Protect us from plastic bag, not guns

[vincent]

They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.

— Benjamin Franklin

I had a long verbose logical response, but seriously, your just some scared woman who has been convinced by the news that the bad people are going to get you.

You live in a world of fear, sorry you feel that way. Life is dangerous get a helmet.

dragons!

Share This

[JoB]

Vincent,

on the contrary.. i am not some scared woman who has been convinced by the news that bad people are going to get me.

I am a woman who has lived 60 years on this planet and who has lived many of them in neighborhoods you wouldn’t enter without a firearm… in fact.. it is probable you wouldn’t enter them at all… since you won’t enter any neighborhood .. or public park… without a firearm:)

I not only lived in those neighborhoods, i depended upon the bus system just like all of my neighbors. I lived and walked those streets.. though not without incident.

I am a woman whose family has been personally affected by the violence that can come from guns in the home. I sat and held the hands of my favorite aunt, her daughters and granddaughters for 5 days in the waiting area off ICU while we waited for the decision to end the life of a 6 year old child who survived that violence.

I am the sister of a police officer who chose to spend the majority of his career in one of the worst neighborhoods in Portland and who had to sit quietly while he talked of the near misses that kept him alive during violence created by guns.

I am the sister in law of an emergency room nurse in that same neighborhood who daily deals with the intended and unintended results of gunfire.. in the pediatric section of that emergency room.

She was the nurse in charge on the day my aunt and the child’s father had to make the decision to end life support for my young cousin.

I am myself the victim of street violence and nearly didn’t escape death.

I am not some frightened old woman listening to scary stories…

I am one who has survived the worst this society has to offer and still believes that arming yourself is not the answer.

so tell me again why it is that you think you need a firearm to protect yourself?

Share This

[Zenguy]

The CDC keeps statistics on all kinds of deaths in the US and when you limit it to firearms it lists 30,694 in 2005.

I grew up with lots of guns in our house and my dad taught me to shoot as well. My problem is not with guns, my problem is with the gun owners not being responsible. I would prefer that someone wanting to purchase a gun have to go through a class to teach respect and proper useage before hand.

Secondly I would like to see better enforcement of the gun dealers and think the loose restictions on gun shows is unbelievable.

Share This

[beachdrivegirl]

Zenguy I am with you. i do not believe that guns are the problem. And banning guns (especially in a silly context of just parks) is not a solution. It is very far froma solution. The problem is with irresponsible gun owners. Rather than banning guns maybe people should consider stricter punsihments for those irresponsible gun owners and gun dealers out there. It seems like that is a real solution not just a band aid solution that bannning guns would be.

Share This

[Anonymous]

Zenguy, you may have misunderstood me. The department of justice keeps every crime statistic. They have very accurate records of handgun deaths (as well as all other crimes). My point was, the statistics for random stray bullet death or injury are so minuscule they do not register as a statistic. It doesn’t mean they don’t occur, it just means they are rare in the scheme of things. To create the illusion that we somehow need to be concerned about crossfire in our city parks, is paranoia, IMO.

Share This

[JoB]

JT..

I could be wrong, but i am guessing that the stats you refer to as crossfire are those generated during exchanges between law enforcement and criminals… and stray random bullet deaths may well be another category… but my recollection is what they track at the department of justice are stray bullet deaths due to law enforcement or altercations with law enforcement.. and they have a vested interest in undercounting those deaths and injuries.

it doesn’t matter much because my response is the same whether we are talking about crossfire or stray bullets… or bullets randomly fired….

or about the right to legally purchase firearms with little or no supervision.. including automatic weapons…

the number of deaths due to stray bullets is only statistically insignificant if you don’t happen to be the family member of one of those people who are killed…

and you don’t have to be killed to have your life destroyed by a stray bullet.

So at what point do deaths in parks and public spaces become statistically significant enough to realize that perhaps we could have prevented them by limiting the right to carry weapons in our public spaces?

At what point do we instigate gun laws with teeth so that automatic weapons aren’t readily available … and that every gun owner is required to take and pass gun safety classes and exams?

statistical insignificance pales when the guns in question are in the hands of the mentally deranged such as was the case at Virginia Tech… and yes, i know none of those killed there were reported as crossfire or stray bullets since his intention was to kill as many as possible as efficiently as possible… but i seem to remember that someone was injured passing by the building.

I am the mother of a student who narrowly avoided being one of those wounded or killed there.

Somehow it’s pretty difficult to convince me that any deaths caused by by the proliferation of guns in our society are statistically insignificant.

i was lucky my daughter skipped her workout that day and slept in.. i was lucky that my brother survived several gun battles as a narcotics officer that could have easily ended his life.

but it is just that.. luck.

I am not so willing to risk my life or put the lives of those i love at risk just to secure the rights of someone who may or may not use their privilege of gun ownership responsibly in parks where children play.

We legislate the safety of playground equipment… We legislate the use of alcohol in our parks.. why is it so out of line to legislate carrying firearms in public parks?

All current legislation of equipment and use of public parks is geared to the prevention of accident, injury and death… the number of incidents precipitating those laws likely adding up to statistical insignificance…

Share This

[HP]

i have resisted posting on this thread for 3 days, but i can resist no more. IMO the problem with guns is the irresponsible person attatched to the gun. Our family just finished the court process with a teenage cousin who shot his best friend and killed him accidently. When I was in high school a good friend of mine was shot and killed in her own kitchen at point blank range in the face by another girl woho was 17, all over a boy! one intentional one not the one not intentional will spend 7 years in prison the one in high school which was intentional spent only one year behind bars . go figure but that being said the punishment is getting better, Just not better enought so many crimes happen and punishment is not at all severe enough imo. we have kids today who dont really care if they go to jail, sometimes its even a status symbol as to how much time you have done. and when in jail its a cake walk people get to sit around and watch tv and play games, sleep and basically loaf… ITS NOT punishment imo these folks should have to work all day digging ditches if for no other reason but to dig it and fill it back up again and start digging some more…but something..and back to before jail even happens or crimes, our kids today need to be taught respect responsibility and accountability. there is way to much pampering of kids today and parents just wanting to be their kids friend!!!that is not our job our job as parents is to teach these kids how to get along in the real world and deal with stuff and we are going to be in bigger trouble than we can imagine if this trend in letting kids get away with anything doesnt change. ok enough of that soapbox but seriously, it all starts at home. we had guns in the house growing up but i dont want one,because i know i would hurt myself trying to defend myself but the constitution does say i have the right to have one. And its not the responsible licensed gun owners we need to be worring about its all of the illegal guns out there and the irresponsibles with those guns and changing the law to say no guns in parks will not do much for those peoples behavior. just my opinion.

Share This

[Anonymous]

Speaking of Virginia Tech, weren’t guns prohibited from being carried inside the school, even prior to the devastating shooting?

I think that can only support the argument that a gun ban in public parks will do absolutely nothing. It did nothing at Virginia Tech to prevent what happened there.

The common issue, that it seems everyone has, is the irresponsibility of some gun owners (or un-registered gun owners). Banning guns from public parks will do nothing for that argument, as we have learned from history.

Share This

[Zenguy]

Agree totally, parents, owners and gun sellers should be held accountable!

Technically the constitution says you can have one for the purpose of being in a well regulated Militia and I would guess this is not what the Founding Fathers invisioned.

Share This

[Zenguy]

I became anti gun after sitting around the living room with my brothers and parents when one brother started waving around a gun, pointing it at us and pretending to fire it. I told him to knock it off, that it was dangerous. My brother laughed, called me a pansy, pointed at the ceiling and promptly put a bullet in it. We all sat there stunned for what seemed like an eternity.

My brother had cleaned the gun and thought it was empty, he meant no harm, he was just horsing around…one of us still could have died that night.

Share This

[Anonymous]

Amendment II

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.

Actually, Zenguy, that is debatable. The right to bear arms can be read as inclusive to a militia, but it can also be read as in addition to a militia (as in, a militia AND the right to bear arms shall not be infringed).

Sorry about your experience. Must have been scary.

Share This

[Anonymous]

JoB, you continue to put forth an emotional argument based on your experiences. This can not be debated. If it was my experience I’m sure I’d be just as passionate. But there is a reason we base laws and rules on logic and statistics.

Share This

[Zenguy]

NR you are right, that is the exact wording and if you only read that you would be correct that it is open to interpretation. That is why precedence has to be read as well.

Until the last ten or so years courts sided on the militia side and for gun control. Several court decision lately have bucked that trend but failed to provide the proper precedence…to use a Republican term, thereby legislating from the bench. Check out the Second Amendment in the Courts section.

http://tiny.cc/Y1Avc

Share This

[JoB]

JT..

We base laws on rules and statistics?

yeah.. not so much.

there is nothing emotional about the fact that you won’t find more statistical evidence for regulating playground equipment safety than you will for accidental shootings… and yet we do have laws regulating playground equipment.

i guess nobody kicked up a big enough fuss about their right to unsafe playground equipment…

calling this argument emotional is one way of ignoring the common sense inherent in preventing injury instead of punishing after the fact.

i will tell you one thing that my 50 years of reading, thinking, observing and experience has taught me

(yup.. i was one of those beady 4 eyed kids who had their nose stuck in a book and thought constantly about what I read and how that related to what i saw around me.. pure nerd)…

that its a lot better to prevent injury than to mourn your losses later…

and that one person’s rights should never be bought at the expense of others…

even if they are statistically irrelevant.

Share This

[JoB]

i would ask if any of you who are so adamant about the right to purchase any kind of gun and carry it any place you want have ever looked down the barrel of a loaded gun that was pointed at you.

that experience does tend to make you think a lot about all those legal guns out there in the hands of irresponsible and/or malicious people.

Share This

[JoB]

JT..

that may be what you call an emotional argument.

i call it learning from experience.

Share This

[JoB]

NewResident

“Speaking of Virginia Tech, weren’t guns prohibited from being carried inside the school, even prior to the devastating shooting?

I think that can only support the argument that a gun ban in public parks will do absolutely nothing. It did nothing at Virginia Tech to prevent what happened there.”

I see you wear your empathy on your sleeve.

Share This

[Anonymous]

“The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; a well armed and well regulated militia being the best security of a free country; but no person religiously scrupulous of bearing arms shall be compelled to render military service in person.”

This is the original language, as introduced to Congress in 1789. I think the intention is obvious, based on the original text.

Share This

[Anonymous]

JoB – Huh?

Share This

[Zenguy]

But that was back when we had no army and was the only means of defending ourselves. Is it still relevant now?

Share This

[Anonymous]

I believe that it is still relevant in today’s world.

It is a right that every citizen has, as provided in our very own Constitution.

I think the debate, or issue, should be the responsibility of who, how and why. We need to make sure that guns are only in the hands of those responsible, registered citizens.

Banning guns from public parks is not the answer. As someone said earlier, it’s only a band-aid solution that will do nothing.

Share This

[vincent]

dragons!

Share This

[Anonymous]

vincent – lolmao!!!

btw, where is JohnM who started this whole debate?

Share This

[JoB]

It’s a start… a real conversation about who, how and why would be better.

the guns used to kill those kids at Virginia Tech were automatic weapons that were legally purchased.

When the question of why any citizen would need to carry a gun into a public park stirs such emotion among gun owners, the question of why any citizen needs the right to buy automatic weapons becomes impossible to discuss.

We need laws about where citizens can legally carry guns because we have not chosen to create laws about what guns citizens can purchase.. or whether they need to be trained before purchasing one.. or….

Share This

[mellaw6565]

I’ve purposefully stayed out of this debate for a while as it has changed from a question regarding reasonable restriction to a debate on gun control – something which will go on and on……

Vincent – I think you need to do some more research – if you look at other countries (and I have lived in several) that have gun bans or restrictions, the incidents of shootings is almost non-existent. (I’m not talking about dictatorships either) You then cited a statistic from England about knife crimes (totally unrelated to guns) to shore up your argument. If you read the reports from Great Britain, you will see that it is a recent rash of gang-related, teen on teen crime, and that one of the reasons they are not dying in numbers is because there are no guns to use. Knives can kill, but not with the swiftness or accuracy of a gun.

I’m for reasonable restrictions on gun ownership and use, and support the government’s right to impose them. This thread started as a discussion as to whether the gun ban in public parks is a reasonable restriction or not. I think it is, even though I wouldn’t support taking away gun ownership altogether. I just think that if it is a public space where many people gather, I don’t want anyone with guns around, legal or illegal ownership. A restriction carries with it heavier penalties and therefore hopefully a greater deterrent to those who risk bringing the weapon in that area. It’s like the drug free zones around schools – you’re not going to necessarily stop drug use in society but you can provide areas where engaging in that activity would be a much bigger crime, and therefore hopefully a deterrent.

And Vincent and Jimmy G – you never answered my original question: Why do you want to bring a gun with you to a public park? I’m getting that your answer is “Just because I can” – Gee, that kind of salient and cogent reasoning makes us all feel better about you carrying a gun – NOT! Will you use the same reasoning when you brandish your weapon and contemplate using it?

Share This

[Author]

Posts