It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


The Reality of Gun Control

page: 1
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

+36 more 
posted on Jun, 21 2016 @ 09:28 AM
It has been said, "Gun control is being able to hit your target." I propose an addition to this saying: "Gun control is being able to hit your target, and knowing what is a target."

There has been much discussion recently on the topic of gun control. I don't think there is anyone who wants criminals to use guns in crimes. I also know there are many who feel their best interest lies in the legal ownership of a firearm. The real issue, as I see it, is how to prevent criminal use of guns while allowing non-criminal use (hunting, self-defense).

I will say right now that if you believe guns are possessed of Satan and no one should ever be allowed to have one, stop reading and go back to the Recent Posts page. This thread will likely only raise your blood pressure.

Let's face a fact: we do not live in a non-dangerous world. We have criminal elements who have little to no regard for human life. We have certain cultures in the world who are bent on violence. We have wildlife which can, does, and will attack people. People have, IMO, an inherent right to self-defense that, in this world, entitles them to own and carry a gun for legal purposes. That was a common belief for the vast majority of this country's history.

So what has changed? I see three major societal changes that I believe has led us to this point:
  • Fear/Ignorance

    Fear is evident whenever a conversation about guns comes up. Some are afraid of guns. The question is where that fear came from. The one factor I see that appears consistent is an unfamiliarity with guns. There are a lot of people today who have never held a gun, and who know nothing about using a gun properly. I was lucky; my father taught me at an early age what a gun was, how it worked, and what it should and should not be used for.
    • Always assume every gun is loaded.
    • Never point a gun toward anything you don't want to kill.
    • Only kill for food or self-protection.

      (In other words, if you shoot someone who is not attacking you, be ready to become a cannibal)

    Today, I get a bit of a chuckle when I watch the first-person shooter video games... some of the things they show are ludicrous. But then I realize that this is a classroom for most children today. They learn about guns from the video games, because their parents are afraid to teach them about the reality of gun usage.

    That is not to disparage video games. They are a wonderful pass time and a lot of fun. But they are not classrooms. They should be viewed as what they are: fantasy. The problem comes when there is no knowledge of reality to compare that fantasy to. And as long as there is a void in knowledge, something will fill it. If not video games, then television. If not television, stories. If not stories, imagination.

    We need to educate our children better. I'm thinking some special educational class taught by specially trained instructors from either Law Enforcement or adept marksmen. I believe a good age would be around ten, and actually allow the kids to fire a gun, under strict strict supervision and after successful safety training. Sound preposterous? I was in JROTC back in high school and have actually fired an M-16. Wasn't too shabby at it either. The instructor, Sergeant Smith, was fanatical about safety; no one was ever hurt under his leadership.

  • Respect for Others

    Social media and cheap communication are great things. They allow us to collaborate easily over vast differences and share ideas and cultures. But there is a cost. When I was young, there was no Internet and long-distance telephone service was very expensive. Most conversations were face-to-face or by phone to the local area. In the latter case, you were talking to someone who could drive to your house in less than a half hour; in the former, you were already within the other person's fist range. You learned quickly that insults and disrespect had a high cost. Today, we lob insults and disrespect in all directions with no thought to consequences. What is the other person going to do? Find you among 6 billion people? Even the most strict proposals to restrict the Internet are woefully impotent compared to what was before the Internet.

    We have lost our respect for others. They have become words on a screen. Language is primarily non-verbal and verbal communication is primarily non-lingual. There is no body language to interpret, no vocal inflection, just letters in order. Add in the inability for many to effectively communicate in the most difficult language to learn - English - and you have a recipe for misunderstanding atop a general lack of respect. Disrespect becomes expected and as such most writings are interpreted by the reader as likely to contain such. Intent of the author is meaningless.

    Not to mention the absolute insanity that comes from autocomplete routines... don't get me started, just forgive me if one slipped through.

    This constant disrespect bleeds through to the world of reality. It leads to anger, disgust, and eventual violence against others. We have effectively isolated ourselves from others and now live in our own private little virtual bubble. The death of another is no longer real in this bubble, any more than death in a video game is real.

  • Idiotic Policies

    I generally don't use the term "idiot" when posting, but no other word fits here. I am talking about 1st graders being suspended for a drawing of them playing with water pistols. I'm talking about US Senators who apparently don't know the difference between an automatic and semi-automatic firearm. I'm talking about the reality that every major shooting in the USA in the last few decades occurred where guns were already prohibited, yet brought cries of prohibiting weapons. I'm talking about fingernail files being illegal on airplanes.

    In general, I'm talking about policies and regulations that are not only do not reflect reality, but keep the idea of danger at the forefront of consciousness and turn a gun into some kind of 'forbidden fruit' with the inherent attractiveness of that phrase. That suspended 1st grader will grow up wondering what makes a gun so dangerous, and will likely at some point try to find out. The woman strip-searched for having a fingernail file will begin to search for ways to avoid TSA scrutiny. The guy who wants to see what shooting someone is really like will have a myriad of targets, all proudly proclaiming their availability with obvious signs.

    We have to stop this and use some common sense.

I believe this is a problem that cannot be solved overnight. We have lost a generation to our mistakes and over reactions. But we can start to try and save the next generation from horrors like the one in Orlando recently. We can educate our children in reality instead of fantasy. We can teach true respect, not some magical rainbow version based on political correctness instead of human nature. We can use common sense in our policies and regulations instead of pandering to ignorance and fear because it's easier.

But only if we're really ready to fix the problem.


posted on Jun, 21 2016 @ 09:40 AM
a reply to: TheRedneck

It's much easier to blame the tool of murder than try and understand the social problems creating murder so common.

They know in order to truly inact gun control the amendment process is needed.

Which is fine if you have the votes that the way to go about changing the constitution

Sadly there isn't a single proposed gun law that would effect he murder rate by guns in the us statistically speaking.

50 people will still die or be shot a week in Chicago more in other crime areas across the country

So it's easy to make a political campaign out of a symbol. In this case the gun. Then bang the sign and scream your slogans and get every one else in the congregation to repeat your words.

I do think the ccl tests need more rigorous and maintenance marksmanship training. Especially adding stress shooting or elevated heart rate shooting and tactical theory.

People who think they can sharp shoot with a concealed carry style gun in a university library may be hazard. I know with weekly practice I would only trust myself at about 25 ft with some of these tiny guns.

posted on Jun, 21 2016 @ 09:43 AM
I agree Redneck, and believe that 99.9% of gun owners would never use their guns against humans in a ferocious manner unless for self defense or protection. It's really a shame how some humans feel like they need to destroy for anything other reason.

Most gun owners don't want to shoot other living beings on purpose. Its the insane, mentally unstable, waste of space pieces of excrement that choose to use any type of weapons they can get their hands on to cause malicious harm.

Unfortunately, it's been going on since the beginning of time and it seems that most of today's society is just too entertained to really understand why we have the right to bear arms and why we WILL NOT give that up that right.

We used arms to kill and defend this land before. But against an entire government. Madison knew that and knew we needed to keep and bear arms in case it should ever happen again.

posted on Jun, 21 2016 @ 09:52 AM
a reply to: luthier

Good ideas. One never knows how they will react until a situation occurs.

In my case, I have felt the need to pull a gun once in my life. I picked up a hitchhiker who tried to get me to pull into a deserted gravel quarry, claiming he lived there. I refused and he started getting violent. I dropped my cigarette and reached down to get it, but instead of a cigarette, I laid a .357 Magnum beside his temple and said, "Get out!" He got out, before the car came to a stop. Thank God he did, because in that moment, I was 100% ready to squeeze the trigger.

Afterwards, I pulled over in a safe spot and just sat there shaking, my heart racing. It wasn't the thought of what he wanted to do to me; it was what I was about to be forced to do to him, and the realization that I didn't freeze. I could have pulled that trigger.

To a sane, knowledgeable person, that is a scary thing.


posted on Jun, 21 2016 @ 10:04 AM
a reply to: TheRedneck

Very scary indeed.

I consider myself an enthusiast. For sure. I have done three gun races and some .22 target stuff. There are sometimes some real morons at the range who think they are gangster. The outdoor range I go to has tactical bays you can do rapid fire or drawing. Occasionally I am a little nervous about some of the folks.

To me that's what gun control is cleaning up peoples behaviours with firearms and reducing accidents.

Also training people to be actual effective tactical shooters both reduces friendly fire and actually creates a valuable self defense citizens who can help you in dangerous situations without panicking.

I think there are some areas of compromise.

I think guns in some public places should require more law enforcement style firearms training for a carry license. I think it's a bad idea to give any 21 year old a gun on campus. I think it's needed you can't make a gun free zone but the reality of shooting a firearm in a dense population is a public health concern.

If rambo from the range comes out with his 9 sideways trying to blast a shooter in the library it could just make things worse. So I would compromise with liberal gun control folks and say ok to carry in some cities, universities, and dense populated work places we should work with the local authorities to make a tactical and gun safety program within the ccl license.

Not ideal but nothing is and we do need to make some compromises with our neighbors. They live here too.

posted on Jun, 21 2016 @ 10:11 AM
After reading the above post, and understanding what could help this...I've decided that rigorous testing should be involved in more cases and states.

I see far too many signs that prohibit firearms in areas that have had issues in the past. Ok, there is a solution here. Allow more testing and performance, intelligence, and ethical based testing specifically for those people who want to carry in these places. Possibly even requiring a yearly test/renewal for those such people. Then we can have more people actively trained to help in places otherwise posted not to have those firearms.

The signs I see everywhere prohibiting firearms are always in the places I see that need the most coverage, albeit concealed and hidden from plain sight. Bars, courts, schools, etc.

I know it may never happen, but its a step. We can protect ourselves as much as we want from home, but when you have to disarm because a private place said NO FIREARMS, then how can we truly defend against scrat in these situations?

posted on Jun, 21 2016 @ 10:12 AM
a reply to: luthier

Alabama has something like that. You have to pass a free firearm safety course before they will issue a hunting license. I have no issue with that for CCL either.


posted on Jun, 21 2016 @ 10:15 AM
a reply to: havok

Thats all I am saying.

I think it would probably be a monthly shooting test though if you want to be realistic. When I don't shoot for a while I notice right away especially with handguns. I know that's prob a stretch but why not combine it with law enforcement testing. They do maintenance shooting and testing throughout the year.

Then yes get rid of gun free zones. Even if it's a few trained employees that's still safer than making people helpless

posted on Jun, 21 2016 @ 10:19 AM
a reply to: luthier

Yes. Exactly my point.

Testing and proof is needed to stay active and sure footed. So that could be a necessary requirement in order for more people to become involved in protecting our friends, family and community. In this day and age, it's almost necessary to be helpful and trained because the police can only do so much and in so much time.

Either way, we will never eliminate the problem but at least we can do our best to help out in the time of need. Laws won't do what training and testing can do.

posted on Jun, 21 2016 @ 10:21 AM

originally posted by: TheRedneck
The real issue, as I see it, is how to prevent criminal use of guns while allowing non-criminal use (hunting, self-defense).

What we could do, is microchip all the guns. Then link all those microchips wirelessly to the internet.

Then populate the environment with security cameras everywhere, and link those cameras to the internet.

Then we use the massive computing power of the NSA, to watch the environment, and have an Artificial Intelligence program interpret the scenes and observe the context of the actions people are doing.

When a person tries to use a gun in a crime, the NSA computer sends a signal to the microchip in his firearm disabling the firing trigger.

When a person tries to use a gun to hunt deer in the forest, the NSA computer approves the usage, once the gun owner has the requisite "hunting license", and enables the firing trigger in the gun, so he can shoot the game.

We are moveing into a new world of "Internet of Things", or "IoT", where all these "social" problems will have "technological" solutions.

posted on Jun, 21 2016 @ 10:30 AM
It's pretty telling when the national media doesn't put a face on all the innocent people caught in the cross fire of gang violence. Somehow poor white, latino, or black kids don't seem to make the conversation about gun control.

Even though they make up the alarming stats used to say we need gun control.

Sounds like those people need some political control so politicians can concern themselves with addressing the community issues and cleaning up organized crime and law enforcement corruption.

posted on Jun, 21 2016 @ 10:34 AM
a reply to: TheRedneck

Man, you are spot on, and this is the same type of thing that I keep saying to people over, and over, and over again.

But one thing that I think that you're forgetting is that there are people out there so hell-bent on a specific ideology (we'll just talk about the anti-gun one, since that's the focus of the thread) that they will try to stop any and all education on this topic; they will sidestep any effort to ingrain realistic, effective communication skills that use real respect in lieu of made-up PC rhetoric/hypocrisy; they will ignore all reality that their beloved policies make these types of tragedies easier and more likely to occur, and will keep on voting in the people promising to pursue said policies to an exponentially higher degree (like what just tried to pass in the Senate, but luckily failed).

I'm certainly no expert on social manipulation--not like the media and the political elite are, for certain--but until we get some REAL people running things who choose to speak plainly and directly and without a sugary coating, this cycle of ignorance and mis-directed "good intentions" will continue and most likely worsen.

I would argue that it is the apathy that is currently driving our culture that is the foundation of every problem that you mention, plus many, many more.

Excellent OP, though.

posted on Jun, 21 2016 @ 10:37 AM
a reply to: AMPTAH

If that could be implemented, it would probably work. But here are the technical issues:

Computers can't think. The algorithm needed to identify whether an action is allowed or not doesn't exist and may not even be possible at this stage in our technology.

Even if someone developed such an algorithm, it would not be error-free for quite some time. How long has Windows been around? It still has errors pop up.

Without such an algorithm, people would have to monitor the screens to verify legality. What happens if everyone is watching screens and someone tries to shoot an attacking boar? Please wait?

There is not even close to nationwide security camera coverage. Maybe it looks like there is in some cities, but out here? You'd be lucky if there were two cameras within a ten-mile radius.

Even if someone immediately saw the screen, made an immediate decision to allow, and immediately activated the trigger, there is the time required for the chip to make contact with the Internet, time required to resolve the domains, time required to switch to the next available screen, time required to determine situation, time required to activate trigger control, time required to send activation code, time required for the chip to verify the code and activate. If everything worked perfectly, it would take, with security encoding, 2 seconds or so to activate that trigger. That can be an eternity when under attack.

What happens if there is no Internet coverage in the woods, or an Internet outage in a city?

Technology is simply not as advanced as a lot of people think.


posted on Jun, 21 2016 @ 10:42 AM
a reply to: SlapMonkey

You make a good point. But you also are spreading the truth. That's how you combat ignorance.

This thread is an attempt to get my thoughts across to as many as possible. Just like any anti-gun politician. My climb is harder, but I can still climb that mountain. When many climb together, the many can outclimb the few to change public opinion.

Even if it doesn't seem like it sometimes.


posted on Jun, 21 2016 @ 10:54 AM
a reply to: TheRedneck

I have to be honest I am disappointed with the OP.

Given the headline I was expecting a balanced and rational summary of the issue, but instead it seems to be more of the same false rhetoric of the NRA.

Lets be clear...The majority of the US population is IN FAVOR OF THE 2ND AMENDMENT...The majority of the USA is OPPOSED TO BANNING ALL GUNS...AND..THE MAJORITY OF THE USA is in favor of stricter gun control policies...whether that be better enforcement of current laws or new restrictions that are well crafted not to interfere with legal gun ownership.

Right now the Center for Disease Control is forbidden by law to collect data or study gun violence in the USA. They are actually forbidden from conducting basic data gathering and science when it comes to guns. That is irrational.

Right now background checks are forbidden from referencing terrorist watch or the no-fly lists.
A bill that would have stopped anyone who has been on a terrorist watch list for the past five years from purchasing guns was defeated by congress yesterday.
- I get the concern that people worry the no-fly lists are arbitrary...That is concern is easily solved..We don't deny those people on the no-fly or terrorist watch list their 2nd amendment rights, we simply require (A) an interview with the FBI prior to approval or (B) A signed declaration by the FBI attesting that the individual is the subject of an ongoing and active FBI investigation.

Assault Weapons Bans are not effective. It is a morphing definition and Gun Manufacturers can always change specifications to skirt the intent of the ban. We should not be debating an "Assault weapons" ban.
Instead...When mass shooters have been stopped, tackled, taken out by is most often while changing cartridges or reloading. We need to limit the magazine capacities for assault like weapons IMO.

The claim that people have an irrational "fear" of guns is poorly supported. People want their police to have guns..people want the "good guys" to have guns. Nobody I know who is for stricter gun control attribute some magical quality of terror to guns...many of my friends that are for stricter gun control own guns...including myself.

The NRA has...apparently successfully...convinced the right wing that it is an all or nothing battle...that any regulation or examination of guns in the USA is about banning all guns...that is false, dishonest, does not reflect the regulations being proposed and does not reflect the American Peoples will. It's BS.

edit on 21-6-2016 by Indigo5 because: (no reason given)

posted on Jun, 21 2016 @ 11:00 AM
a reply to: Indigo5

I am sorry you are disappointed.

The reality I spoke of is that new bans, new checks, new lists, new restrictions are all useless. The problem is the changes we have seen in society, and the only way to make America safer is to accept that reality and work within the law and the Constitution to adapt to and minimize the violent effects of those changes.

We tried the regulatory route. It has failed. We need to try something different.


posted on Jun, 21 2016 @ 11:01 AM
a reply to: AMPTAH

2 problems I see.

WAY too much faith and control by the government.


@OP Wonderful, well thought out thread. Thank you.
I was a child, that at 10 (or so), was trained by my father how to shoot, and respect guns. I feel very lucky to have had that, and wish more children would have it. We NEVER even thought to touch a gun in the house, until he said it was ok, and was with us.
edit on 21-6-2016 by chiefsmom because: addition

posted on Jun, 21 2016 @ 11:02 AM
a reply to: Indigo5

People have an irrational fear of guns.

Stopping mass shooters like the school shootings or this past one would barely touch the gun crime stats.

So maybe think about helping people get out of poverty, clean up police corruption and the organized crime associated with gangs and drug policy.

Adress the fact that we reacted poorly to school shootings and bad test scores and have made schools more like prison then a place for kids to learn.

We have abandoned philosophy and ethics in education as a basis for teaching thoughtful perception. Social fabrics are torn.

Even practically speaking it would be 75 years before the guns and magazine bans would even touch the current circulation.

Maybe we should focus on cleaning up some communities which should be a much less contentious debate but requires more thought and creative ideas and a willingness to fail and adress your failures in policy and adjust.

Gun control is a shell game scam. The problem is education, family bonds, political corruption etc. It may feel good to pass easy legislation like regulations but it won't effect the root cause at all.

posted on Jun, 21 2016 @ 11:04 AM
The reality of gun control in the US: outside of the densely populated east coast, the US is still a vast swath of frontier. No, we aren't fighting commanches out here. But we do have no shortage of animals, human and otherwise, that can harm us in the country.

Sure, we can do all sorts of things to help with issues from feral hogs, coyotes, mountain lions, bobcats, etc. But what do i do about a porous national border being less than 3 hours from my house, and a federal goverment that chooses to do little about protecting it?

While I am a fan of loosening immigration laws....i have to admit that criminals from Mexico have no issue crossing illegally to get here and do various tasks. Its not uncommon that you hear about someone dying in a way that you KNOW it was a cartel killing.

posted on Jun, 21 2016 @ 11:37 AM
Totally agree. I will add that I would have no problem with requiring everyone who wished to buy a gun for the first time that they be required to take a gun training/safety course. When I took my class for my CCL I had very little experience with a gun and it really helped me to understand safety and proper handling.

Im sure a lot of accidental gun discharges where a result of lack of training. EI many assume if you pull a clip out the gun wont go boom. Many dont realize there is possibly one in the chamber.

I have had to pull my gun once fortunately the event didn't escalate but I recall the experience and was thankful it became a non event. I also was glad I was trained and prepared "just in case"

top topics

<<   2  3  4 >>

log in