I heard on the radio the report of a broken-hearted mother who lost a child to gunfire. In addition to asking for information about the incident, she added a condemnation of guns and gun ownership.
I am sorry for her loss. I could not but wonder though, why she blames the gun and all gun-owners when it was not a responsible citizen that fired the shot. My gut reaction was that it was probably a gang member that had the gun, but is it just as likely to have been an individual that was being "pushed" by another edgy person.
Would it not be more appropriate to condemn the real sources of the crime? These include disrespect for the dangers of weapons, a disregard for the welfare of others and irresponsible attitudes that are fostered by a subculture in which no one is responsible for his actions.
Patrick Shepherd
Gilbert
onerebel posted at 9:39 pm on Fri, Jan 20, 2012.
After a shooting spree, they always want to take the guns away from the people who didn't do it. Laws that stop the carrying of guns disarm only those who have no intention of committing a crime. Such laws make things worse for the victim and better for the criminals.
“Guns do not make you a killer. I think killing makes you a killer. You can kill someone with a baseball bat or a car, but no one is trying to ban you from driving to the ball game”. Andy Rooney
TeaPartyPatriot posted at 7:16 am on Sat, Jan 21, 2012.
Gun grabbers always point to the miniscule percentage of nut cases when advocating gun bans. Somehow if we can just get all the guns away from all citizens these nut cases wont be able to kill anyone? I wonder how many of you actually understand the real intended purpose of the 2nd amendment. Most of you couldn't even say what the first ten amendments are. You don't know your rights or why you need them, so they are being stripped from you slowly but surely.
Dale Whiting posted at 7:51 am on Sat, Jan 21, 2012.
Yes, Patrick, onerebel and TeaPartyPatriot,
it is a human characteristic to over simplify the cause of tragedy, to put Black Hats on some [typically those bad guys whom we do not understand] and White Hats on others [typically those good guys whom we either do understand or seem to share our same values].
Here we have Patrick's recount of a woman, who when faced with the tragic loss of her child, a loss we all would have a difficult time accepting, placing blame [a Black Hat] on gun owners.
Do we ourselves tend to do this same thing? Think of a tragedy that effected us all and who or what we blamed for that tragedy! If you're a bit stumped, may I suggest 9-11-01. Who or what have many of us blamed? A religion? A people who we seem to share little with us? And what is the name of the Black Hat we have placed upon them? Terrorists?
Yes, Patrick, onerebel and TeaPartyPatriot, make no exceptions for us. It is a human characteristic to over simplify the cause of tragedy. And in doing so, it often leads to more tragedy. Here I refer to Iraq and Afghanistan. The loss of life in those two countries after 9-11 swamps the loss of life on 9-11. And who will historians blame for these post 9-11 tragedies? US?
Leon Ceniceros posted at 8:27 am on Sat, Jan 21, 2012.
Excuse me....Excuse me..............those weren't Calvanists who flew the planes into the Twin Towers.
They weren't Roman Catholics.
They weren;t Orthodox Jews.
They weren't Southern Baptists.
They weren't Evangelicals.
They weren't Anglicans.
They weren't Bhuddists.
They weren't Hindus.
They weren't Copts.
They weren't Amish.
They weren't Mennonites.
They weren't Mormons.
They were Muslims...every single one of them.
Actually the first "Terrorists" were the Jewish Irgun who blew up the King David Hotel in Jerusalem in the 1940's, killing dozens if innocent women and children who were having High Tea at the time in the Lobby at the time of the bombing. The Hotel Lobby roof collapsed on them due to the huge bomb blast. The London Times used the word "terrorists" to discribe these criminals. Golda Maier, the "Israeli Margaret Thatcher or vice versa" and Ben Gurian, the "Israeli Winston Churchill" were involved in the bombing.
Dale Whiting posted at 9:25 am on Sat, Jan 21, 2012.
Leon, Leon, Leon,
Have you ever studied logic, you know, the discipline of drawing conclusions by applying sound deductive reasoning to the facts?
I am impressed that you got the facts of the Irgun - King David Hotel - bombing incident right. But applying your brand of logic to that fact, then it must have been a mistake to have awarded the Nobel Peace Prize to Manachem Begin. For at that earlier time, Begin lead the Irgun. His excuse for the number of victims? The bomber did not follow his orders to set off the explosion at night when only the British were inside! You see, some Jews and Arabs were also killed.
Please give us your opinion of such other terrorist movements, such as the IRA in Northern Ireland. They were all Roman Catholics and I'm guessing that you are Catholic too. Would you have us make exceptions for Jewish and Catholic terrorism and not make all Jews and Catholics into terrorists? If so, how do you reason that one?
And while we're on the topic of terrorism, as the largely French First Crusaders advanced towards Constantinople, they terrorized the entire country side through which they marched, plundering and pillaging the Christian communities through which they moved, raping the women they met. Or was there Roman Catholic dispensation for these actions? After all, in response to the request of the then emperor of the Eastern Empire to stop the envading Turks from coming down from what is now Turkmenistan into Anatolia, it was Pope Urban the second who issued the call to arms!
Leon, for your benefit I repeat, "make no exceptions for us. It is a human characteristic to over simplify the cause of tragedy. And in doing so, it often leads to more tragedy. Here I refer to Iraq and Afghanistan. By comparison, the loss of life in those two countries after 9-11 swamps the loss of life on 9-11. And who will historians blame for these post 9-11 tragedies? US?"
Leon, there is a bit of terrorist in us all. Look in the mirror, Leon. You are no exception, thou hypocrite! Try reading Matthew 7:1-5.
P.S. In case you did not notice. The Turks won! But the Muslim, Christian and Jewish enhabitants of Jersulem lost. Most every one who did not fee was murdered in the streets by these First Crusaders! The gutters ran red with their blood! These Frenchmen, largely the second or third sons of French nobility who had no enheritances coming, wanted lands of their own! So does this make all Christians terrorists? Your opinon, please.
Dale Whiting posted at 10:47 am on Sat, Jan 21, 2012.
And Leon,
to simplify things for you, let's start with the choosen headline and then modify it.
First we have "Don't put blame for shootings on all gun owners," which modifies to
"Don't put the blame for terrorism on Muslims, Jews, Christians, Arabs, Irish Catholics, French nobility, etc."
Does this help you get the picture?
sockratties posted at 11:29 am on Sat, Jan 21, 2012.
Terrorists are terrorists and nut-cases are nut-cases. You can brand them by their particular faction but they both fall into one of two categories; a fanatical group or a deranged person (not mutually exclusive). The fanatics usually have a leader and share some kind of cause while the nut-case is a loner. A normal person may be able to understand their logic but would not agree with their action. Terrorists and nut-cases who act on their causes are criminals and must be removed from society. No argument possible there. They can believe all they want but violent action is a crime.
The gun issue is a gun issue. The second amendment reads: “A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.” This leaves lots of room for interpretation. It migrated to our U.S. Constitution from the English Constitution where it protected English Protestants from being disarmed as was done by King James II. Our problem is how to let good guys have guns but not bad guys.
Our Supreme Court has indicated that citizens have an existing (innate) right to arms that must be allowed by law. This does not prohibit the government from requiring some type of license or registration that would allow authorities a way to identify and disarm individuals who have been legally prohibited from carrying a gun such as felons or certified nut-cases or members of illegal gangs or terrorist organizations or illegal aliens. We can argue about how to do that, too. Bringing all the posturing and international ramifications into the discussion will assure that the water gets too muddied to define the real problem. That problem is...
How do we allow responsible people to carry a firearm if the choose to?
How do we keep guns out of the hands of little kids that take them to school?
How do we keep nut-cases from shooting our elected officials?
How do we keep 15 year-olds from shooting patrons in smoke shops?
How do we keep students from shooting sprees on campuses?
How do we keep fanatical groups from stockpiling caches of weapons?
How do we keep gang members from obtaining guns?
How do we stop the sale of guns to Mexican drug cartels?
How do we make a law that accomplishes all the above without infringing on our constitutional rights?
Is it possible to discuss this issue without name calling, posturing, profiling and money destroying the conversation? Not so far.
Dale Whiting posted at 2:04 pm on Sat, Jan 21, 2012.
sockrattes,
Once again we agree. Muslims are not terrorists. Jews are not terrorists. Christians, be they French nobility or Catholic citizens in Northern Ireland, are not terrorists. Only terrorists are terrorists. And those 3 Afghani snipers killed by those 4 Marines were not terrorists either.
And regarding "gun control," that NRA hot button issue, I began a discussion of this issue a year ago by making a modest proposal. Where you and I can bear a side arm, an automatic pistol for self protection, and where our Constitution mentions that well regulated militia, ones which Jan Brewer can now create independently from any Federally regulated militia, needing arms too, is there any conceivable need for armor pearcing ammunition or 33 round magazines?
To this modest suggestion some [read Slabside] got highly critical. But he was never able to justify professed need for his magazine. He uses his extended round magazine on the pistol range. But I have yet to meet the target that can run out of range before I can reload my 10 round magazine and drill that target between the eyes. Jared Laughner was disarmed only after he shot his 33 round magazine empty. Conceivable less than a third of those killed or maimed by him would have been hit if buying those magazines was illegal.
So, let's have another go at it. I have proposed that we outlaw all extended round magazines. No militia are using them. No one needing personal protection themselves from others needs or is using them. And while we are at it, no one except a few militia are using AP rounds and their source of supply is the federal government. Those AP rounds now being used by criminals are killing law enforcement personnel who are wearing bullet proof vests!
So has anyone out there given any thought to sockrattes' other questions? In the mean time, try writing to Senator Kyl. He blew off my letter on this subject. Let's blow his logic off in return, this before he retires and starts lobbying for the NRA!
Rational Human posted at 7:48 pm on Sat, Jan 21, 2012.
Dale, why do you always have to twist the subject around to fit your own illogical dogma? Dale loves, illegal aliens, Muslims, and everyone else who hates America.
Dale Whiting posted at 2:23 pm on Sun, Jan 22, 2012.
Irrational Inhumane Individual [hereafter tripple I]
Got news for you III. Illegal aliens love America. That's why they come here illegally. And Muslims love American, too. That's why so many live here legally! So what's your excuse? Or do you have one?
Rational Human posted at 5:28 pm on Sun, Jan 22, 2012.
Yes, they love America Dale, but they seem to hate Americans. Reminds me of you. I don't need an excuse, I have you.
Masterrogue666 posted at 5:55 pm on Sun, Jan 22, 2012.
I don't blame all Muslims. However, I do know that there are radical Muslims that would love to kill Americans. I don't hate those of Hispanic ancestry, but I do know many of them hate me because they cling to the idea that CA, AZ, NM, and TX was "stolen" from them, and should be returned to them even though the history that I've read claims otherwise.
Generally, we are a nation of "counter punchers". We wait until we get hit, then react. Imagine if even ONE LAW ABIDING citizen had been armed, and decided to use deadly force in the protection of others similar to the Tucson shootings. Even if ONE LIFE was saved, it would have been worth it!
And, if LAW ABIDING CITIZENS do start having a positive affect, I've no doubt said shootings would probably decease! When I'm out and about, I don't fear someone that has a gun in plain sight. I also don't fear those that went through and passed CCW classes (as it should be). I fear those that have guns, but plan on using them in an ILLEGAL manner.....