debate"?

"So, as I read it, and correct me if I am wrong, but the problem is that there are more gun-related deaths, per capita, in the U.S. than other, I assume industrialized, countries."

It's not a question of fact, it's a matter of gossip. Countries are terrible gossips. And what do they whisper about us? "Wild Wild West". Uncivilized.

U.S. Gun Policy: Global Comparisons

As for the rest, well, I have no specifics to offer you. I agree that dealing with symptoms is pointless. I am not at all sure how the role guns play in suicides should be characterized, a symptom or part of the disease. I've certainly read opinions that the easy availability of firearms contributes to suicide rates. That seems self-evident to me, but I am more than willing to submit the proposition to analysis by experts, flawed though they may be. I was glad to find that the CDC had discovered information which seemed to support the idea of firearms being useful for home and personal security. You never know what you'll find before the study is conducted.

Are you suggesting then that we (the US) should "do something" about gun-related deaths because of what other countries MAY be saying about us? If so, then I see no further point in this discussion. Please tell me I am mistaken...

 

[oldsoul]

CDZ is not my strong point but I would say they are Gun-a-phobic.
Its not gun owners they are afraid at least not directly. They fear the gun, it is just a man made object with no ability to arm or fire itself.
And in many cases just the sight of one sets them off kind of like mice or spiders.

I only put this here because it gets old when the anti 2nd Amendment types start talking about the male sex organ....I thought at least here they won't be able to get that childish........I am betting they don't post on this...

Truth hurts, huh.

Its true that those who carry guns all the time are afraid. Its also true that they are using guns to make up for the courage (call it balls/penis, if you like) they lack.

That's why they make up lies about President Obama, "gun grabbers" and "anti2nd Amendment".

Wrong…fear has nothing to do with it. Understanding and rational thought do. Are we likely, most of us, to be a victim of a crime? No. Are people every single day victims of violent crimes? Yes. Do we know if on any particular day we will be a victim of a life changing crime? No. Does carrying a gun offer a chance at keeping that crime from changing our lives if we happen to be a victim? Yes.

This is fear…..2-3 AR-15s, maybe are used each year to commit any form of crime…….so therefore you demand that all 3,750,000 of them be banned from private ownership.

That is fear of an object that is not used to harm anyone or to commit crimes.

I have no fear of an inanimate object and have never heard of anyone being afraid of an inanimate object.

Its the Mighty Mouse froot loop behind the gun we should (fear is too strong a word) be aware of and avoid.

If I see a hero-wannabe froot loop carrying a gun, I will always call the police and vacate the area. That's simply the smart thing to do.

See post below. Respond if you care to have a rational discussion on the topic there-in.

I guess I am coming to this debate a little late. However, consider this:
If carrying a gun at all times makes me a fearful person, then I guess wearing my seat belt every time I ride in a car makes me just as fearfull. I mean really, we wear seatbelts all the time because we don't know when something will happen, and we know we will not have time to put it on once an accident is imminent. Likewise, one may carry a gun every time they leave their home because one never knows when or where a criminal may attack us, and we also know that the criminal will not allow us the time to run home to get our gun so we can defend ourselves. Someone, anyone, please explain to me and the rest of the rational world what the difference is.


Note: I do not expect a rational response to this, suprise me, and shock the world with one.....

 

[Elvis Obama]

OK. Forgive me, I found your initial post to be incomprehensible. You referred to "it" without defining what "it" was. Then you said:

"If you, truely want to "...address the problem of gun violence in exactly the same way we deal with other health threats..." then address it already. Otherwise you are wasting everyone's time."

I have no idea what this is supposed to mean. My initial statement was:

"exactly the same way we deal with other health threats, automotive death, smoking, workplace safety."

What do you expect me to do? I was referring to "we", meaning American society. We address the problem of gun violence deaths differently than we do any other major cause of death. There have been many controversies in automotive safety, but nothing like the barrage of absolute obstructionism that greets any and all attempts to deal with the problem of gun deaths.

At the beginning of this thread I posted a partial list of absurdities, which elicited no reaction except something about liberals suppressing Christian faith healing, which was a surefire way to cure mental illness.

CDZ - Fear and guns....a discussion.

What do you expect me to do?

Define, exactly, how "we" should go about addressing the issue.

"We" implies public policy. Public policy is a process of dealing with problems. Step one, is there a problem? I say, yes. There is a problem. The problem is the disproportionate number of US citizens who meet their end through the use of firearms, as compared to other countries.

Now, of course, there are many who deny the value of the rest of the world. Who deny the existence of soft power. Who are threatened by globalization and the ever increasing diversity that such a trend creates in modern societies. I am sorry for their anxiety, but I can't share it. The rest of the world is important and soft power is power. Anything that diminishes it makes us less safe and less prosperous.

There are, of course, many other problems, many factors which go into driving our gun death numbers up. They must be examined and dealt with individually. The spectacular, headline grabbing deaths aren't important, in the overall picture, even though they are, of course, individual tragedies. The main cause of gun death numbers are suicide and inner city violence. That is where we need to concentrate our efforts. There is no reason not to treat these deaths exactly as we treat any others. We should employ the flawed process of marshaling our experts and trying to come up with solutions. Flawed, but it has worked many, many times. Unleash the brain trust and they'll give you an A bomb, or the internet.

So, as I read it, and correct me if I am wrong, but the problem is that there are more gun-related deaths, per capita, in the U.S. than other, I assume industrialized, countries. If this is correct, do you have verifiable statistics that one could reveiw to support such a claim? Furthermore, are you simply attempting to define the problem, loosly, or are you working towards accually addressing it? If you mean to address it, how would you go about it? If you are simply attempting to define the problem, then I would argue that you have done a respectable job, considering the other "attempts" I have seen, of doing so. However, The definition of the problem you present, IMO, still falls short. The problem, IMO, is not the deaths (though tragic), it is why the deaths are occuring. That, my freind, is the real problem. A problem which I am wholly unprepared, and unqualified to define, much less discuss. I have theories, but nothing to substantiate them other than my own, subjective, observations. This is the area that I beleive needs to be defined, studied and addressed.

It is not the guns that are the problem, it is the people using them. Until we, as a "global" society accept this fact and address it properly, the problem will persist, and may indeed become worse.

Here is an example to clearly define what I mean:

• A person goes to the doctor because they are ill. The doctor, through various tests, determines that the person is dying. They go about treating the symptoms of the ailment, without really discovering what the illness is, and tell the patient, "At least we are doing something."
• Same person goes to a different doctor and, through further testing, it is determined they are dying of cancer. This second doctor defines, in detail, what the illness is, ie lung cancer. They then go about treating the specific type of cancer discovered. Wouldn't you know, the patient, through thourogh investigation/study, and proper treatment, gets better.

Which senario do you think is better? Which senario do you think is being modeled in the "gun debate"?

"So, as I read it, and correct me if I am wrong, but the problem is that there are more gun-related deaths, per capita, in the U.S. than other, I assume industrialized, countries."

It's not a question of fact, it's a matter of gossip. Countries are terrible gossips. And what do they whisper about us? "Wild Wild West". Uncivilized.

U.S. Gun Policy: Global Comparisons

As for the rest, well, I have no specifics to offer you. I agree that dealing with symptoms is pointless. I am not at all sure how the role guns play in suicides should be characterized, a symptom or part of the disease. I've certainly read opinions that the easy availability of firearms contributes to suicide rates. That seems self-evident to me, but I am more than willing to submit the proposition to analysis by experts, flawed though they may be. I was glad to find that the CDC had discovered information which seemed to support the idea of firearms being useful for home and personal security. You never know what you'll find before the study is conducted.

Are you suggesting then that we (the US) should "do something" about gun-related deaths because of what other countries MAY be saying about us? If so, then I see no further point in this discussion. Please tell me I am mistaken...

Nope. What I am saying is that a discussion is impossible when people are discussing different subjects. I have yet to see a gun related thread where people didn't talk past each other.

I defined 1 (one) problem. It is one of the least prominent problems related to gun deaths. I consider it important. Some people are motivated by baby brains splattered on a bedroom wall by some stray bullet in Chicago. Not statistically relevant, perhaps, but it does get some people's attention.

No, what I am saying is that a discussion is impossible unless there is first an agreement on the subject. Is there a problem? I have said yes, and made a quickie statement of the problem. There are many facets and many other problems attendant to that central problem. Loss of soft power is, as I have said, something that "gun enthusiasts" frequently dismiss. No point in discussing soft power with people who deny the concept is valid. I regard it as valid.

This is where you get to say whether or not you think there is a problem.

 

[oldsoul]

Define, exactly, how "we" should go about addressing the issue.

"We" implies public policy. Public policy is a process of dealing with problems. Step one, is there a problem? I say, yes. There is a problem. The problem is the disproportionate number of US citizens who meet their end through the use of firearms, as compared to other countries.

Now, of course, there are many who deny the value of the rest of the world. Who deny the existence of soft power. Who are threatened by globalization and the ever increasing diversity that such a trend creates in modern societies. I am sorry for their anxiety, but I can't share it. The rest of the world is important and soft power is power. Anything that diminishes it makes us less safe and less prosperous.

There are, of course, many other problems, many factors which go into driving our gun death numbers up. They must be examined and dealt with individually. The spectacular, headline grabbing deaths aren't important, in the overall picture, even though they are, of course, individual tragedies. The main cause of gun death numbers are suicide and inner city violence. That is where we need to concentrate our efforts. There is no reason not to treat these deaths exactly as we treat any others. We should employ the flawed process of marshaling our experts and trying to come up with solutions. Flawed, but it has worked many, many times. Unleash the brain trust and they'll give you an A bomb, or the internet.

So, as I read it, and correct me if I am wrong, but the problem is that there are more gun-related deaths, per capita, in the U.S. than other, I assume industrialized, countries. If this is correct, do you have verifiable statistics that one could reveiw to support such a claim? Furthermore, are you simply attempting to define the problem, loosly, or are you working towards accually addressing it? If you mean to address it, how would you go about it? If you are simply attempting to define the problem, then I would argue that you have done a respectable job, considering the other "attempts" I have seen, of doing so. However, The definition of the problem you present, IMO, still falls short. The problem, IMO, is not the deaths (though tragic), it is why the deaths are occuring. That, my freind, is the real problem. A problem which I am wholly unprepared, and unqualified to define, much less discuss. I have theories, but nothing to substantiate them other than my own, subjective, observations. This is the area that I beleive needs to be defined, studied and addressed.

It is not the guns that are the problem, it is the people using them. Until we, as a "global" society accept this fact and address it properly, the problem will persist, and may indeed become worse.

Here is an example to clearly define what I mean:

• A person goes to the doctor because they are ill. The doctor, through various tests, determines that the person is dying. They go about treating the symptoms of the ailment, without really discovering what the illness is, and tell the patient, "At least we are doing something."
• Same person goes to a different doctor and, through further testing, it is determined they are dying of cancer. This second doctor defines, in detail, what the illness is, ie lung cancer. They then go about treating the specific type of cancer discovered. Wouldn't you know, the patient, through thourogh investigation/study, and proper treatment, gets better.

Which senario do you think is better? Which senario do you think is being modeled in the "gun debate"?

"So, as I read it, and correct me if I am wrong, but the problem is that there are more gun-related deaths, per capita, in the U.S. than other, I assume industrialized, countries."

It's not a question of fact, it's a matter of gossip. Countries are terrible gossips. And what do they whisper about us? "Wild Wild West". Uncivilized.

U.S. Gun Policy: Global Comparisons

As for the rest, well, I have no specifics to offer you. I agree that dealing with symptoms is pointless. I am not at all sure how the role guns play in suicides should be characterized, a symptom or part of the disease. I've certainly read opinions that the easy availability of firearms contributes to suicide rates. That seems self-evident to me, but I am more than willing to submit the proposition to analysis by experts, flawed though they may be. I was glad to find that the CDC had discovered information which seemed to support the idea of firearms being useful for home and personal security. You never know what you'll find before the study is conducted.

Are you suggesting then that we (the US) should "do something" about gun-related deaths because of what other countries MAY be saying about us? If so, then I see no further point in this discussion. Please tell me I am mistaken...

Nope. What I am saying is that a discussion is impossible when people are discussing different subjects. I have yet to see a gun related thread where people didn't talk past each other.

I defined 1 (one) problem. It is one of the least prominent problems related to gun deaths. I consider it important. Some people are motivated by baby brains splattered on a bedroom wall by some stray bullet in Chicago. Not statistically relevant, perhaps, but it does get some people's attention.

No, what I am saying is that a discussion is impossible unless there is first an agreement on the subject. Is there a problem? I have said yes, and made a quickie statement of the problem. There are many facets and many other problems attendant to that central problem. Loss of soft power is, as I have said, something that "gun enthusiasts" frequently dismiss. No point in discussing soft power with people who deny the concept is valid. I regard it as valid.

This is where you get to say whether or not you think there is a problem.

Is there a gun problem in the US? no. Are there too many gun-related deaths in the US? Even one is too many. Is there a suicide problem? yes. Is there a problem with the way the entire "gun debate" is framed? yup. All of these, and more, are problems. The only one I listed that I beleive is large enough for a national debate, though, is the way the "gun debate" is framed. Am I saying those who are lost to gun violence/suicide are not worth talking about? No, I am saying we have much bigger problems to deal with as a nation. We have a seriously flawed education system, a financial system that leaves people behind(maybe on purpose), a serious national identity crisis, and a "war on terrorism" that cannot, by definition, be won. Just to name a few. Do we really want to use finite resourses on a subject that may, someday, save 8-10 thousand lives(of 360+ million), when we have problems that could destroy our entire nation?

 

[RandallFlagg]

this is in the CDZ because it gets a little old when some start talking sex organs and guns.....

soooo....

We are constantly told that if you carry a gun you are afraid.

Is this true.

No.

Carrying a gun for self defense is a rational response to the reality that even though I know where I live is ver safe, there are still criminals out there and that you never know when one will target you. These things happen every day, in every state, in every country.

How much fear goes into carrying a gun...for me....there is about as much emotion to carrying a gun as there is carrying my cell phone.

Now....the other side...the one that is constantly accusing my side of being afraid.....I believe that fear is what they feel....especially about guns. The don't like people, but they hate guns in the hands of people.

For example.

There are over 3,700,000 AR-15s in private hands in this country.

Each year maybe, maybe, 2-3 are used in any type of crime or even a mass shooting.

With those numbers, those who I believe fear guns want all AR-15s banned from private hands. To me, that is real fear. The numbers show that the odds of being a victim of a violent attack by an attacker with an AR-15 are so remote...you would actually have more of a chance of running into Big Foot and Elvis having Lunch with Aliens.....

And yet, they call for all AR-15s and other rifles like it to be completely banned.

And yet even if AR-15s are completely banned, there is not one crime that is committed on those rare occasions where an AR-15 is used that cannot be done to the same effect with a pistol, shot gun or other rifle or a combination of those......

Yet we are called scaredy cats for wearing a gun like we wear a cell phone or buckle our seat belts.

To a rational person....who sounds more afraid of guns...who sounds more filled with actual fear...?

Personally, it's a simple answer to a complicated question.

I have been around firearms since nearly the day I was born. I am a combat veteran and carried a gun nearly every day that I was in the Army. I have a CCW (as do my Wife, my Son and my Daughter) although I do NOT believe requiring a permit to carry a gun, either openly or concealed, is Constitutional.

I have hunted all my life. Deer, elk, rabbit, squirrel, geese, duck and the like. My family lives off game.

Now, to the point. The people who fear guns are those who know the least about them. Most of these folks wouldn't know which end of the barrel the bullet comes out of. All they "know" about guns is the propaganda they are fed with their morning coffee.

Right now, at this very minute, there are loaded rifles, shotguns and pistols throughout my home. All ready to fire. As of this writing, they have not killed me or my Wife. However, break into my home - and you WILL be carried out in a body bag. You WILL be shot dead by either myself or my Wife.

Guns are a tool, just like a hammer and a saw. In the right hands, they accomplish good things. In the wrong hands, chaos follows. It really is that simple.

"Guns are a tool, just like a hammer and a saw. In the right hands, they accomplish good things. In the wrong hands, chaos follows. It really is that simple."

I couldn't agree more. There are an awful lot of wrong hands filled with guns, though, aren't there? They're the problem, aren't they?

I'm curious, as a veteran of the military, do you believe in the concept of "soft power"?

..and why do you suppose that there are an awful lot of "wrong hands" filled with guns?

Simple. Because parents (and especially Fathers) have swallowed the propaganda on the left that "guns are evil" and either don't have the time or the inclination to TEACH their children the proper, and safe way to handle firearms. So, these kids get their "information" from video games and movies.

When I was a kid, nearly everyone in the neighborhood belonged to the Boy Scouts. We had marksmanship training in those days - not classes on the acceptance of homosexuals. We had ranges where Father and Son could go and enjoy the outdoors and practice shooting. We went hunting and camping with our families, learned to survive in the wilderness.

Now? Fathers do whatever and kids are on the x-box all day.

 

[Elvis Obama]

this is in the CDZ because it gets a little old when some start talking sex organs and guns.....

soooo....

We are constantly told that if you carry a gun you are afraid.

Is this true.

No.

Carrying a gun for self defense is a rational response to the reality that even though I know where I live is ver safe, there are still criminals out there and that you never know when one will target you. These things happen every day, in every state, in every country.

How much fear goes into carrying a gun...for me....there is about as much emotion to carrying a gun as there is carrying my cell phone.

Now....the other side...the one that is constantly accusing my side of being afraid.....I believe that fear is what they feel....especially about guns. The don't like people, but they hate guns in the hands of people.

For example.

There are over 3,700,000 AR-15s in private hands in this country.

Each year maybe, maybe, 2-3 are used in any type of crime or even a mass shooting.

With those numbers, those who I believe fear guns want all AR-15s banned from private hands. To me, that is real fear. The numbers show that the odds of being a victim of a violent attack by an attacker with an AR-15 are so remote...you would actually have more of a chance of running into Big Foot and Elvis having Lunch with Aliens.....

And yet, they call for all AR-15s and other rifles like it to be completely banned.

And yet even if AR-15s are completely banned, there is not one crime that is committed on those rare occasions where an AR-15 is used that cannot be done to the same effect with a pistol, shot gun or other rifle or a combination of those......

Yet we are called scaredy cats for wearing a gun like we wear a cell phone or buckle our seat belts.

To a rational person....who sounds more afraid of guns...who sounds more filled with actual fear...?

Personally, it's a simple answer to a complicated question.

I have been around firearms since nearly the day I was born. I am a combat veteran and carried a gun nearly every day that I was in the Army. I have a CCW (as do my Wife, my Son and my Daughter) although I do NOT believe requiring a permit to carry a gun, either openly or concealed, is Constitutional.

I have hunted all my life. Deer, elk, rabbit, squirrel, geese, duck and the like. My family lives off game.

Now, to the point. The people who fear guns are those who know the least about them. Most of these folks wouldn't know which end of the barrel the bullet comes out of. All they "know" about guns is the propaganda they are fed with their morning coffee.

Right now, at this very minute, there are loaded rifles, shotguns and pistols throughout my home. All ready to fire. As of this writing, they have not killed me or my Wife. However, break into my home - and you WILL be carried out in a body bag. You WILL be shot dead by either myself or my Wife.

Guns are a tool, just like a hammer and a saw. In the right hands, they accomplish good things. In the wrong hands, chaos follows. It really is that simple.

"Guns are a tool, just like a hammer and a saw. In the right hands, they accomplish good things. In the wrong hands, chaos follows. It really is that simple."

I couldn't agree more. There are an awful lot of wrong hands filled with guns, though, aren't there? They're the problem, aren't they?

I'm curious, as a veteran of the military, do you believe in the concept of "soft power"?

..and why do you suppose that there are an awful lot of "wrong hands" filled with guns?

Simple. Because parents (and especially Fathers) have swallowed the propaganda on the left that "guns are evil" and either don't have the time or the inclination to TEACH their children the proper, and safe way to handle firearms. So, these kids get their "information" from video games and movies.

When I was a kid, nearly everyone in the neighborhood belonged to the Boy Scouts. We had marksmanship training in those days - not classes on the acceptance of homosexuals. We had ranges where Father and Son could go and enjoy the outdoors and practice shooting. We went hunting and camping with our families, learned to survive in the wilderness.

Now? Fathers do whatever and kids are on the x-box all day.

I learned to shoot guns in the scouts too. Ten Mile River Scout Camp.

The wrong hands though, are the hands of people who don't care about human life, and more often than that it's the hands of someone in despair who is going to blow their own brains out. Now, I can post links to people who believe that this is an epidemic amongst vets and links which will say that it's not a big problem. Which to believe?

For a very long time I believed that having a gun in your home made you less safe. The gun control crowd would say that you're 47 times more likely to kill your own grandmother than you are to save her life. The 2012 CDC study seems to contradict that long cherished belief. Good. We don't need assumptions and self-serving attitudes. We need as much reliable information as we can get.

 

[RandallFlagg]

Well, of course. What I mean is that ANY tool in the wrong hands will lead to bad results. I give you my Wife as example. NEVER allow that woman to wield a wrench....

But seriously. We have been fed a steady diet of drivel from the left about the "dangers" of gun ownership. We have been called every invective under the sun because we choose NOT to place ours (or our families) safety in the hands of the government.

It upsets them terribly that we remain individuals rather than a part of their "collective" and by doing so makes their stake on a "Utopian" untenable; thank you Founding Fathers.

 

[Elvis Obama]

"We" implies public policy. Public policy is a process of dealing with problems. Step one, is there a problem? I say, yes. There is a problem. The problem is the disproportionate number of US citizens who meet their end through the use of firearms, as compared to other countries.

Now, of course, there are many who deny the value of the rest of the world. Who deny the existence of soft power. Who are threatened by globalization and the ever increasing diversity that such a trend creates in modern societies. I am sorry for their anxiety, but I can't share it. The rest of the world is important and soft power is power. Anything that diminishes it makes us less safe and less prosperous.

There are, of course, many other problems, many factors which go into driving our gun death numbers up. They must be examined and dealt with individually. The spectacular, headline grabbing deaths aren't important, in the overall picture, even though they are, of course, individual tragedies. The main cause of gun death numbers are suicide and inner city violence. That is where we need to concentrate our efforts. There is no reason not to treat these deaths exactly as we treat any others. We should employ the flawed process of marshaling our experts and trying to come up with solutions. Flawed, but it has worked many, many times. Unleash the brain trust and they'll give you an A bomb, or the internet.

So, as I read it, and correct me if I am wrong, but the problem is that there are more gun-related deaths, per capita, in the U.S. than other, I assume industrialized, countries. If this is correct, do you have verifiable statistics that one could reveiw to support such a claim? Furthermore, are you simply attempting to define the problem, loosly, or are you working towards accually addressing it? If you mean to address it, how would you go about it? If you are simply attempting to define the problem, then I would argue that you have done a respectable job, considering the other "attempts" I have seen, of doing so. However, The definition of the problem you present, IMO, still falls short. The problem, IMO, is not the deaths (though tragic), it is why the deaths are occuring. That, my freind, is the real problem. A problem which I am wholly unprepared, and unqualified to define, much less discuss. I have theories, but nothing to substantiate them other than my own, subjective, observations. This is the area that I beleive needs to be defined, studied and addressed.

It is not the guns that are the problem, it is the people using them. Until we, as a "global" society accept this fact and address it properly, the problem will persist, and may indeed become worse.

Here is an example to clearly define what I mean:

• A person goes to the doctor because they are ill. The doctor, through various tests, determines that the person is dying. They go about treating the symptoms of the ailment, without really discovering what the illness is, and tell the patient, "At least we are doing something."
• Same person goes to a different doctor and, through further testing, it is determined they are dying of cancer. This second doctor defines, in detail, what the illness is, ie lung cancer. They then go about treating the specific type of cancer discovered. Wouldn't you know, the patient, through thourogh investigation/study, and proper treatment, gets better.

Which senario do you think is better? Which senario do you think is being modeled in the "gun debate"?

"So, as I read it, and correct me if I am wrong, but the problem is that there are more gun-related deaths, per capita, in the U.S. than other, I assume industrialized, countries."

It's not a question of fact, it's a matter of gossip. Countries are terrible gossips. And what do they whisper about us? "Wild Wild West". Uncivilized.

U.S. Gun Policy: Global Comparisons

As for the rest, well, I have no specifics to offer you. I agree that dealing with symptoms is pointless. I am not at all sure how the role guns play in suicides should be characterized, a symptom or part of the disease. I've certainly read opinions that the easy availability of firearms contributes to suicide rates. That seems self-evident to me, but I am more than willing to submit the proposition to analysis by experts, flawed though they may be. I was glad to find that the CDC had discovered information which seemed to support the idea of firearms being useful for home and personal security. You never know what you'll find before the study is conducted.

Are you suggesting then that we (the US) should "do something" about gun-related deaths because of what other countries MAY be saying about us? If so, then I see no further point in this discussion. Please tell me I am mistaken...

Nope. What I am saying is that a discussion is impossible when people are discussing different subjects. I have yet to see a gun related thread where people didn't talk past each other.

I defined 1 (one) problem. It is one of the least prominent problems related to gun deaths. I consider it important. Some people are motivated by baby brains splattered on a bedroom wall by some stray bullet in Chicago. Not statistically relevant, perhaps, but it does get some people's attention.

No, what I am saying is that a discussion is impossible unless there is first an agreement on the subject. Is there a problem? I have said yes, and made a quickie statement of the problem. There are many facets and many other problems attendant to that central problem. Loss of soft power is, as I have said, something that "gun enthusiasts" frequently dismiss. No point in discussing soft power with people who deny the concept is valid. I regard it as valid.

This is where you get to say whether or not you think there is a problem.

Is there a gun problem in the US? no. Are there too many gun-related deaths in the US? Even one is too many. Is there a suicide problem? yes. Is there a problem with the way the entire "gun debate" is framed? yup. All of these, and more, are problems. The only one I listed that I beleive is large enough for a national debate, though, is the way the "gun debate" is framed. Am I saying those who are lost to gun violence/suicide are not worth talking about? No, I am saying we have much bigger problems to deal with as a nation. We have a seriously flawed education system, a financial system that leaves people behind(maybe on purpose), a serious national identity crisis, and a "war on terrorism" that cannot, by definition, be won. Just to name a few. Do we really want to use finite resourses on a subject that may, someday, save 8-10 thousand lives(of 360+ million), when we have problems that could destroy our entire nation?

That's an interesting way of putting it. My answer is no. I'm about the only one who feels that way though. The media loves this issue. The anti-gun people are frothing at the mouth. The real problem though, is politicians. What is a politician in Chicago to do? They've got to be seen to be doing something, so they attempt to resolve a problem that is improperly framed. If they frame it properly they've got to talk about suicide prevention and resolving the problem of a dysfunctional culture in our midst. Instead, they can talk about guns.

The finite resources, though. I dunno. I'm not a big fan of the social sciences. I have no illusions that suicide prevention experts are going to be able to work miracles. I still feel they should have a crack at bringing the problem to light. It's pretty cheap, relative to most governmental efforts.

We frame no problem correctly. Our various levels of obfuscation are really tough to see through. PC nonsense makes it impossible to look at our inner cities realistically. Various kinds of shame and denial make it difficult to look at suicide. I would simply like us to look at these problems clearly and in all their uncomfortable truth.

 

[RandallFlagg]

I guess what I was attempting to say (I'm 72, I tend to rant) is that as long as there is a second amendment, the left can not realize their 1967 vision of "peace and love". Pretty much living in the dream world of hippiedom.

What they fail to understand is that we are the only nation on earth that the populace has the ability to protect themselves from government or any outside force that would impose tyranny upon us.

 

[theliq]

ALL GUNS ARE WRONG IN A CIVILIZED SOCIETY

So you would argue that a communist society IS a "civilized society?"

Australia...IS

You do know the crime rate is UP since you went to single shots. Oh and the ILLEGAL importation of firearms by and to criminals is also up.

As says your discredited NRA who were kicked out of Australia years ago as UNDESIREABLES ........ after the buy back the crime rate with Guns went down.so your point was ???? steve

AUSTRALIA: MORE VIOLENT CRIME DESPITE GUN BAN

AUSTRALIA: MORE VIOLENT CRIME DESPITE GUN BAN
April 13, 2009

It is a common fantasy that gun bans make society safer. In 2002 -- five years after enacting its gun ban -- the Australian Bureau of Criminology acknowledged there is no correlation between gun control and the use of firearms in violent crime. In fact, the percent of murders committed with a firearm was the highest it had ever been in 2006 (16.3 percent), says the D.C. Examiner.

Even Australia's Bureau of Crime Statistics and Research acknowledges that the gun ban had no significant impact on the amount of gun-involved crime:

• In 2006, assault rose 49.2 percent and robbery 6.2 percent.
• Sexual assault -- Australia's equivalent term for rape -- increased 29.9 percent.
• Overall, Australia's violent crime rate rose 42.2 percent.

- See more at: AUSTRALIA: MORE VIOLENT CRIME DESPITE GUN BAN


YOU WERE SAYING???

As ADVOCATED By your discredited NRA......who were thrown out of Australia by our Government.....you believe their Bullshit because you thrive on Bullshit,we are different.......We threw Shits like the NRA OUT.......you lemmings of the GUN CULTURE as thick as two planks,in answer to your answer...quite the opposite happened.....but keep trying Moron...steven

 

[2aguy]

this is in the CDZ because it gets a little old when some start talking sex organs and guns.....

soooo....

We are constantly told that if you carry a gun you are afraid.

Is this true.

No.

Carrying a gun for self defense is a rational response to the reality that even though I know where I live is ver safe, there are still criminals out there and that you never know when one will target you. These things happen every day, in every state, in every country.

How much fear goes into carrying a gun...for me....there is about as much emotion to carrying a gun as there is carrying my cell phone.

Now....the other side...the one that is constantly accusing my side of being afraid.....I believe that fear is what they feel....especially about guns. The don't like people, but they hate guns in the hands of people.

For example.

There are over 3,700,000 AR-15s in private hands in this country.

Each year maybe, maybe, 2-3 are used in any type of crime or even a mass shooting.

With those numbers, those who I believe fear guns want all AR-15s banned from private hands. To me, that is real fear. The numbers show that the odds of being a victim of a violent attack by an attacker with an AR-15 are so remote...you would actually have more of a chance of running into Big Foot and Elvis having Lunch with Aliens.....

And yet, they call for all AR-15s and other rifles like it to be completely banned.

And yet even if AR-15s are completely banned, there is not one crime that is committed on those rare occasions where an AR-15 is used that cannot be done to the same effect with a pistol, shot gun or other rifle or a combination of those......

Yet we are called scaredy cats for wearing a gun like we wear a cell phone or buckle our seat belts.

To a rational person....who sounds more afraid of guns...who sounds more filled with actual fear...?

Personally, it's a simple answer to a complicated question.

I have been around firearms since nearly the day I was born. I am a combat veteran and carried a gun nearly every day that I was in the Army. I have a CCW (as do my Wife, my Son and my Daughter) although I do NOT believe requiring a permit to carry a gun, either openly or concealed, is Constitutional.

I have hunted all my life. Deer, elk, rabbit, squirrel, geese, duck and the like. My family lives off game.

Now, to the point. The people who fear guns are those who know the least about them. Most of these folks wouldn't know which end of the barrel the bullet comes out of. All they "know" about guns is the propaganda they are fed with their morning coffee.

Right now, at this very minute, there are loaded rifles, shotguns and pistols throughout my home. All ready to fire. As of this writing, they have not killed me or my Wife. However, break into my home - and you WILL be carried out in a body bag. You WILL be shot dead by either myself or my Wife.

Guns are a tool, just like a hammer and a saw. In the right hands, they accomplish good things. In the wrong hands, chaos follows. It really is that simple.

"Guns are a tool, just like a hammer and a saw. In the right hands, they accomplish good things. In the wrong hands, chaos follows. It really is that simple."

I couldn't agree more. There are an awful lot of wrong hands filled with guns, though, aren't there? They're the problem, aren't they?

I'm curious, as a veteran of the military, do you believe in the concept of "soft power"?

..and why do you suppose that there are an awful lot of "wrong hands" filled with guns?

Simple. Because parents (and especially Fathers) have swallowed the propaganda on the left that "guns are evil" and either don't have the time or the inclination to TEACH their children the proper, and safe way to handle firearms. So, these kids get their "information" from video games and movies.

When I was a kid, nearly everyone in the neighborhood belonged to the Boy Scouts. We had marksmanship training in those days - not classes on the acceptance of homosexuals. We had ranges where Father and Son could go and enjoy the outdoors and practice shooting. We went hunting and camping with our families, learned to survive in the wilderness.

Now? Fathers do whatever and kids are on the x-box all day.

I learned to shoot guns in the scouts too. Ten Mile River Scout Camp.

The wrong hands though, are the hands of people who don't care about human life, and more often than that it's the hands of someone in despair who is going to blow their own brains out. Now, I can post links to people who believe that this is an epidemic amongst vets and links which will say that it's not a big problem. Which to believe?

For a very long time I believed that having a gun in your home made you less safe. The gun control crowd would say that you're 47 times more likely to kill your own grandmother than you are to save her life. The 2012 CDC study seems to contradict that long cherished belief. Good. We don't need assumptions and self-serving attitudes. We need as much reliable information as we can get.

The 47 times number was shown to be a lie a long time ago......that you actually reposted it as if it was a legitimate number shows you are really behind on the debate......