New Yorker writer: Pro-life = pro-gun control
“Gun control” means controlling those things whose first purpose is to help people kill other people… And the idea that you can be pro-life and still be pro-gun: if your primary concern is actually with the sacredness of life, then you have to stand with Richard Martinez [pictured], in memory of his son. (pro-life gun control )
~ Writer Adam Gopnick, demanding gun control legislation in light of the recent mass shooting at the University of California, Santa Barbara, The New Yorker, May 25
May.28, 2014 6:00 am |
MSM anti-life bias |
Jill Stanek is a nurse turned speaker, columnist and blogger, a national figure in the effort to protect both preborn and postborn innocent human life.
Id heard about this story on the news and I feel horrible for him. I personally dont carry a gun and I doubt I ever will. I tell people that as sad as it may be these types of incidents are going to keep happening. I know many people who do cary guns but they havent gone nuts on anyone. Id say if this guy hadnt had a gun he would have found another way.
I think that people have the right to bear arms, but I do support reasonable gun control restrictions. Remember, though that Elliot Rodger also fatally stabbed three people. Disturbed people will always find a way to destroy.
First, we should all be praying for the victims and their families including the killer, Elliot Rodger, and his family. The unnecessary loss of life is always tragic, whether it is in the womb or out of the womb.
Everyone probably already knows this, but Elliot Rodger killed 3 people with a knife and 3 more with a gun (and ultimately himself with a gun). So this was not just a “gun crime.” It was, however, the acts of a deranged killer. So while I can understand the frustration people may have with any gun-related death, if that is all they are talking about in the wake of this tragedy, then I feel they are just using this as another excuse to talk about the agenda they had before it happened anyway. So to Heather’s point, he did indeed find another way to kill his victims.
I will also point out that the first purpose of a gun is not to kill, at least not to kill humans when in the hands of a law-abiding citizen. Discussions about hunting and other sporting uses of guns aside, it is not the primary intent of anyone who uses a gun against another human being in self-defense to kill another human being. Rather, it is to stop the threat. Whether you are using a firearm for personal defense, or you are a law enforcement officer or anyone else with a need for self-defense, you are not going to put 10 more shots in an assailant’s head once they are down. And, in fact, if you purposefully kill them by shooting them more after the threat has been eliminated, then you are likely to be charged and found guilty of murder. In fact, there are multiple cases of exactly that happening – someone defends themselves, then after the threat was eliminated, shot the assailant more time to kill them, and was found guilty of murder.
If someone has a gun, and their primary intent is to kill, then they are exactly what Elliot Rodger was – a murderer. And whether their tool of choice is a gun, a knife, a hammer, a baseball bat, their fists or poison, it is the killer who kills, not the tool they chose.
If anyone wants to talk about guns and the sanctity of life, then I say it is precisely the sanctity of life, specifically the sanctity of innocent life like that of my wife, children and family, that I will defend as necessary, including the use of deadly force if necessary.
If you think holding a gun should be illegal, shouldn’t it be illegal to kill a baby? If your are pro-gun control, you should be pro-suction cannula control; they kill far more human beings than anything else in our country, automobiles, bacon, and assault rifles combined.
Guns don’t kill people.
Abortionists do.
I have a right to be prolife, pro 2nd amendment and pro death penalty.
Well now. This is dumb. Just because someone kills someone with something doesn’t mean that the instrument used should be banned. It’s not even the suction machines or the knives or scissors or whatever that kill babies in the womb – it’s the abortionist. Sorry, hombre, that’s the way it is.
And many people own guns to feed their families or to defend themselves against evil people who would seek to kill them or other innocents.
Though I do agree that guns are dangerous and should be used with caution and training, and there is absolutely no reason to pass them out like candy. But the fact remains that citizens have a right to own firearms.
More of Holders false flag propaganda campaign only a “crisis actor” would spew this propaganda. Don’t believe it. Media is controlled.
I’m curious if the killer was on medication of the psychotropic variety. Some of them can have pretty grim ‘side effects.’
His son is dead from a deranged shooter with a gun. Millions of children are dead from deranged serial killers with scissors and cannulas. Violence begets violence. Why do so many people turn a blind eye to murder in the womb? Yet those same people will run to the rescue of any animal cruelty. Whales seals and KFC.
@ 9Ek ..yes he was prescribed meds for “hearing voices” but he refused to take them.
You can be prescribed medications, but they don’t do a thing if you don’t take them. I hate having to take medication until the day I die, but without them, I wouldn’t have a life.
Hi Phillymiss. I take a sedative and it really helps for bad nerves. I believe he must have suffered from schizophrenia. His dad is a Hollywood director and his rampage was a result of women rejecting him. Ive read his poor parents are in hiding and are in full co operation with police.
Guns saved my friend’s life and the life of her family. A crazed, drug-addled man kicked in their back door to rob and harm them. They held him at gunpoint till police arrive 15 minutes later. Because of guns…NO lives were lost!
Gun laws will NEVER stop criminals (who by their very nature don’t obey laws) from owning them. Gun laws will just prevent those who obey laws from being able to protect themselves.
If I believed that stricter gun control laws could have any impact toward reducing the random violence, then I would enthusiastically support more gun control.
I happen to believe that an effort to train capable citizens and issue more Concealed Carry permits would have the net effect of the reducing random gun violence and armed robberies.
My opinions are not firm, and I would be love to see more evidence, either way. For now, I am content to let the debate continue. Not all gun-control measures are of equal quality…. I would support some laws and oppose others, depending on the details.
I am not ready to say that a pro-lifer must urge for more gun control laws and support any proposal. Pro-lifers should support any common-sense approach to protecting lives.
Killing of pre-born innocents is done for matters of convenience, and there is no due process.
Some are killed accidentally by private gun-ownership. Other deaths are in self-defense. Some are pre-meditated murder.
The murdered should always get justice. Accidents happen, and need to be minimized through various means. Self defense requires a legal system to carry out due process.
Out of all of these situations, killing of unborn is the least guarded, least cautious, least understandable, least governed by justice and due process. Also, wildly avoidable compared to these other types of death.
As a parent my heart goes out to this man. I can’t fathom his tragic loss.
However I will keep my guns. Before gunning down people the killer stabbed three people to death.
This was a young man who had been receiving psychiatric care his entire life. Why wasn’t he hospitalized, or more important, was there a facility able to take him and others like him who so desperately need help? This tragedy is more about our shabby mental health care system than it is about guns.
Some people beat or strangle others to death. Should we ban HANDS, too ?
Those who have it in them to kill will always find a way.
(Poison, bombs, etc.)
Then, there’s this:
http://gunssavelives.net/self-defense/79-year-old-grandfather-shoots-and-kills-man-who-was-beating-his-granddaughter/?utm_medium=twitter&utm_source=twitterfeed#
ok so what do you do if someone kills someone with a fork…that’s been done…should we outlaw forks? People kill other people with their fists. Do we outlaw fists? How ’bout strangulation? How ’bout baseball bats, golf clubs, panty hose, tire irons, electrical cords, cars, shovels, axes….I am 100% prolife and 100% pro-gun because when the evil comes to my door to kill my babies…I will have something besides my hands to defend them with. My gun wasn’t designed to kill someone unless I decide that…I will be aiming for the kneecaps, the groin and then we’ll see what happens.
Hi Jana,
Anti freeze was great for getting rid of unwanted spouses until they made it was made to taste bitter. Thank heaven or we would all have to give up our vehicles.
Also, the “accidents” “suicides”, and “natural causes” that were in fact murder.
Seems like the imagination is the limit when you want to kill someone badly enough.
“I will also point out that the first purpose of a gun is not to kill, at least not to kill humans when in the hands of a law-abiding citizen.”
Wrong. Otherwise, all bullets would be made of rubber. Or something softer.
“Seems like the imagination is the limit when you want to kill someone badly enough.”
And some things – like powerful guns – make it easier to reach that horrific limit.
Agree with him – I think the far right and far left have views completely incompatible with one another – I don’t see how a person can be logically pro-life yet agree with our current gun legislation – or on the flip side, I think it doesn’t fit logically to be for more gun control, yet be pro-choice.
Put another way, I see those on the far right of the gun control issue to be making the same logical case as pro-choice folks – that being, it’s our constitutional rights to engage in activities that will increase the deaths of others.
Blue Velvet,
For that matter, so do vehicles. You know, like that lethal weapon you drive every day. We recently had two police officers killed while they sat at a stop sign. A mentally ill young man decided to slam his vehicle into them, killing them instantly. We heard no cries about banning vehicles. Imagine if he had gunned them down instead.
So long as deranged people are allowed to walk the streets, this killing will go on.
EGV,
Didn’t these parents try desperately to get help for their son, to get him off the streets? Even calling the police? This was someone with a long history of very serious mental health issues. Shouldn’t your concern be for the fact that society is not protected from such deranged individuals? I understand California has some of the strictest commitment laws in the country, making it very difficult to involuntarily commit someone like Elliot Rodgers. Isn’t that the real problem that needs to be addressed?
Mary –
That is certainly ONE aspect of it.
But it is clear looking across the world at violence levels, that one of these two statements is accurate:
1) Americans have far too many guns and not enough control over the guns that we have – which explains why our gun violence rates are so high.
2) Americans are almost uniquely evil and violent in the world – much more violent that almost any other industrialized nation – and that unique level of violence explains why our gun violence rates are so high.
I don’t think Americans are uniquely evil in this world – so I’m going with number one.
EGV,
Check out the Swiss
http://world.time.com/2012/12/20/the-swiss-difference-a-gun-culture-that-works/
The Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence and The Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence gave California an A- for having the toughest gun laws in the nation.
I think if anything California need to strengthen its commitment laws. Those young people would be alive if Elliott Rodgers was in a mental institution where he belonged.
Mary –
We’ve talked about the Swiss gun laws before. Before we go down that path again, are you willing to say that you would support putting in place the gun laws that exist in Switzerland?
“For that matter, so do vehicles. You know, like that lethal weapon you drive every day.”
a) Right, which is why there are fairly strict rules governing the use of cars. Also, the primary purpose of a car is to transport people and things, not to harm other people (and things).
b) I use public transportation.
“Shouldn’t your concern be for the fact that society is not protected from such deranged individuals?”
So you’d be fine with looser involuntary commitment laws, yet not okay with mandatory mental health screening for the purchase of firearms?
EGV,
I support the Second Amendment. You argue that there are too many guns and not enough control. We see by the Swiss example that its not the guns but the people who use them. Just as the problem is not vehicles, but the people who drive them.
California has some of the strictest gun laws in the country, yet this tragedy occurred. This tells us what?
California also makes it difficult to commit mentally ill people. This also tells us what?
Interesting that Detroit’s police chief has encouraged Detroit citizens to arm and be prepared to defend themselves. Already a few home intruders have been blown away and a couple of muggers/killers/rapists forced to run like scared rabbits when their intended victim, a grandmother, pulled a gun from her purse. They did manage did get a couple of bullets in her though, but thankfully she survived.
The police chief has some silly notion that law abiding citizens have a right to stay alive.
Blue Velvet,
I’ve already pointed out that California has some of the strictest, if not the strictest, gun laws in the country. So how could this happen?
Its also very difficult to involuntarily commit a mentally ill person, which may have prevented this tragedy.
Sure, a history of mental illness is a concern, but even if this person is denied a gun, is he also denied a vehicle? A baseball bat? Knives? If there are serious mental health concerns shouldn’t something be done with this individual?
Blue Velvet 11:28PM
Yes there are laws governing the use of vehicles, but that doesn’t prevent thousands of accidents, injuries, and deaths. Our drunk driving laws sure leave much to be desired as well.
Whether or not the purpose of a car is benign, it has a long history of being used in criminal acts, making criminal getaway and capture more difficult, and killing and maiming hundreds of thousands over the decades.
I wonder what the death tolls might have been if Adam Lanza, Jared Loughner and James Holmes had been armed with forks rather than guns?
I wonder what it would have been if they had been in mental institutions where they belong.
Ive gotta add that I am 100% pro gun Ive met many pro choice men and women who are also pro gun. These people want to keep abortion legal so its not a one way street. Good points about other murder weapons. I knew a guy who served 34 yrs in prison for beating a guy to death with a brick. If someone is heck bent on murder they will find a way.
@ Mary there was a man from Flint MI who would stop and target mostly black males. He would pretend to need directions or fake car trouble. When these unfortunate men would go to try to be kind and offer assistance he would kill them with a hammer knife or scissors. That killer had bodies in VA and Ohio. He was finally nabbed while trying to fly home to Isreal. The FBI took him right off the plane. A few of the other victims were white or hispanic. 2 survived. One youth showed where the guy gutted him like a carp..the scar..after he tried to stab him to death after giving directions.
Sorry Israel…anyway Ive just looked him up. He received a life sentence for at least one murdee. He has also stabbed…but not fatally..a man in Israel. Look up Flint slasher.
BlueVelvet says:
“Shouldn’t your concern be for the fact that society is not protected from such deranged individuals?”
“So you’d be fine with looser involuntary commitment laws, yet not okay with mandatory mental health screening for the purchase of firearms?”
These are good points.
Regarding invol commitment: there are only two solutions: hold someone on less criteria than are currently in place, and having a longer period of time of hold before due process is delivered.
To lock someone up in jail or an invol hospital facility (including a psych hosp facility) is to hold someone against their inherent civil rights. Holding people against their will, indefinitely, is a leading tool of tyrannists. Our country is supposed to be different.
I have the God-given right to be at liberty until I cross some threshold of behavior or risk. At that point, I can be detained, but for only a short period of time – for mental illness problems, these state limits tend to be 72-hour or 96-hour. At the 72-hour point, habeus corpus comes into play.
THIS IS WHAT THEY ATTEMPTED TO TEACH US IN GRADE SCHOOL.
Hi The Last Democrat,
Yes our country is supposed to different, yet the mentally ill sleep on the streets or are allowed to pose a danger to others. Families plead for help and get none. Dangerous “psychiatric” drugs are dispensed like candy, often making people suicidal and murderous.
Hi Mary. Ive worked in locked psych wards where the medicating of the patients was almost experimental. I had a man who went from having a few minor problems with depression and the doctor prescribed IM thorazine. This man was like a zombie for about 2 months. I finally reported his condition to his MD who said D/C the thorazine. Im happy to say he was eventually moved to a regular medical floor and very chipper to boot.
Just Id stated above The Flint Slasher is a mammoth size man and his killing tools of choice were a hammer ice pick and knife. He seems to be insane although Michigan dropped the insanity defense. He smiled after sentencing and laughed. Not something a normal minded person would do on their way to serve life in prison. But for whatever reason he was torture and murder minded to people who tried to assist him. And after the game was up ( and he knew that much ) he boarded that flight to Tel Aviv. That was some very good police work.
Mary –
We do have issues in this country with mental health – however, I don’t think we are in the dark ages with it either -and I don’t think that statistically, we have tons more people with mental health issues than other countries.
So given the fact that all these other countries have similar rates of mental illness, and these folks are out in society – why are our violence rates with guns massively higher than everywhere else?
Too lax of regulations, or do you think our country is uniquely evil in this world?
EGV,
As far as I’m concerned, we have never been out of the Dark Ages where mental health “care” is concerned. Also, “psychiatric” drugs have been implicated as themselves causing serious mental disturbances. Do other countries drug their children as we do? Maybe as you say we don’t have more mentally ill people (source??) but the question is how do we “treat” them? Are the mentally ill treated in other countries and dangerous people kept off the streets?
Look at it this way. Why is a car, knife, ax, or baseball bat safer in the hands of a mentally unstable person than a gun? Can you prevent their access?
You overlook one fact EGV. California has the strictest gun laws in the nation. So how did this happen if gun control will curb gun violence? Also the following source shows we are by no stretch the most murderous or violent nation on the planet.
Whether people use guns, knives, or their fists, people who want to kill will kill.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_intentional_homicide_rate
So you are saying our medical care is inferior to other countries now?
Let me ask you this – if you had kids or grandkids at a school, and a violent person was going to head to the school, would you rather have them with a gun in their hand, or a baseball bat?
Anything can be used as a weapon – the simple truth is guns make it easier for people to kill people. Let me ask you this – are you in favor of letting individuals own small bombs? Machine guns? Tanks? I mean, if people are going to kill anyway.
Of course you aren’t – because those things make it easier to kill more people.
On California – I don’t overlook anything – compare their gun laws to other countries. If a kid comes home and says they were better than 30 other kids on a test, it isn’t good if there are 200 other kids. Same here. So what that California is better than most states – you aren’t making the argument that California has comparable gun control laws to countries with lower rates of gun violence – you are simply making the point that most other states are even more abysmal, and thus, we have much higher gun violence rates than other countries around the world.
EGV,
I’ve never claimed our medical care is superior. I said our system has its good and bad points like all other systems do.
I’m asking if you know anything about the mental health treatment given in these other countries. Also, their justice system. Are they more inclined to imprison and punish offenders than we are? Do they have the same laws restricting the confinement of dangerous people that we do?
EGV, I’m pointing out that our levels of homicide, by whatever method, are not that extraordinary when compared to the rest of the planet. Keep in mind that many of these countries have significantly smaller populations than we have, yet they have proportionately higher murders rates.
How did all these people die? Could it have been gun violence? Crime? Domestic violence? Stabbings?
It hardly matters. They are no less dead.
The US spends more than most countries, but in part, we diagnose a lot more aggressively. If mental health is what you are pointing our high rates of violence towards, then you should LOVE health care reform – huge expansion in coverage of mental health services. Laws vary by country so painting a comparison with a broad stroke is tough to do.
Statistically though, mental illness isn’t a factor in the majority of gun murders.
Our levels of homicide is higher than most industrialized nations.
Japan – .4 (per 100K)
Germany – .8
Australia – 1
France – 1.1
UK – 1.2
US – 4.7
Is 12 times higher than Japan not extraordinary? 4 times Australia, France,or the UK? These are rates – your theory of higher murder rates isn’t backed up by stats.
So are we 4 times of more violent type of people than these other countries (and even more so than Germans or the Japanese?)
Actually after reading a few updates about the Flint Slasher many of his could have been victims said if there were ever a time to own a gun..it would have been while he was on the loose. An entire community in fear. He was arrested in 2010.
“Let me ask you this – if you had kids or grandkids at a school, and a violent person was going to head to the school, would you rather have them with a gun in their hand, or a baseball bat?”
I would rather have a law-abiding well-trained citizen in the school armed with a firearm and the determination to protect our children even if it costs the life of an evil person intent on doing harm to innocent people.
EGV,
Is there a reason you overlooked Switzerland with its .7 rate per 100,000? Less than most of the countries you listed?
Just an oversight I’m sure.
Our homicide rate is 4.7 per 100,000 and you think this is so atronomical? Its not all that much higher. That comes out to about 14,173 people for the year 2012. That’s less than a third of the size of the Midwestern city I live in.
Check out the yearly death rates from vehicles then tell me when you plan to demand stricter laws on the use of vehicles, including your own.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_motor_vehicle_deaths_in_U.S._by_year
Bryan – how incredibly sad is your answer – that the only way to protect people is to have individuals with bigger guns. It’s an odd, gang like mentality. Very sad.
Mary –
For the second time, are you saying you would be okay with the regulations on guns that exist within Switzerland?
Again, the rates are 4 to 10 times higher than those other countries? Are we simply more evil? As an educated person, what theory would you write to say why we have higher murder rates?
Your car scenario is quite possibly the worst scenario you could bring up. Look at the regulations of our vehicles, and look at the lesser regulations in Mexico for vehicles. Then try to make the argument that we should roll back regulations on cars. Cars are pretty safe given the amount they are driven, and they’ve gotten safer with more regulation. Given what you seem to be arguing, we should regulate guns more.
Come on Mary – look at a car – should we go through the list of regulations that exist surroundings cars and how that has made cars safer through time?
Well the chief of police of Detroit sure thinks its a good idea. Apparently many law abiding Detroit citizens are heeding his advice.
Mary – and numerous other head police think we need less guns. So what is your point?
Again – I’ve left you a long post – look forward to your response.
EGV,
I’ve addressed your question concerning my support of the Second Amendment in this country. Other countries have their laws, we have ours. I have also pointed out that strict gun control laws in California did nothing to prevent this tragedy.
Considering our population, I don’t think our murder rate is all that astronomical. Many countries dwarf us. There may be a number of factors, swifter and stricter punishment, the removal of dangerous people from society, cultural factors. In some cultures, a crime committed by a family member disgraces the entire family and community. I once recall the police chief of a large city commenting on the minimal amount of crime in the minority Chinese community and saying that if the entire city was Chinese, there wouldn’t be a crime problem.
Another example, Germany is far more strict about the punishment of drunk driving than we are so it is not the problem there that it is here, despite the love of beer and beer gardens everywhere you go.
Sure EGV, I look at cars. And despite regulations, education, and making cars “safer”, people are still killed and maimed by the thousands.
“Its not all that much higher” – only at least 400%.
Reality,
We have a population of around 300 million, give or take, and in 2012 we had 14,173 people murdered. Not acceptable or excusable, but not astronomical. I’ve also pointed out the various factors that may be at work here.
You and EGV should be far more concerned about the number of people who die because of motorized vehicles in this country.
I love the way you just ignore what is clear. The rate is significantly higher than elsewhere, at least 400%.
If you don’t consider 14,173 astronomical what would you? 40,000? 100,000? 500,000? A million? What would it take?
How many vehicle deaths are intentional?
Reality,
I don’t ignore the fact the rate is significantly higher. I also point out many possible factors as to why.
I consider any number of murders too many.
What difference does it make if vehicle deaths are intentional? Dead is dead. Since more Americans die in vehicular accidents than they do murder, than why not go after vehicles? They’re the problem, right?
You haven’t said what number you would consider ‘astronomical.’
You don’t think something being done intentionally makes any difference? Cool, you’ll stop wailing against abortion then.
Fine, ban cars tomorrow. Turn the roads into cycling and walking tracks. Less pollution, less need for non-renewable fuels. A fitter population.
Reality,
Numbers going into the hundreds of thousands, maybe a million or two. IMO. Given our population some might not consider even that astronomical.
Well, not all deaths by vehicles have been unintentional. If you drive intoxicated and kill someone is that unintentional?
How about if you kill someone with your vehicle in the commission of a crime or while in a high speed chase with the police? People have used vehicles to stalk, terrorize, kidnap, rape, and murder. People have been forced off the road. Drive by shootings would be a little difficult without a vehicle. Sure can’t kill as many people or get away as quickly.
Well if you want to ban vehicles, go for it. I wouldn’t hold my breath though. But, no one is forcing you to own or use a vehicle, right?
Also the Flint slasher is one of many examples of unstable minded people. He was a hulking 6’5″ and 280 pound Arab. He tarveted men who were of slight build walking the streets alone at night. He was Arabic. His only white male victim spent said hed sustained severe cuts on both arms trying to keep this hulk from “cutting off my face.” He was also gutted like a carp. Now you had better believe if I had fit that profile and a serial killer was on the loose id carry a gun every time I left the house. Kill or be killed. Those men wouldnt have been able to fight this guy off with their hands.
Sorry for the typos….should say the man who almost had his face cut off spent quite some time in the hospital recovering from abdominal chest and arm stabs. Again one of many. If there was a serial killer targeting women in the same fashion i wouldnt hesitate to buy a gun.
EGV – what is sad is that we have created places where our children are left vulnerable and unprotected from people intent on doing them harm. And not only have we created these places, we have also been sure to advertise to the killers exactly where these places are and the fact that they are indeed undefended. We even go so far (in most places) as to train our children to pile into a corner in their classroom, close the blinds so the police can not see what is going on inside and wait quietly for the killer to find them in a nice convenient concentrated target-rich environment.
Nobody seems too concerned that the police have guns. I am not, anyway. And that is because I know their intent is to protect themselves and the public from people intent on doing them and us harm. But the police are not always around when you need them. So I want to be able to protect myself from the same bad people. And I would like to know that my children are also being protected when they are in school. If that means there are police in the school, fine. If that means there are armed security guards, fine. If that means teachers and/or administrators and/or other staff are properly trained and armed, fine. But if the only person in the school with a gun is the bad guy, how is that good? Sure the police will get there as fast as they can. But in the meantime, a bad guy has several minutes of time to do as he pleases.
Note that I am not advocating for a “bigger gun.” I just want a fair fight and the ability for me (or anyone else) to defend myself, my family and other innocent citizens if it comes to that. You are the one that seems to be advocating that one side of this equation has a “bigger gun” or perhaps more accurately that only one side gets a gun period. It is just that you are advocating for the criminal rather than for the innocent victims.
And yes, like the rest of the crazy right wing gun nuts, I also want to be able to defend myself from tyranny if it should actually come to that.
“No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms. The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government.” – Thomas Jefferson
“A free people ought not only to be armed and disciplined, but they should have sufficient arms and ammunition to maintain a status of independence from any who might attempt to abuse them, which would include their own government.” – George Washington
“Laws that forbid the carrying of arms…disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes… Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man.” – Cesare Beccaria
“One of the ordinary modes, by which tyrants accomplish their purposes without resistance, is, by disarming the people, and making it an offense to keep arms.” – Constitutional scholar and Supreme Court Justice Joseph Story
Mary –
I must say, your ramblings on this sound completely crazy.
So hundreds of thousands or even millions need to die before it is an issue?
You don’t want more regulations, yet continue to point to a country with more regulation as a model.
I’m also taking it as a “yes” that you are more on board with Obamacare now because of the mental health coverage – since you refuse to answer that question.
Bryan –
I’m in business, and a logical, data driven component of the business, so excuse me a bit here.
So your basic logic is, we all need guns because of possible tyranny. Because we all have guns, we need more guns to protect each other from guns – so now, instead of hoping my kids can go to school to learn, I need to hope they don’t get shot, because well, we need more guns to protect ourselves from all the guns.
So if you aren’t interested in “bigger guns” – are you then saying you are in favor of stricter regulations on the types of guns that are out there, and better and more comprehensive background checks and tracking to prevent people from getting guns that shouldn’t?
Or are you okay with the status quo that finds us with 5-15 times the murder rate of other similar countries?
Is it simply acceptable, to protect our constitutional rights, to assume a certain number of people will die because, well, it’s a right?
Yes – I dig the quotes. Do you think those folks would approve of the gun laws (or lack of laws) we have now?
You don’t let the facts get in the way of a good ‘Mary’s viewpoint’ do you :-)
If better gun control isn’t required let’s get rid of traffic laws too. And you’ll stop campaigning against abortion now.
EGV,
Hardly. I said any murder is one too many. I was responding to Reality’s question. I also pointed out there can be a number of factors where the rates of violence and murder are concerned.
BTW, when will you campaign against motor vehicles? How many vehicle related deaths do you consider acceptable? Any plans to give up your lethal weapon?
California had strict regulations. Obviously they did nothing to prevent this tragedy. Of course I support gun laws, like I support vehicle laws. I don’t support knee jerk hysteria over guns any more than I do over cars.
LOLLL. Federal run mental health care? Do you remember the state run mental institutions? That’s what happens when the gov’t, state or federal, runs anything. They “remedied” this by closing down the institutions and putting these poor souls on the street. Then there’s the corruption and ineptness of Medicare and Medicaid.
The VA scandal should put the kibosh to any fantasies you entertain about the gov’t running anything.
Reality,
“If better gun control isn’t required then let’ get rid of traffic laws too”. Say what??
Where did I say I oppose laws regulating guns, which we already have? Just as I wholeheartedly support traffic laws. However more people are dying in cars than by guns. Are you going to call for stricter traffic laws? Don’t we have enough?
Again I point out that California has the strictest laws in the country yet this tragedy occurred. So what do you recommend?
Traffic laws have got stricter.
Enforcement has increased.
The death rate has fallen.
“Again I point out that California has the strictest laws in the country yet this tragedy occurred” – so you think those laws have failed because an event occurred. How many might have occurred without those laws?
The US road death rate isn’t 400%-1000% higher than that of equivilent nations. But the death rate for guns is, hm…..
Mary
– I’ll campaign for different automobile regulations when it is clear that other countries have better solutions that will save lives. The fact of the matter is, Americans drive millions of miles daily, and the automobile is fairly safe. And when we look at regulations, we do a pretty good job in this country keeping rates down.
Guns are a different story. Because of our desire to not regulate guns, we have people die. There’s really very little room for argument with that statement, again, unless you can come up with realistic scenarios of why we are so much more violent than other similar countries.
You need to study up on mental health care – it is simply covering mental health coverage at private institutions – simply insurance. So your whole statement is completely off base.
Mary –
Since you insist on this odd California campaign, let’s look at the facts.
In 1993, 5500 Californians were killed by guns.
in 1994, they passed regulations so those with domestic violence restraining orders can’t have guns
In 1999, individuals were banned from buying more than one handgun in a 30 day period (to prevent trafficking). Same year, the state cracked down on assault weapons
In 2000, the state banned ammunition magazines that hold more than 10 rounds
In 2004, they made it illegal to sell or posses 50 caliber military style firearms.
In 2010, 2935 Californians were killed by guns – a drop of 56%.
So what are your thoughts on California’s progress and should these types of laws be adopted nationally?
EGV,
So how did this tragedy occur if California gun laws are working so well?
Mary – even when there were a few people on earth, murder happened. Try not to be so dense about this. When abortion was banned, did abortions happen? Come on.
Again – look at the numbers and the progress.
And look at countries that have gone farther even with their gun laws.
Too many people who shouldn’t have guns possess them in this country, and people die because of it.
Reality,
Has the death rate from vehicles decreased to the murder rate?
Oh, so now this mass killing is only “an event”. Did laws do anything to prevent this “event”?
The murder rate does not necessarily involve only guns.
EGV 8:48PM
Why do you care about other countries and their solutions? Your comment makes no sense. We do a pretty good job? Germany does a far better job of keeping drunk drivers off the road than we do.
EGV, guns are not unregulated. There ARE laws. Just as criminals don’t consider regulations when they steal a car to commit a crime, they don’t consider regulations when they obtain a gun.
We aren’t that much more violent!! Didn’t you see the source I gave you? There are countries with far greater rates of violence. People may not be dying because of guns, but they are no less dead. Also, countries may have far stricter laws governing criminal behavior than we have and perpetrators are taken off the streets and kept off, unlike here.
No my friend you need to study on the history of state run mental health care, which you will get under Obamacare, to know it was barbaric and ineffective. Take a look at the VA scandal and say hello to the people who will be running your health care, mental and otherwise.
Has the death rate from murder decreased as much as the road death rate?
Laws don’t eliminate all ‘events’, they reduce the likelihood of them happening. Or do you think that the crime of murder should be taken off the books, since it still happens anyway?
You simply can’t bring yourself to acknowledge that the obsessional gun culture has lead to a death by guns rate dramatically higher than other similar nations can you.
EGV,
Oh, so now murder is just a given. Well, that’s an interesting turn of events.
Again, you haven’t addressed the question as to why the strictest gun laws in the country didn’t prevent this tragedy.
You also don’t address the fact that cultural factors, as well as stricter criminal penalties may be what is keeping the murder rates down, or making people better at covering it up.
You could just as easily argue too many people shouldn’t drive motorized vehicles in this country, and too many people die because they do.
Reality,
You didn’t address my question. Have the motor vehicle deaths in this country decreased to the level of the murder rate?
So you acknowledge that stricter gun laws don’t necessarily protect us from crazed lunatics who are determined to kill.
Thank you for making my point.
Yikes. We need to go to square one on why we care about their solutions.
Let’s pretend you are a nurse. Over the course of the year, you see a lot of people with a stomach ache. You decide to give half the people one type of pill, and the other half you don’t give anything. You find out that the half that got a pill, 75% of the people got better within a day. The people who didn’t get it, you find out that 75% of the people died the next day.
Now, it doesn’t mean that everybody who got a pill is all of the sudden better, and everyone who didn’t will die. But STATISTICALLY, it is clear that something significant has happened.
Now, you might sit back then and say “well, that was just odd and random”. But if you were smart about it, you would put together a HYPOTHESIS. You might say “well, I think that the outcomes were much different, and I am guessing that the reason is that I gave people a pill”.
So now let’s take that to why we care. The US is not massively different from Japan, the UK, Australia, Germany, the French, etc… Sure, there are differences (but we’ll deal with those in a second). Those countries treat guns in different ways – we’ll call them VARIABLES.
So then we look at the stats. The US has a rate 10X plus that of Japan.
Now if we are fools, we might say “it is just random, there is nothing to attribute this to”. But we aren’t fools, right Mary? So we put together a HYPOTHESIS.
Now, Cultural differences will be a difference. Drug use, gangs, etc…
But when you look to other countries in Europe as well, with similar rates of diversity, similar mental health systems, similar purchases of violent video games, America still comes out with higher rates.
So again, we must ask ourselves – are we uniquely violent people – simply the worst of the worst – or could we have something else going on – like easier access to guns.
Your 9:17 post has proved my point (as I read the whole thing) – we have similar rates of other violence – we’re simply more efficient at killing one another – and the rates are tied to guns.
California I’ve addressed. The greatest of regulations would not prevent all abortions. The same is true about guns. But you can see the decrease, especially if you understand my last post. If you don’t, let’s just end this.
And for the last time – the country is not opening up government run mental health facilities. Please read.
“Have the motor vehicle deaths in this country decreased to the level of the murder rate?” – it was always higher and still is. Yet is has decreased much more than the murder rate, why is that do you suppose?
“So you acknowledge that stricter gun laws don’t necessarily protect us from crazed lunatics who are determined to kill.” – care to hazard a guess how many they have protected people from?
“Thank you for making my point” – you’ll stop agitating for the recriminalization of abortion then won’t you.
EGV,
Are all the murders I posted for you gun related? I recall it was murder, not specifically how the murder occurred. Maybe you should question why the people of some countries are more or less inclined to kill their fellow citizens. Again, there can be a number of factors.
Also, we have murder rates higher than some countries, and less than others. This proves what? Why do you focus on just a few countries? What about the countries who have higher murder rates than us? Are they uniquely violent and the worst of the worst? Just who is the worst of the worst?
I mean geez EGV, even you acknowledge in your 9:06PM post that even when there were a few people on earth, murder happened. I agree. Imagine with billions. Throughout history some cultures were far more violent than others, and they didn’t have guns. Never stopped them from killing their fellow human beings.
Oh and concerning Japan, check out Youtube for the Rape of Nanking. You’ll see a side of the Japanese that will horrify you. This is a crime for which the Chinese have not forgiven them to this day.
Reality,
So you admit the deaths from motor vehicles exceed our murder rate? Thank you. Seems you should be focusing more on vehicles and less on guns. Of course guns aren’t responsible for every murder.
Hey Reality, be my guest. How many lunatics have strict guns laws protected us from?
What does any of this have to do with abortion?
Mary – there’s a reason why I don’t show similar countries.
There are none – not industrialized.
There are heavy drugs countries – countries in Africa as well.
But not industrialized.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/12/20/us-guns-statistics-outlier_n_2331892.html
So that’s why. We are “unique”.
I’m beginning to think you are a troll though – you claim to have a nursing background, right? If so, how are you so unaware of things like stats, scientific method, control groups – anything surrounding stats. It is moving past odd.
EGV,
Oh I see. So if other countries slaughter their fellow citizens, who cares? Its only us “industrialized” countries that should be held to a higher standard. Only us “industrialized” countries that are of any worth. You little elitist. Don’t you preach to me what I am not aware of.
EGV, it was the “industrialized” country of Nazi Germany that slaughtered millions.
It was the “industrialized” countries who had citizens that willingly collaborated.
It was the “industrialized’ country of Japan that committed atrocities in China that horrified even the Nazi ambassador, and slaughtered millions of Asians as well.
It was because of us “uniquely violent” people, including my father, that these “industrialized” countries aren’t speaking German. It was also “uniquely violent” people like my father in law who helped defeat the Japanese, the “industrialized” people who liked to tie up Chinese citizens, douse them with gasoline, and burn them alive and rape women to death. They also took great pleasure in starving, enslaving, and torturing POWs, including our “uniquely violent” soldiers.
You have a very limited mentality concerning the human race EGV. Industrialized = something unique and above violence. People we should emulate or compare ourselves to. Take a look at history my friend.
All very well said Mary. Industrialized Japanese and Nazi killing rates, using gas chambers, swords, and bayonets, far exceeded killing rates by Americans who “cling to their guns and their religion”. And they were quite efficient.
To anyone who claims the Nazis were Christian, they most certainly were not. Hitler and Himmler held beliefs mirroring pre-Christian paganism. Mid-level officials too close to any church were held from senior positions for having a loyalty directed anywhere other than the Fuehrer.
Very well said? WE’re congratulating the massive, unrelated tangent of a nazi crazed poster? I mean seriously, I’m trying to think of the last debate where Mary didn’t pull nazis out to make a point.
The reason we use industrialized countries is because for comparisons sake, they have much more in common. When you are comparing the US with the Sudan for instance, there are way too many differences compared to the US and France.
Since you insist though, here is the company we keep. The US rate is bit higher than Paraguay Montenegro, and Argentina. The next five countries below us are Mexico, Uruguay, Panama, Brazil and South Africa. Next we get Colombia.
Again – cute post – but nothing relevant to the discussion you are now dodging. And if “elitist” means “understands stats, facts, and makes logical arguments” – well, guilty as charged.
And seriously – what’s with you and nazis?
EGV,
LOL. A little history can sure bite you in the fanny, can’t it? These are the people you hold in such esteem EGV, the people we should compare ourselves to. The “civilized” and “advanced” industrialized nations. Why those lowlifes in other countries, we don’t compare ourselves to, to…them.
Doesn’t wash EGV. Your comparisons are highly selective. Look at us compared to these few countries. Yet when I point out that our death rate from motorized vehicles exceeds our murder rates, I don’t hear you howling about our “vehicle crazed” society. Nor do I hear of your intentions to give up your lethal weapon(s).
Laws vary, cultural factors vary. And yes they influence how people conduct themselves. If you know you will spend several years freezing your butt off in -20 degree weather during 5am roll call in a Russian prison, you may be more strongly motivated to stay out of it.
Uh, EGV, check the source again. The murder rates in Paraguay and Argentina are higher. Montenegro’s is slightly below ours.
Mexico’s murder rate is significantly higher than us, as is Panama’s Brazil’s, and South Africa’s. Uruguay’s is higher and Columbia’s makes us look like saints.
What is with me and Nazis? Oh, just a little history lesson EGV on these saintly “industrialized” nations. Its seems whether “industrialized” or not, human evil and the capacity for murder, by whatever means, is very universal.
Hi Eric,
Thank you, I always appreciate your input as well as enjoy seeing you here.
Mary –
Your love of nazis aside, again, for the second time, when making comparisons you typically try to compare to a like group, which is why industrialized countries are typically linked together and compared. This is nothing new. If you read anything of substance on the subject, this is what you will see. So industrialized countries have bad parts of their past – yes. This is unbelievably irrelevant to the conversation.
Your vehicle comparison is also being used wrong. If you want to use vehicles as part of the conversation, you should look at death rates around the world and make a case based on regulation, and if it saves lives or not.
The problem with comparing guns and vehicles is because vehicles have a different value to them. Simply put, if you take all vehicles away tomorrow, the American economy would grind to a halt. This is NOT the case with guns. There are valuable components to guns – but while vehicles have worth in bringing people to jobs and commerce, guns don’t have that same value linked to it. For instance, the majority of jobs in America have nothing to do with guns – they simply don’t. So comparing the two, while on the surface makes some sense – if you actually go out and read on the subject, you’ll see it isn’t much of a comparison to make.
I don’t think you actually read these posts (or again, you are just trolling) but let me make another comparison. You could say that a certain number of women die a year having abortions and a similar people die in bathroom accidents. Now, you seem to be arguing that you should compare the two situations – but we all know that if you outlawed abortion, the economic and general health impact to the country wouldn’t be the same as if you got rid of bathrooms. Bathrooms have higher value in society, like vehicles, so while you want to minimize deaths, the value to the economy is something you have to factor in.
You’ll have to post stats to anything – I don’t trust your ability to look and interpret numbers.
Again – my point still holds. Against comparable countries, our gun violence rate is much higher, and I can’t find anything to attribute that to except that we have too lax of gun regulations. I gave you some common sense regulations – you ignored them. You seem fine with the killing, and that is bothersome.
“I can’t find anything to attribute that to except that we have too lax of gun regulations.”
Correlation does not indicate causality. If it did, you could point to the cities with the highest rates of murder by handgun — Detroit, Chicago, New Orleans, for example; and they have much tighter regulations than other cities with lower murder-by-handgun rates.
Eric –
Correlation certainly can’t be 100% linked to causation. However, if you have a statistically significant difference between two groups, you need to attribute it to something. In this case, Mary (and now you’re jumping in) haven’t offered any theory at all as to why the US has a higher gun violence rate than other industrialized nations.
The problem with your example is that those cities are in a small, defined box with different rules and regulations around them. For instance, in Chicago you can drive right outside the city limits and different rules exist – so the comparison logically is tougher to make. Now if those cities had posted entrances to the cities and seized weapons, that would be a different story – but that isn’t how it works.
Eric –
As a second point, and I’m assuming you are a smart guy until you prove otherwise – if I put a million people in the city limits of Detroit, and a million people spread out across the state of Wyoming – I’m guessing you could make an educated guess as to which group will have higher murder rates.
What is interesting though is, compare US cities to other cities around the world. Again, we’re tops (and not in a good way).
EGV,
My love of Nazis aside? EGV, don’t go from being absurd to stupid.
No, I don’t consider it irrelevant, especially when you compare us to the “industrialized” nations and suggest we are well…just a little more evil.
The importance of guns and vehicles is a matter of perspective. I don’t view one as any more or less evil or necessary than the other. Vehicles are used to commit crimes, so are guns. Many people function just fine with public transportation and walking. Others need guns to survive.
Your bathroom accident and abortion deaths analogy frankly doesn’t make a lot of sense.
You don’t trust MY ability to look at and interpret numbers? LLLLLOOOOOOLLLLLL. Please EGV, my sides are hurting. Didn’t I have to correct you on some stats in my 11:31am post?
I was going to graciously not make an issue of it, but hey, you brought it up.
EGV,
I have pointed out to you that the lesser homicide rates in “industrialized” countries may be influenced by cultural and legal factors. Also, are all murders in this country gun related?
For example, as of two years ago when I was in Germany the drunk driving laws were as such:
1. First offense a week in jail
2. Second offense permanent suspension of license.
No exceptions, no smart lawyers to get you off the hook.
Good grief we have people going on there their 10th DUI and counting. I wonder why drunk driving is a bigger problem here than in Germany where the Germans are second to none in the beer department.
Now, given how the Germans love their beer and you can’t turn around in Germany without seeing a Beer Garden, one would think drunk driving would be a serious problem and I’m sure it would be if there were not strict laws punishing drunk drivers. You see EGV, its not that people drink any less, its that they know the consequences of breaking the law are very severe and uncompromising.
Here in the US, get a smart lawyer and you get your wrist slapped, and that can be for drunk driving or any other serious crime.
So maybe what we need is stricter punishment and people knowing they will face serious consequences.
Mary –
Let’s just cut to the chase – obviously stats and reasoning aren’t going to get me anywhere with you. if you don’t see that vehicles have more positive value to society than guns, then I’m really on the verge of simply declaring you a troll and moving on – because that is ridiculous to even argue.
You’ve often times talked about Switzerland being a place that has lots of guns, and has a lower murder rate. Would you advocate for adopting their gun policies? Here is a convenient link to it. I’m guessing you won’t advocate for it – why not?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_politics_in_Switzerland
Some I think are reasonable.
However my source points out why the Swiss gun culture can’t be transposed to the American mentality, it is a culture of safety and responsibility that is passed from generation to generation.
“If people have a responsible, organized, and disciplined introduction into an activity like shooting, there will be less risk of gun violence”. Peter Squires, Professor of criminology and public policy at the University of Brighton in Great Britain who has studied gun violence in various countries.
That sense of civic and social responsibility is why the Swiss have never allowed their guns to come under fire.
Gee, kind of sounds like the cultural factors I mentioned.
And if we don’t have the culture of responsibility, and can’t create it, then is sure as heck makes sense to regulate further than we do now. Or we’ll continue to see the rates that we do, which is unacceptable.
Or maybe if we had stricter laws punishing offenders…
Maybe.
I think we’ll just keep burying our heads in the sand and letting people die because we’re afraid to take on the fringe crazies.
But we see that in abortion too – this isn’t unique.
“So you admit the deaths from motor vehicles exceed our murder rate? Thank you.” – I agreed with that from the start. I find the comparison rather invalid given the vastlt different purposes they are put to and in what way. Guns are designed to kill, motor vehicles are not.
“Seems you should be focusing more on vehicles and less on guns.” – I thought we all were, that’d be why regulations etc. have gotten more specific and tighter of the years. There’s no ‘National Racers Association’ agitating for no traffic and vehicle controls are there?
“Of course guns aren’t responsible for every murder.” – no, but they do make it somewhat easier.
“Hey Reality, be my guest. How many lunatics have strict guns laws protected us from?” – one would be enough.
“What does any of this have to do with abortion?” – well unless you are pro-murder, your stance against any controls over the major murder weapon contradicts your stance on abortion.