Concealed Carrying Bystander Nearly Killed Innocent Man During Tucson Shooting

[tomdavis]

Every slave was controlled by a master; but how many gun owners put their guns to other people's heads? It's extremely rare. Besides, you could make the same argument about a kitchen knife or a chainsaw or hammer or an ice pick that can also be used to threaten and control.

If the gun "is harmless" (your words), then it's human beings that need to be held responsible for their behavior.

That's why the only logical gun control is that which prohibits the sale of guns to criminals and the mentally ill. Otherwise you're depriving responsible and law-abiding citizens of their rights to keep and bear arms.

If people use guns (or kitchen knives or chainsaws or ice picks) to commit crimes they should held responsible and severely punished.

Quote from OPTIONAL777:

A gun by itself is harmless.

When it is in the hand of an animate object, it is an extension of the will of the person holding it.

A man holding a gun to your head is all about power over you, just like slavery was all about white men having power over black men.

 

[wjk]

Quote from OPTIONAL777:

Federal issue is best.

I disagree. The Tucson sheriff knew the killer was a nut job, or should have. Did the feds? Locals may be more likely to know who is fit to own and carry than the feds.

Once qualified and screened, ownership should be based on local situations. A man living in a violent neighborhood will have different needs than a man living in a gated community, as a man in the country where law enforcement may be 20 minutes away will have different needs than a man living two blocks from the local sub station. I'd rather have the local sheriff make that determination than someone in D.C.

 

[OPTIONAL777]

What is the frequency these days of mass murder...compared to the days of 200 years ago?

Clearly, the technology is allowing individuals to commit mass murder with greater ease and frequency.

I am suggesting that is not good for society.

I am suggesting that the "right to bear arms" when not in the best interest of society be examined.

Pretty simple concept.

Oh, and I agree that human beings are the responsibile party, no argument there.

I wish people would take more responsibility for their country, rather than just being pissed off about it and behaving like, and following the leaders of victimization...like Palin, Beck, et. al.

A kitchen knife and chainsaw are not weapons of mass destruction, are they? Do you recall the last time we had a student at a school take a kitchen knife or chainsaw and murder lots of people in seconds?

I have a problem with people buying guns, putting their children at risk in the process, but I wouldn't ban the practice...as long as they keep the guns in their homes for protection and not use them on law enforcement, like we saw in Pennsylvania a few years ago by a right wing nutcase.

Quote from tomdavis:

Every slave was controlled by a master; but how many gun owners put their guns to other people's heads? It's extremely rare. Besides, you could make the same argument about a kitchen knife or a chainsaw or hammer or an ice pick that can also be used to threaten and control.

If the gun "is harmless" (your words), then it's human beings that need to be held responsible for their behavior.

That's why the only logical gun control is that which prohibits the sale of guns to criminals and the mentally ill. Otherwise you're depriving responsible and law-abiding citizens of their rights to keep and bear arms.

If people use guns (or kitchen knives or chainsaws or ice picks) to commit crimes they should held responsible and severely punished.

 

[OPTIONAL777]

Federal issue, and it works best when there is communication with local level.

We have the technology for that...it is not the day of the Pony Express any more.

Quote from wjk:

I disagree. The Tucson sheriff knew the killer was a nut job, or should have. Did the feds? Locals may be more likely to know who is fit to own and carry than the feds.

Once qualified and screened, ownership should be based on local situations. A man living in a violent neighborhood will have different needs than a man living in a gated community, as a man in the country where law enforcement may be 20 minutes away will have different needs than a man living two blocks from the local sub station. I'd rather have the local sheriff make that determination than someone in D.C.

 

[TD80]

Quote from OPTIONAL777:

What is the frequency these days of mass murder...compared to the days of 200 years ago?

You're joking right? You do realize that in the history of the world, more mass "murder" (aka defenseless people being killed) has occurred at the hands of tyrannical powers and their armies, right?

The gun is the great equalizer of history! It is a "And Ye Engineering Nerds Shall Inherit The Earth" sort of device. Because before guns, you had to be strong and big to be dangerous, especially to groups of people. To a large extent this even includes the days of bows/crossbows due to strength requirements.

The gun has actually done more to free you than I think you realize. The gun is not the enemy. Social discord / a non-harmonious society is the the big picture you should be trying to paint. You will get further with that argument amongst these fine gentlemen.

The problem with your argument is there are societies (again, such as Switzerland, hell even Canada to an extent), that have high gun ownership rates and low violent gun crime statistics.

 

[tomdavis]

According to the FBI, mass murder is defined as the killing of four or more people with no cooling-off period in between. In the last ten years, how many mass murders using a gun have there been in the US? Only a handful in a country of more than 300 million. It's extremely rare.

Quote from OPTIONAL777:

What is the frequency these days of mass murder...compared to the days of 200 years ago?

Clearly, the technology is allowing individuals to commit mass murder with greater ease and frequency.

I am suggesting that is not good for society.

I am suggesting that the "right to bear arms" when not in the best interest of society be examined.

Pretty simple concept.

Oh, and I agree that human beings are the responsibile party, no argument there.

I wish people would take more responsibility for their country, rather than just being pissed off about it and behaving like, and following the leaders of victimization...like Palin, Beck, et. al.

A kitchen knife and chainsaw are not weapons of mass destruction, are they? Do you recall the last time we had a student at a school take a kitchen knife or chainsaw and murder lots of people in seconds?

 

[wjk]

Quote from OPTIONAL777:

Federal issue, and it works best when there is communication with local level.

Would you elaborate?

 

[OPTIONAL777]

One person, acting alone killing dozens or more in a few minutes...

The gun is not an equalizer, just ask the Native Americans.

Say China develops a better gun that enables them to conquer the USA in a matter of minutes.

That is a good thing?

No, a gun in not an equalizer.

...again, if Switzerland or Canada are your utopian vision, by all means go there.

I want a more balanced and reasonable America, one where guns are properly controlled.

Quote from TD80:

You're joking right? You do realize that in the history of the world, more mass "murder" (aka defenseless people being killed) has occurred at the hands of tyrannical powers and their armies, right?

The gun is the great equalizer of history! It is a "And Ye Engineering Nerds Shall Inherit The Earth" sort of device. Because before guns, you had to be strong and big to be dangerous, especially to groups of people. To a large extent this even includes the days of bows/crossbows due to strength requirements.

The gun has actually done more to free you than I think you realize. The gun is not the enemy. Social discord / a non-harmonious society is the the big picture you should be trying to paint. You will get further with that argument amongst these fine gentlemen.

The problem with your argument is there are societies (again, such as Switzerland, hell even Canada to an extent), that have high gun ownership rates and low violent gun crime statistics.

 

[OPTIONAL777]

If the local level spots a problem, report it to the federal level. They then respond properly...which might be to suggest the local level deal with it.

The bottom line is that we live in a United States, where our greatest progress has taken place under the guidance of a strong federal government.

A balance between the local and federal level is best, good communication between federal and local, sharing of resources in intelligence, etc.

Also, not to be too technical, but my guess is the guns used in murders like Arizona were likely not manufactured there, the bullets were likely not created there...which makes it an interstate commerce issues, i.e. federal.

Quote from wjk:

Would you elaborate?

 

[OPTIONAL777]

Rare, yes.

Increasing in frequency and the number of people killed...yes.

So I would say the problem is increasing in severity and frequency, and the tendency will likely continue in that direction.

Now would be a good time to reasonably and calmly review our gun control policy to hopefully preventy future and even more deadly situations.

Quote from tomdavis:

According to the FBI, mass murder is defined as the killing of four or more people with no cooling-off period in between. In the last ten years, how many mass murders using a gun have there been in the US? Only a handful in a country of more than 300 million. It's extremely rare.