It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
I don't accept that a gun advocate relishes the thought of taking up arms against his fellow countrymen in whatever capacity it may require him to. He has a gun, not simply because the 2nd amendment gives him the right to own one, but because he seeks to protect his life, his family, and his property against any unlawful threat. Until the society around him can demonstrate that it can be the 'pre-emptive' safeguard he seeks, that which it should be, can anyone reasonably expect him to relinquish his weapon?
Nor do I believe that the gun advocate looks upon the aftermath of gun rampages with a disinterested eye. He is affected just like anyone else. He is shocked and saddened by such scenes just like you and I. Like you and I, he could not look at the sweet cherubic face of blonde Emilie Parker, without looking into the eyes of his own daughter or son and think what if it was his child at Sandy Hook?
His natural reaction would be to want to arm teachers, or at the more practical, to have an armed security patrol at schools.
Buddy there is "gun control". There are law. That's called "gun control". What are you blathering about?
Gun Control starts with how and where they are stored.
America has a terrible welfare system so this creates criminals. The best place to start fixing America and making it a safe place to live is to improve the welfare system and stop creating millions of criminals.
Our country is, in my opinion, TOO BIG for gun control to have any effect on reduction of violence.
Laws don't stop people from doing what they are hell-bent on doing.
London, having the most cameras per sq km in the world, and extreme gun control laws, still see about 3000 to 4000 gun crimes per year, and 17,000 knife crimes, so once again, even in England, if someone wanted to do mass killings they would just as easily (do so) as in the states.
...changing how people socially interact is something that takes a very long time to change.
Control all the guns; won't stop mass murder. Monsanto and Big Pharma are two examples.
What resides among us, that thrives on constant turmoil, war, and upheaval? What entity could possibly benefit from keeping the world at each other's throats? Who furthers their agenda with the continuing deaths of the innocent?
I agree, the problem of violence in America is too wide-scale for gun control to have much an effect. Yet, does not the size of the problem require there be some form of gun control? Maybe, instead of using the term 'gun' control, perhaps 'weapon' control would be more apt? Of course, to attempt to reduce violence, one must first look at the causes of violence and seek to eradicate them in parallel with public weapon control?
Many have hypothesized that we have a social problem in this country that leads to these heinous acts. I concur with that line of thinking...but, I just don't see a legal solution that keeps the guns away from those who would use them on the innocent! How on earth would we determine who is capable of such atrocities, let alone who would carry out a determined plan to commit them?
...I feel it would be morally incongruous to deny a problem exists for fear that it may affect one's right, to do so, I am sure you will agree, would be an ethical abrogation.
It is essential that we do not remain inert or feel morally powerless in making a response. Morals do have common denominators that we can all share and agree on, and at some point, moral consensus (not mob consensus) must override certain rights when behaviour oversteps the protective boundaries of those rights. I am not arguing for any particular 'right' or 'rights' to be taken away from anyone, as I believe 'rights' become sacrosanct to civilised progress, and if we are going to lose them, we must do so with great reluctance, argument and fight. Yet, if any particular 'right' loses its power to reflect the moral code and ethical behaviour of contemporary society, are we not duty bound to revisit it, debate its usefulness, and update it as necessary, or replace it entirely? What we must never do is take any 'right' for granted.
...until the mention of Earp and company, and Dodge City.
I believe that it's more about securing them and getting them out of, and keeping them out of, the wrong hands, (rather) than limiting the liberties of the law-abiding!
As much as I agree with the resonance of what you state here, I feel compelled to ask the question...why do you feel it is a limiting of liberties? You still have a right to ownership of firearms, your 2nd amendment right is not compromised, but actually strengthend by a clarity of purposeful definition, updated to contemporary requirements. I do not subscribe to a 'one-size-fits-all' situation, but to one that is meritorious...a means test I suppose. To obtain a gun legally has to be hard in order to subscribe to the spirit of effective, but not necessarily liberty limiting, gun control.
Okay. Let me ask you outright...do you believe there is a need for a more effective gun control, and if you do, how would you envisage it, and how would you apply it?
It would seem there are two concerns: a) the loss of certain liberties, and b) the criminal element? As far as I can discern, the only connective strand between the two concerns is the manner by which a gun is obtained. It is understandable to believe that gun advocates whom are indeed law-abiding citizens are the ones being made to feel the greater weight of responsibility, whom will have to make the greater sacrifice. In the short-term, it may indeed be the case, because the criminal side of the debate is a far more complex issue, and requires a wider spectrum of response. Perhaps, it may be more prudent to sort the criminal issue out firstly, before applying it to law-abiding citizens?
To me, the subject of gun control is not simply about the gun, per se, but more about societal attitudes towards it. It is about the reasons stated for the need for having a gun.....You have to allay people of their fear of criminal gun attack. I do not accept that it is beyond the wit and wherefore of the American people to solve this issue.
...sorry for that, rant off.
Society in every state is a blessing, but government even in its best state is but a necessary evil; in its worst state an intolerable one; for when we suffer, or are exposed to the same miseries by a government, which we might expect in a country without government, our calamities are heightend by reflecting that we furnish the means by which we suffer.