Home › Forums › Open Discussion › The issue of gun control
- This topic has 48 replies, 16 voices, and was last updated 9 years, 10 months ago by WSB.
-
AuthorPosts
-
April 7, 2015 at 7:00 pm #817142
coolParticipantApril 7, 2015 at 8:42 pm #823324
PangolinPieParticipantI don’t disagree with all of this, but I question some of the statistics quoted.
“…in 2005 60% of gun owners in the US illegally sell their guns to other citizens that most likely don’t have gun licenses (National Gun Victims, 2010).”
I cannot find this cite online. I think it may be misquoted from this source:
https://gunvictimsaction.org/fact-sheet/fact-sheet-illegal-gun-trafficking-arms-criminals-and-youth/
…which says “Nearly 60% of the guns used in crime are traced back to a small number—just 1.2%—of crooked gun dealers.”
That’s quite a different statement, and of course it makes more sense. Would you really believe that over half of the people who own guns have sold them illegally?
Also, this: “One reason we need stricssster [sic] gun laws in the usa is because there have been more murders.”
In fact, crime rates, including homicides by firearm, are going down:
http://www.cnn.com/2013/05/08/us/study-gun-homicide/
http://www.pewsocialtrends.org/2013/05/07/gun-homicide-rate-down-49-since-1993-peak-public-unaware/
Again, not that I disagree with strict gun control laws; they are important, and guns should be kept locked up and away from kids. But I also believe that I should have the right to own a firearm for personal protection. And in fact I do. As a single woman living alone in south West Seattle, I feel it’s a sadly necessary thing to keep on hand. I’m well-acquainted with its use, I’m not planning to sell it to anyone illegally (or otherwise) and I hope to continue to have this right for as long as I wish.
Incidentally, this post reads like a school essay. If it is, I’d make a few important grammar and spelling corrections before handing it in. :)
April 7, 2015 at 8:59 pm #823325
wakefloodParticipantPangolin, you’re probably better off with a taser/stun gun than you are with a firearm, all things considered.
April 7, 2015 at 9:06 pm #823326
PangolinPieParticipantDo you think so? Don’t you have to get pretty close to the target when using those, as opposed to a gun? I’d rather not have to take that chance. But I’d gladly listen to your reasons why those might be better options.
April 7, 2015 at 9:58 pm #823327
WSBKeymasterJust a clarification since Cool* didn’t include it – she is a student and wrote this as a project, and contacted us to see if we would publish it. The Forum is the closest thing we have to a letters/op-ed-type section (in addition to the other roles it fills), so I pointed her here, as we’ve done with some others who’ve contacted us with essays in the past. – Tracy
April 7, 2015 at 9:58 pm #823328
Jd seattleParticipantCool*’s post is filled with so much misinformation and rhetoric it’s not even worth the time it would take to debunk.
As to a taser/stun gun being better, maybe in some situations, not in others. You don’t get to pick the who’s, how’s, and where’s you are attacked. Each person should make their own desisions on how they choose to defend themselves. There is no one size fits all answer.
April 7, 2015 at 10:04 pm #823329
SmittyParticipantYou may want to mention the 2nd Amendment and what a huge obstacle it will be to overcome.
” the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed….”
Pretty darn clear.
April 7, 2015 at 10:13 pm #823330
PangolinPieParticipantI thought it sounded like a school essay! What grade is Cool* in, do we know? Cool*, you did a good job but definitely have someone help you out with proofreading.
April 7, 2015 at 10:17 pm #823331
wakefloodParticipantWell, tasers have a functional range of 15-30ft. so you can affect something at a fairly reasonable distance.
And let’s be honest, if you’re firing a gun at someone more than 15ft. away, either something has already happened at close range or you’re anticipating something happening that would cause you to need to use incapacitating- and here’s the crux of the biscuit – potentially deadly force.
My thought was primarily this: Most of the data I’ve read suggests that you’re just as likely to do something you don’t want to do to someone you don’t want to do it to using a gun. And if you’re using a gun, you’re committing to the possibility of the ultimate decision – killing someone.
So, if you’re a thoughtful human being, and I know that you indeed are, you’re pondering not using the gun unless you’re absolutely sure you need to, which means you’re likely within range of having your gun taken from you – making your decision to wait for surety – potentially work against you.
If you have the capacity to non-lethally mitigate your threat at a distance that’s reasonably far enough away to prevent physical contact (and lots of bad outcomes) but close enough to reduce the likelihood of error, the taser fits the bill better than a gun.
April 7, 2015 at 10:34 pm #823332
Jd seattleParticipantWake – valid points although I slightly disagree with some of them. My point with tasers is this; if you are using one that fires projectiles, you get one shot (unless you are carrying those giant reloads). Will you hit your target? Will the darts stick? Will they get caught in thick clothing? Is there more than one attacker?
Does a gun solve/help some of those problems? Yes. Does it bring some new problems along with it? Yes. Thats why I say there is no one size fits all answer.
I haven’t looked but, are stun guns (projectile type) even legal to carry in Washington?
April 7, 2015 at 10:45 pm #823333
wakefloodParticipantI hear you JD and I know of no restrictions on owning tasers (projectile firing) in WA.
The aiming issue is the same for either solution. And I read from a CA officer with 11yrs. that even if the darts don’t penetrate thick clothing, the current flows between the darts and is quite debilitating.
But as you say, there’s an infinite number of scenarios one can concoct that make one or both of the options perfect, useless, or indeed, dangerous to the victim.
April 8, 2015 at 12:50 am #823334
JoBParticipantSmitty..
when quoting the 2nd amendment you might want to quote the whole thing.
context really does matter.
April 8, 2015 at 12:58 am #823335
JoBParticipanti have to say that i am disappointed at the lack of respect shown to a local student… who seems to have removed their post
April 8, 2015 at 1:22 am #823336
Jd seattleParticipantI would hope parents would prepare their children to take light criticism when posting essays to public forums about decisive topics such as abolishing a constitutional right. If not, I am disappointed as well. Especially when not informing people you are a student and this was an essay.
April 8, 2015 at 2:28 am #823337
JoBParticipantJd Seattle..
WSB informed us she was a student.. in the post just above yours…
Pangolini Pie had already suspected as much in her response..
is this the kind of comment you would tell your kids to expect if they posted on a public forum?
“Cool*’s post is filled with so much misinformation and rhetoric it’s not even worth the time it would take to debunk.”
young people shouldn’t have to identify themselves as young people to avoid being told that their ideas are not even worth the time it would take to debunk them…
and you might take the time to read the responses before telling them so.
April 8, 2015 at 3:12 am #823338
Jd seattleParticipantJob- if you would encourage a child to publicly state their ideas regarding this type of topic on the Internet but not prepare them what will surley follow you will be doing them a huge disservice. If you are old enough to write an essay like that you are old enough to hear what people have to say about it. I’m sorry but you only need to shelter kids for so long. I seem to remember a topic about Mellenials and younger generations on here. I recall it being said that they will gladly tell you their opinion on something even if they know nothing about it. They are loud and so on and so on. Why do you think that is? Could it have something to do with everyone getting a trophy and not keeping score. Or telling them to go out in the world and voice their opinion and expect a standing ovation. Would it not be better to sit them down and say “I am proud of you for wanting to share your essay with others and I encourage it. But you need to know there will be people who do not agree with you and may even be critical of your ideas”. If your child is not ready for that don’t let them post it on a public forum.
April 8, 2015 at 6:13 am #823339
HMC RichParticipantHave any of you went to some of your old essays and read them? I read a few from my University days. It is quite interesting to see how I wrote about items back then compared to how I would write them today.
Guns are dangerous. No doubt about it. In the hands of some people they are a menace. Too bad all citizens are not required to take a gun safety class. Gun owners need to have their guns locked up or in a secure place that children or people with mental health issues cannot get to.
This is my favorite video regarding the 2nd Amendment. The amendment was shown to a linguist. Yes of course this is from a Right Wing video but it will show you, if you want to believe it, how smart the founders were in the formative days of our country and how the language of the Constitution is very clear.
April 8, 2015 at 6:34 am #823340
dobroParticipantWhat a load of crap and what a smarmy creep reading it. There is nothing in there analyzing the linguistic nature of the amendment. It’s total pandering to RWNJs. Did you make a donation to the site, as suggested by the creep reading the prompter at the end of this video?
April 8, 2015 at 2:41 pm #823341
JoBParticipantJd Seattle
no.. i don’t think we should be teaching our children that if they speak up they are going to be harassed by people who won’t take their argument seriously enough to read and respond.
I don’t think we should be teaching women that either… or the elderly.
might does not make right.. even when might is little more than a snark.
the fact that you can silence the voices of others by demeaning them isn’t exactly going to encourage anyone to speak up.
April 8, 2015 at 3:09 pm #823342
JoBParticipanti would like to add that even if you think an argument is a total piece of twaddle.. demeaning the person who made the argument doesn’t make your point.
April 8, 2015 at 5:31 pm #823343
Jd seattleParticipantJob – give me a break, harassed? Can we stop making everyone a victim now too. I did read it, did you? It was full of incorrect “facts and statistics”. If I had known it was a student posting an essay I would have approached it differently, do I feel bad though? No. You can applaud students that use made up information for serious issues that you agree with all you want, I’m sure it will serve them well in their future.
I’m not sure how women and elderly came into this discussion either. But it seems you just can’t help yourself. Now I’m silencing and harassing women and elderly I suppose.
April 8, 2015 at 9:03 pm #823344
JTBParticipantI confess it’s sometimes difficult for me to accurately assess the intentions of a writer. When I lived in the Bay Area, I got a chuckle for quite some time out of Mick Lasalle’s movie reviews which I took to be a tongue in cheek urban hipster counterpart to Joe Bob Briggs red neck movie reviews. I eventually realized poor Mick was in earnest and simply a bad critic.
I didn’t read the essay before it was pulled so I’m at a disadvantage. I think it’s appropriate to have some compassion for a well-intended school kid who found herself in a middle of a sharply contested issue that often becomes extremely heated. To me, it’s ok to say someone is misinformed or is putting forth information that isn’t credible. It’s also OK to say you don’t feel disposed to bother with an argument.
I have difficulty with someone who seems to be putting out information they know is biased at best and deliberately deceptive and dishonest at worst. Still, I try not to insult that person as much as take them to task for disrespecting the forum participants. This online stuff is challenging when it comes to civility. I think this forum does pretty well with that, in part because of the kind of exchange and reflection that has taken place in this thread.
April 8, 2015 at 10:30 pm #823345
metrognomeParticipantsubmitted without comment:
http://mic.com/articles/114926/even-the-nra-thinks-guns-are-too-dangerous-for-an-nra-convention
2nd Amendment wording passed by Congress:
‘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.’
As ratified by the States and authenticated by Thomas Jefferson, then-Secretary of State:
‘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.’
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution
As it appears at NRA headquarters:
‘the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed’
April 8, 2015 at 10:43 pm #823346
Jd seattleParticipanthttp://mic.com/articles/114926/even-the-nra-thinks-guns-are-too-dangerous-for-an-nra-convention
Gun shows are full of people handling, inspecting, functioning and dry firing guns. It seems obvious why the NRA would not want to mix a bunch of functioning and loaded guns into that mix. But a news story twisting that into the NRA not trusting people with guns is expected. Makes a nice headline I suppose.
April 9, 2015 at 12:30 am #823347
dobroParticipant“It seems obvious why the NRA would not want to mix a bunch of functioning and loaded guns into that mix.”
It does seem obvious, doesn’t it? Why isn’t it equally obvious that open carry gun owners at a place like, say, the state capitol might be flashing their loaded guns irresponsibly? Or why isn’t it equally obvious that a certain level of gun control is needed, kind of like the NRA is exhibiting for themselves, but lobbying against for others? And how, exactly, is the fact that the NRA is not allowing functioning guns at their event, effectively not trusting everyone to be “responsible” with their firearms, being “twisted”?
-
AuthorPosts
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.