The Right to Keep and Bear Arms: The Gun Thread

[Emily]

Another kid just killed herself because his dad just had to have a gun:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2015/11/30/georgia-6-year-old-dead-finds-gun-in-couch-cushion-fatally-shoots-herself/

According to the Centers For Disease Control’s "WONDER" database, 69 children under the age of 15 died from accidental gunshots in the US in 2013. How many saved their lives defending themselves with a gun that year? Thank GOD guns are restricted in my country. There will aways be loads of irresponsible people who own them if guns aren't restricted.

Ugh. Such a shame. I live in TX and so many parents think I'm awful because I won't let my daughter play at their houses if they have unsecured guns.

[Micha]

Another kid just killed herself because her dad just had to have a gun:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2015/11/30/georgia-6-year-old-dead-finds-gun-in-couch-cushion-fatally-shoots-herself/

According to the Centers For Disease Control’s "WONDER" database, 69 children under the age of 15 died from accidental gunshots in the US in 2013. How many saved their lives defending themselves with a gun that year? Thank GOD guns are restricted in my country. There will aways be loads of irresponsible people who own them if guns aren't restricted.

Ugh. Such a shame. I live in TX and so many parents think I'm awful because I won't let my daughter play at their houses if they have unsecured guns.

As you might guess, I think they are awful.

[filledeplage]

Another kid just killed herself because his dad just had to have a gun:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2015/11/30/georgia-6-year-old-dead-finds-gun-in-couch-cushion-fatally-shoots-herself/

According to the Centers For Disease Control’s "WONDER" database, 69 children under the age of 15 died from accidental gunshots in the US in 2013. How many saved their lives defending themselves with a gun that year? Thank GOD guns are restricted in my country. There will aways be loads of irresponsible people who own them if guns aren't restricted.

Ugh. Such a shame. I live in TX and so many parents think I'm awful because I won't let my daughter play at their houses if they have unsecured guns.

Good for you, and too bad if people don't like it. 

The key words are "unsecured" and you know the difference as a vet. 

[Andrew G. Doe]

"Gun control" doesn't mean "we're going to take them away"... it means ensuring that only responsible people are allowed to have guns. Anyone who has any kind of a problem with that is a very dangerous idiot.

[KDS]

"Gun control" doesn't mean "we're going to take them away"... it means ensuring that only responsible people are allowed to have guns. Anyone who has any kind of a problem with that is a very dangerous idiot.

That concept of gun control is perfectly fine. 

But, there are very vocal groups who believe that "controlling" anything (ie. guns, violent TV shows, music with risque lyrics, fatty foods, soda, etc) means taking it away completely. 

[Emily]

Another kid just killed herself because his dad just had to have a gun:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2015/11/30/georgia-6-year-old-dead-finds-gun-in-couch-cushion-fatally-shoots-herself/

According to the Centers For Disease Control’s "WONDER" database, 69 children under the age of 15 died from accidental gunshots in the US in 2013. How many saved their lives defending themselves with a gun that year? Thank GOD guns are restricted in my country. There will aways be loads of irresponsible people who own them if guns aren't restricted.

Ugh. Such a shame. I live in TX and so many parents think I'm awful because I won't let my daughter play at their houses if they have unsecured guns.

Good for you, and too bad if people don't like it. 

The key words are "unsecured" and you know the difference as a vet. 

Indeed I do, and insist upon it. A lot of people here have unlocked pistols at their bedside. They say with confidence "our kids know how much trouble they'll get it they mess with it." Not a high enough standard. I knew how much trouble I'd get if I messed with a lot of things when I was a kid; if I thought I could get away with it, I couldn't resist the challenge.

[Micha]

But, there are very vocal groups who believe that "controlling" anything (ie. guns, violent TV shows, music with risque lyrics, fatty foods, soda, etc) means taking it away completely. 

Violent TV shows, music with risque lyrics, fatty foods, soda can't kill you in the blink of an eye. An irresponsibly handled gun can. In my 46 years of life I've never beem in a situation where I could have used a gun. If I had one and encountered a situation in which I could use it, I'd probably be too stunned to make use of it. IMO guns should be restricted to people who have a good reason to have them, like policemen. At least I don't have a good reason to have one.

A lot of people here have unlocked pistols at their bedside.

Are they afraid of their dreams or what? Is Texas known for hords of barbarians marauding people's houses at night?

[Emily]

A lot of people here have unlocked pistols at their bedside.

Are they afraid of their dreams or what? Is Texas known for hords of barbarians marauding people's houses at night?

Haha. No. They are caught up in what I call "the Great Fear."  It's a panic that the government, Islam, gay people, progressives, marauding hordes, feminists, someone is out to "destroy our way of life." In response to that panic they run out and buy more and more weapons because it makes them feel like they're doing something to protect themselves from the bogeyman.
It's a cult that 30% or so of Americans have joined in the last few decades. I'm sad to say it's got cels in Europe as well, though the gun-mania aspect has not taken hold there, it seems.

[Mike's Beard]

Violent TV shows, music with risque lyrics, fatty foods, soda can't kill you in the blink of an eye. An irresponsibly handled gun can. In my 46 years of life I've never beem in a situation where I could have used a gun. If I had one and encountered a situation in which I could use it, I'd probably be too stunned to make use of it. IMO guns should be restricted to people who have a good reason to have them, like policemen. At least I don't have a good reason to have one.

Not everyone has that luxury. Understandably people who live in areas where break ins and muggings are commonplace may feel safer if they could protect themselves. Also, I say this as someone who lives in a fairly good part of the UK.

[filledeplage]

Violent TV shows, music with risque lyrics, fatty foods, soda can't kill you in the blink of an eye. An irresponsibly handled gun can. In my 46 years of life I've never beem in a situation where I could have used a gun. If I had one and encountered a situation in which I could use it, I'd probably be too stunned to make use of it. IMO guns should be restricted to people who have a good reason to have them, like policemen. At least I don't have a good reason to have one.

Not everyone has that luxury. Understandably people who live in areas where break ins and muggings are commonplace may feel safer if they could protect themselves. Also, I say this as someone who lives in a fairly good part of the UK.

Exactly, and if you life in a densely populated city, where crime and drug dealing is rampant, the US 2nd amendment provides a means of self-defense.  If you live in a low crime area, then it might be a different story, but no one can be assured of safety these days. 

Violent crime cuts across every region and social strata. It used to be in an agrarian context that everyone had a rifle, to defend against wild animals or intruders.  And, children were properly taught as part of their upbringing how to clean a rifle, load and shoot in the event of an emergency. 

There is so much pushback against eroding liberties, that it would be surprising if it was repealed.  It will be interesting to see exactly what happens with this Chicago situation excessive force with a police officer, where an investigation was unconscionably silenced for over a year to ensure the election of the incumbent mayor, a person close to the president.

 

[Emily]

Violent TV shows, music with risque lyrics, fatty foods, soda can't kill you in the blink of an eye. An irresponsibly handled gun can. In my 46 years of life I've never beem in a situation where I could have used a gun. If I had one and encountered a situation in which I could use it, I'd probably be too stunned to make use of it. IMO guns should be restricted to people who have a good reason to have them, like policemen. At least I don't have a good reason to have one.

Not everyone has that luxury. Understandably people who live in areas where break ins and muggings are commonplace may feel safer if they could protect themselves. Also, I say this as someone who lives in a fairly good part of the UK.

Perhaps it's understandable on a visceral level, but what's not understandable is why people will continue to follow their intuition in the face of contrary evidence and fact, and why people seem to think when faced with a stressful situation they will perform differently from virtually all other people in the same situation (see posts earlier in this thread for evidence that arming one's self is not beneficial, but detrimental despite some people's inklings). Bringing more firearms into the scene is counter-productive. I guess we all like to imagine we're superheroes but some of us learn to keep that in the realm of fantasy.

Exactly, and if you life in a densely populated city, where crime and drug dealing is rampant, the US 2nd amendment provides a means of self-defense.  If you live in a low crime area, then it might be a different story, but no one can be assured of safety these days.  

Violent crime cuts across every region and social strata. It used to be in an agrarian context that everyone had a rifle, to defend against wild animals or intruders.  And, children were properly taught as part of their upbringing how to clean a rifle, load and shoot in the event of an emergency.  

"Exactly" only if you are a member of the Fear cult. Violent crime is at the lowest since the 1960s throughout the US, including in urban areas. "These days" one is a lot safer just about anywhere than one has been for decades, and yet the cult has people in fear of marauding hordes "these days."
Follow the money, FdP. Who's benefitting from the sales of weapons and who writes on the sites that ratchet up the fear in spite of the facts? Will your scrutiny be applied here?

Even National Review is telling people to cut it out:
http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/427758/careful-panic-violent-crime-and-gun-crime-are-both-dropping-charles-c-w-cooke

In the face of facts, can Americans settle down, or will the constant fearful internet postings overwhelm the facts and cause people to continue their self-destructive panic?

[Douchepool]

You've basically posted a pro-gun article to illustrate your point; you know this, right? Charles C.W. Cooke is a staunch supporter of the right to bear arms.

"Over the last 25 years, we have seen a remarkable reduction in violent crime at the exact moment that the country has been flooded with firearms and has (generally) loosened the laws that govern their ownership and use. Did one cause the other? Frankly, I have no idea — and nor, in truth does anybody else. But I do know that things are improving and that we ought to be extremely careful before we conclude that the current regime has nothing at all to do with that improvement."

[Emily]

You've basically posted a pro-gun article to illustrate your point; you know this, right? Charles C.W. Cooke is a staunch supporter of the right to bear arms.

"Over the last 25 years, we have seen a remarkable reduction in violent crime at the exact moment that the country has been flooded with firearms and has (generally) loosened the laws that govern their ownership and use. Did one cause the other? Frankly, I have no idea — and nor, in truth does anybody else. But I do know that things are improving and that we ought to be extremely careful before we conclude that the current regime has nothing at all to do with that improvement."

Yes, I've posted that article to illustrate my point that the big Fear is unfounded.
I don't agree with Mr. Cooke that we should ignore facts ("Did one cause the other? Frankly, I have no idea," well, I have an idea because I don't let my emotions and political preferences block my mind from absorbing information) when determining policy. That I don't agree with him on one thing does not deter me from agreeing with him on another, because my mind is flexible.

[Douchepool]

What you term "the Great Fear" is not completely unfounded; I don't think progressives, gays, or feminists pose any real threat short of being perpetually annoying in their constant desire for approval; they also don't carry guns for the most part so I've little reason to fear them (though I have plenty of inclination to endlessly ridicule them). I notice you don't mention multiculturalism in your blurb about "the Great Fear." Like it or not, that IS something to be feared.

Where did Mr. Cooke imply that facts should be ignored?

[Emily]

What you term "the Great Fear" is not completely unfounded; I don't think progressives, gays, or feminists pose any real threat short of being perpetually annoying in their constant desire for approval; they also don't carry guns for the most part so I've little reason to fear them (though I have plenty of inclination to endlessly ridicule them). I notice you don't mention multiculturalism in your blurb about "the Great Fear." Like it or not, that IS something to be feared.

Where did Mr. Cooke imply that facts should be ignored?

-Regarding multi-culturalism - if you are against multi-culturalism, you must be for the only alternative: an enforced uniculture. Ironically, since I expect the uniculture you support regards "freedom" to be part of the culture, it is against that culture to be against multiculturalism.
So what culture do you propose for the enforced uniculture? Yours, I expect. So many people want to dictate to the rest of the world what it should do and be. In my culture, we don't support dictatorships.
-I did not intend my list of panic-targets to be considered all-inclusive. It could go on.
-Regarding Mr. Cooke, he said (paraphrasing) that no one has any idea whether the quantity of firearms and "loosened" ownership and use restrictions have a link to the violent crime rate.
This is counter-factual.

[Douchepool]

I am a political libertarian and a cultural chauvinist. The West is the best. Anyone can be a Westerner if they want to be; who really wants to be a non-Westerner? Humans, as social animals, will organize alongside people with similar beliefs and culture. Would it be enforced? Not necessarily by a state; people can practice good old ostracism. Want to live in Western civilization and not assimilate into Western culture? Good luck. May the odds be ever in your favor. A free society cannot tolerate fifth columns because fifth columns are composed of people who do not value freedom. In the endeavor to preserve the most freedom for the most people, the people who do not value freedom will not be able to coexist in a libertarian social order. Call it a dictatorship if you wish. The people who don't value freedom are not going to be missed; they don't produce anything of value anyway. For the record, the same people who comprise said fifth columns come from nations that also do not tolerate fifth columns. How come they get to have all of the fun?

Liberty is not for the weak of stomach or the faint of heart. Very few truly desire liberty; those who hallucinate themselves as individuals who similarly desire liberty are of the persuasion that liberty does not go both ways.

How is his assertion counterfactual?

[filledeplage]

Violent TV shows, music with risque lyrics, fatty foods, soda can't kill you in the blink of an eye. An irresponsibly handled gun can. In my 46 years of life I've never beem in a situation where I could have used a gun. If I had one and encountered a situation in which I could use it, I'd probably be too stunned to make use of it. IMO guns should be restricted to people who have a good reason to have them, like policemen. At least I don't have a good reason to have one.

Not everyone has that luxury. Understandably people who live in areas where break ins and muggings are commonplace may feel safer if they could protect themselves. Also, I say this as someone who lives in a fairly good part of the UK.

Perhaps it's understandable on a visceral level, but what's not understandable is why people will continue to follow their intuition in the face of contrary evidence and fact, and why people seem to think when faced with a stressful situation they will perform differently from virtually all other people in the same situation (see posts earlier in this thread for evidence that arming one's self is not beneficial, but detrimental despite some people's inklings). Bringing more firearms into the scene is counter-productive. I guess we all like to imagine we're superheroes but some of us learn to keep that in the realm of fantasy.

Exactly, and if you life in a densely populated city, where crime and drug dealing is rampant, the US 2nd amendment provides a means of self-defense.  If you live in a low crime area, then it might be a different story, but no one can be assured of safety these days.  

Violent crime cuts across every region and social strata. It used to be in an agrarian context that everyone had a rifle, to defend against wild animals or intruders.  And, children were properly taught as part of their upbringing how to clean a rifle, load and shoot in the event of an emergency.  

"Exactly" only if you are a member of the Fear cult. Violent crime is at the lowest since the 1960s throughout the US, including in urban areas. "These days" one is a lot safer just about anywhere than one has been for decades, and yet the cult has people in fear of marauding hordes "these days."
Follow the money, FdP. Who's benefitting from the sales of weapons and who writes on the sites that ratchet up the fear in spite of the facts? Will your scrutiny be applied here?

Even National Review is telling people to cut it out:
http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/427758/careful-panic-violent-crime-and-gun-crime-are-both-dropping-charles-c-w-cooke

In the face of facts, can Americans settle down, or will the constant fearful internet postings overwhelm the facts and cause people to continue their self-destructive panic?

Hardly part of the fear cult.  I'm in a city, all my life. In my immediate area there were three women recently killed for drug money/goods to sell, in a short amount of time and I know the area well.  Most young women who have moved into the area have now bought dogs for protection after this cluster of murders so they can walk around at night.  Seeing these murders were a wake up call.

The murder rate has gone up, and the death rate for overdoses has gone up, especially with the fentanyl that has been found on autopsy. There is new legislation with regard penalties. Think the dealer has a gun?  You betcha.

With addiction comes crime. With drugs come weapons and dangerous individuals running the organizations. It is counterintuitive and not credible, to say that there is a decrease in violent crime. With gangs come violent crimes.  Guns.

If you doubt that violent crime has not gone up, go sit in a city courthouse and watch some arraignments to see for yourself that the crime rate has not gone down.  Crime that doesn't always hit the news.  And crime numbers that are manipulated to represent less crime in an area where people would not invest in the real estate.  There are many factors we don't know about. We only know what we are told.  

We didn't find out about this Chicago murder with the cop that happened on October 20, 2014 because of an election that was a highly contested one with the facts squashed and a payout made to a family before a trial ever took place. Over one year.  Because the mayor was the former chief to the prez.  This stuff is unheard of until this administration.  

Where there are drug arrests or police stops on the road, there are guns associated with the business.  And guns are routinely taken from students at school, but much has remained off the grid so the schools can maintain a false sense of security as their promote their schools to parents.  We won't ever know the real stats because they generally don't include schools where it is kept under wraps. There should be metal detectors in every public building in my view.  We have them in our courthouses and many public buildings.  

The fact of the matter is that "sales of firearms" generally cannot be tracked because many of them are not bought legitimately, nor registered, and are being manufactured outside of the US and sold on the black market.  It is virtual, like bitcoin, under the radar. One of the criticisms of bitcoin is that it was supposedly a currency for drugs.  Where there are drugs, there are guns.  We can only follow the money that is on paper, appropriated or reduced to writing in a contract.  As drugs have found a way into every nook and cranny of this country there are illegal off-the-grid guns which follow.  

That is reality not some analyst who has been paid to spin things one way or another.  

 

[Micha]

I notice you don't mention multiculturalism in your blurb about "the Great Fear." Like it or not, that IS something to be feared.

Multiculturalism is not a thing to be feared per se. It works in Switzerland for instance, where there are in fact people of four different languages living peacefully together. The reason is, they're all about equally rich. In Belgium, where the Flemish region is richer than the Wallonic region, it's much more difficult even between these. And then there's the immigrants from Arabic countries who are usually pretty poor and have much more difficulties to find a proper job. That provokes tension between those who "have it all" and those who have lttle chances of improving their lives.

I mean, in, say, New York, there's Christians and Jews, they don't have a lot of problems with each other, don't they? Because they're on the same social level or have people on all parts of the social ladder.

The West is the best. Anyone can be a Westerner if they want to be; who really wants to be a non-Westerner?

That's why so many Syrians try to get away from the place where ISIL threatens their liberty and their lives.

[Emily]

I am a political libertarian and a cultural chauvinist. The West is the best. Anyone can be a Westerner if they want to be; who really wants to be a non-Westerner? Humans, as social animals, will organize alongside people with similar beliefs and culture. Would it be enforced? Not necessarily by a state; people can practice good old ostracism. Want to live in Western civilization and not assimilate into Western culture? Good luck. May the odds be ever in your favor. A free society cannot tolerate fifth columns because fifth columns are composed of people who do not value freedom. In the endeavor to preserve the most freedom for the most people, the people who do not value freedom will not be able to coexist in a libertarian social order. Call it a dictatorship if you wish. The people who don't value freedom are not going to be missed; they don't produce anything of value anyway. For the record, the same people who comprise said fifth columns come from nations that also do not tolerate fifth columns. How come they get to have all of the fun?

Liberty is not for the weak of stomach or the faint of heart. Very few truly desire liberty; those who hallucinate themselves as individuals who similarly desire liberty are of the persuasion that liberty does not go both ways.

How is his assertion counterfactual?

-Happily, your idea of Western civilization is a myth.
-"A free society cannot tolerate..." - oxymoron
-"The people who don't value freedom are not going to be missed; they don't produce anything of value anyway" - I wonder who you mean by "the people who don't value freedom" because if it includes whom I think you mean, this is counterfactual. Please tell me who "the people who.. value freedom" are and who "the people who don't value freedom" are. I mean, as far as being non-productive, income redistribution in the US en masse goes from liberals to conservatives, so..
-people do have an idea, based on actual information rather than wishes and fantasies.

[Emily]

Exactly, and if you life in a densely populated city, where crime and drug dealing is rampant, the US 2nd amendment provides a means of self-defense.  If you live in a low crime area, then it might be a different story, but no one can be assured of safety these days.  

Violent crime cuts across every region and social strata. It used to be in an agrarian context that everyone had a rifle, to defend against wild animals or intruders.  And, children were properly taught as part of their upbringing how to clean a rifle, load and shoot in the event of an emergency.  

"Exactly" only if you are a member of the Fear cult. Violent crime is at the lowest since the 1960s throughout the US, including in urban areas. "These days" one is a lot safer just about anywhere than one has been for decades, and yet the cult has people in fear of marauding hordes "these days."
Follow the money, FdP. Who's benefitting from the sales of weapons and who writes on the sites that ratchet up the fear in spite of the facts? Will your scrutiny be applied here?

Even National Review is telling people to cut it out:
http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/427758/careful-panic-violent-crime-and-gun-crime-are-both-dropping-charles-c-w-cooke

In the face of facts, can Americans settle down, or will the constant fearful internet postings overwhelm the facts and cause people to continue their self-destructive panic?

Hardly part of the fear cult.  I'm in a city, all my life. In my immediate area there were three women recently killed for drug money/goods to sell, in a short amount of time and I know the area well.  Most young women who have moved into the area have now bought dogs for protection after this cluster of murders so they can walk around at night.  Seeing these murders were a wake up call.

The murder rate has gone up, and the death rate for overdoses has gone up, especially with the fentanyl that has been found on autopsy. There is new legislation with regard penalties. Think the dealer has a gun?  You betcha.

With addiction comes crime. With drugs come weapons and dangerous individuals running the organizations. It is counterintuitive and not credible, to say that there is a decrease in violent crime. With gangs come violent crimes.  Guns.

If you doubt that violent crime has not gone up, go sit in a city courthouse and watch some arraignments to see for yourself that the crime rate has not gone down.  Crime that doesn't always hit the news.  And crime numbers that are manipulated to represent less crime in an area where people would not invest in the real estate.  There are many factors we don't know about. We only know what we are told.  

We didn't find out about this Chicago murder with the cop that happened on October 20, 2014 because of an election that was a highly contested one with the facts squashed and a payout made to a family before a trial ever took place. Over one year.  Because the mayor was the former chief to the prez.  This stuff is unheard of until this administration.  

Where there are drug arrests or police stops on the road, there are guns associated with the business.  And guns are routinely taken from students at school, but much has remained off the grid so the schools can maintain a false sense of security as their promote their schools to parents.  We won't ever know the real stats because they generally don't include schools where it is kept under wraps. There should be metal detectors in every public building in my view.  We have them in our courthouses and many public buildings.  

The fact of the matter is that "sales of firearms" generally cannot be tracked because many of them are not bought legitimately, nor registered, and are being manufactured outside of the US and sold on the black market.  It is virtual, like bitcoin, under the radar. One of the criticisms of bitcoin is that it was supposedly a currency for drugs.  Where there are drugs, there are guns.  We can only follow the money that is on paper, appropriated or reduced to writing in a contract.  As drugs have found a way into every nook and cranny of this country there are illegal off-the-grid guns which follow.  

That is reality not some analyst who has been paid to spin things one way or another.  

 

-"If you doubt that violent crime has not gone up, go sit in a city courthouse and watch some arraignments to see for yourself that the crime rate has not gone down."       " In my immediate area there were three women recently killed for drug money/goods to sell"     - This kind of short term anecdotal evidence can be used to explain how someone feels, but it certainly can not be used as evidence regarding the crime rate.
-drug use has been declining for at least a decade
-"It is counterintuitive and not credible, to say that there is a decrease in violent crime"   "That is reality not some analyst who has been paid to spin things one way or another." Anti-intellectualism and a prevalent will to believe intuition over reason and evidence is perhaps the biggest problem in the US.


I'm sorry for the recent spate of violence in your neck of the woods, but it does not represent a trend. And putting more guns into the situation doesn't help.

[KDS]

But, there are very vocal groups who believe that "controlling" anything (ie. guns, violent TV shows, music with risque lyrics, fatty foods, soda, etc) means taking it away completely. 

Violent TV shows, music with risque lyrics, fatty foods, soda can't kill you in the blink of an eye. An irresponsibly handled gun can. In my 46 years of life I've never beem in a situation where I could have used a gun. If I had one and encountered a situation in which I could use it, I'd probably be too stunned to make use of it. IMO guns should be restricted to people who have a good reason to have them, like policemen. At least I don't have a good reason to have one.

You mention irresponsibly handled guns can kill in an instant.  This is true.  But, its not right to take away the right to own a gun if it's going to be used in a responsible manner.  Let's say you make guns illegal unless you're in law enforcement.  You can't believe that the criminals won't find ways to get them.  Then, the outlaws are unarmed and people aren't. 

In states such as Nevada, it's legal to carry a gun.  As a result, they have much less street crime because muggers don't know who is carrying. 

Also, if used in a irresponsible manner, you can easily wipe out a life, or lives, with an automobile.  Is anyone calling for them to be banned? 

[Chocolate Shake Man]

Let's say you make guns illegal unless you're in law enforcement.  You can't believe that the criminals won't find ways to get them.  Then, the outlaws are unarmed and people aren't. 

Putting aside the fact that that historically does not happen (look at Australia, for example), how do you explain your double standard here when it comes to your other opinion on letting in refugees?

Also, if used in a irresponsible manner, you can easily wipe out a life, or lives, with an automobile.  Is anyone calling for them to be banned? 

There have been laws created that make driving safer - call those laws car control, if you will. And, in fact, we should continue to support efforts to make driving safer. Furthermore, the analogy does not hold up. A gun's primary function is to inflict violence or at least threaten it. An automobile serves another purpose, which is transportation, which is its primary function. Obviously anything out there can kill you or hurt you, but those things are distinctly different from the objects that are designed to do so.

[filledeplage]

Emily - you were militarily trained to use a firearm.  That makes you an asset in your neighborhood, whether or not you keep one your home. If you ended up with one in your hands for whatever reason, you know how to unload it or use it for necessity to defend yourself or your family.

First, the "anecdotal" guns in schools are not in the mix.

Second, the "illegal" firearms which are coming from and manufactured outside the US for drug trafficking are not in the mix.

It skews any study.  And creates a false representation of what is really going on.  

School violence with guns does not become part of the court record, the local police database, or perhaps FBI database and that is why it is not reliable.  

Who ever thought a school massacre would ever happen in a place like Newtown, CT, in the most idyllic place in the world?

It is not commonplace but it does happen and schools need to be ready to defend the children and staff.  I think the administration should be trained for concealed carry.  You'd see this whole dynamic evaporate.  Or have armed security as part of the school staff.  No kid would dare bring a gun to school if they thought they would have to go through a metal detector manned by a cop.  It would serve as an instant deterrent.  We need to be universally-prepared for the change in crime climate and not buy into the propaganda that lulls its society into complacency and unpreparedness.  Just sayin'  

[KDS]

Let's say you make guns illegal unless you're in law enforcement.  You can't believe that the criminals won't find ways to get them.  Then, the outlaws are unarmed and people aren't. 

Putting aside the fact that that historically does not happen (look at Australia, for example), how do you explain your double standard here when it comes to your other opinion on letting in refugees?

Also, if used in a irresponsible manner, you can easily wipe out a life, or lives, with an automobile.  Is anyone calling for them to be banned? 

There have been laws created that make driving safer - call those laws car control, if you will. And, in fact, we should continue to support efforts to make driving safer. Furthermore, the analogy does not hold up. A gun's primary function is to inflict violence or at least threaten it. An automobile serves another purpose, which is transportation, which is its primary function. Obviously anything out there can kill you or hurt you, but those things are distinctly different from the objects that are designed to do so.

Not sure how my stance on not letting in Syrian refugees has anything to do with gun laws.  But why do you want to let 10,000 non-citizens into the country when we have US citizens living on the streets?  We need to take care of our own. 

And I do find it amusing that people say that the 10,000 refugees shouldn't be lumped in with terrorists.  By that logic, the irresponsible gun owners shouldn't be lumped in with the responsible ones. 

[Chocolate Shake Man]

Not sure how my stance on not letting in Syrian refugees has anything to do with gun laws.

We've discussed this before but you never responded. You have admitted before that a terrorist can find a way to enter the country whether by legitimate or non-legitimate means. Yet, you said, why make it easier for them? So my question to you was why make it easier for criminals to access guns by not placing restrictions on them?

  But why do you want to let 10,000 non-citizens into the country when we have US citizens living on the streets?  We need to take care of our own. 

There is enough wealth in the United States to take care of all of them and then some. And given the history of both US domestic and international policy, I'd say they have an enormous responsibility to do so.