Every day when I drive to base from dropping off my children from school, I see men and women with guns guarding the gate. (I’m thankful for them).
When I leave the commissary, I see scores of Army troops with rifles training near their barracks. (I’m thankful them, too).
I go to Wal-Mart to buy my children their favorite toys for Christmas and pass by the glass counter filled with guns and rifles; toys and guns just aisles from each other, I barely notice anymore. I live in Texas – West Texas, where I hear guns and shotguns being fired from behind my home during dove and deer hunting season. In a single day, I’m surrounded by dozens of guns; I’m un-phased. It’s just a part of my life.
A few months ago, some random man was shooting at bottles on a fence behind our home (unsecured base housing). Belligerently and carelessly, he fired dozens of rounds in the air. Three bullets whizzed over mine and my neighbors head, cutting through tree branches above, while were standing in front of our homes.
Our children were only several feet from us. One bullet went through my neighbor’s house, the wall outside their bathroom where she just finished bathing her children. Her three year-old picked up the bullet from the bathroom floor and brought it mommy.
I personally thought it was someone after my husband for punishment or payback from a disciplinary action at work. I hid in my stairwell with my children until the police told us it was a civilian, a prior felon having a good time shooting bottles behind our home. He shouldn’t have had a gun. We were outraged and scared, of course. But, the outrage and fear didn’t last and we chalked it up to bad people doing bad things.
However, after the massacre of innocents in Newtown, Conn. something changed in me. I realized that I have been numb to guns and their abundance in numbers. I picked up my kindergartner and preschooler from school with suspicious eyes wondering how secure my children really were. This could never happen again, right?
I’m not sure anymore. I’ve become so numb to the presence of guns until now; something has stirred inside me. Guns are everywhere; in the open and hidden from view. From my neighbors to the guard gate base, from Christmas shopping to hunting season, from pawn shops to the vehicle parked next to me, they are everywhere. I’m in a heightened state of awareness because if just one of these guns fall into the wrong hands, even if they were acquired legally, it could change the course my life forever.
I no longer feel safe. It’s not about protecting myself, either. I’m not going to carry a gun with a kindergartner and preschooler in tow. I’m sure people do, but it’s not something would be comfortable with.
Admittedly, I’m not a huge fan of the Second Amendment. However, I believe that gun ownership is a responsibility that most take seriously. Responsible gun owners shouldn’t be penalized for following the law. But as I stood in line to see Santa Claus with my children this weekend inside a crowded mall, I couldn’t help but think this place was a target for a madman with a gun. I felt helpless, then extremely sad for knowing that it could happen. It happened recently in crowded mall in Oregon, in the movie theaters in Colorado, in a coffee shop in Washington. All places of business I frequent with my children. I didn’t feel safe. I reached down and tightened my grip on their little hands.
Is this our new reality? Where crowded places and classrooms are targets for the armed unstable minded? I feel helpless. My world has changed since Friday. I’m no longer numb to the guns that surround me. I’m now on edge because of them, acutely aware of how my life can change in an instant — as fast as you can pull a trigger.
Stacy Allsbrook-Huisman is a freelance writer and consultant with a passion for military spouses and families. Being married to the Air Force for almost decade has given her the inside perspective into the life and struggles of the military family. Huisman currently writes for Goodfellow Monitor at Goodfellow Air Force Base and local papers. She works full time raising her two preschoolers and managing her military life.
About Guest Bloggers
Comments
All the self-defense and combat training in the world can be wiped out by a stray bullet of a madman. And all the laws and regulations will be overcome by someone determined to do harm. Preparation and precautions are okay, but ultimately we are not invincible. And this is where I get my strength to walk through the day, without being a slave to fear or worry, and able to enjoy the day for what it is:
Isaiah 41:10-13
Fear not, for I am with you;
be not dismayed, for I am your God;
I will strengthen you, I will help you,
I will uphold you with my righteous right hand.
11 Behold, all who are incensed against you
shall be put to shame and confounded;
those who strive against you
shall be as nothing and shall perish.
12 You shall seek those who contend with you,
but you shall not find them;
those who war against you
shall be as nothing at all.
13 For I, the Lord your God,
hold your right hand;
it is I who say to you, “Fear not,
I am the one who helps you.”
I completely agree with you Stacy. I am a Navy spouse of 16 years and our culture is one of getting the bad guys and defending our freedom and our way of life. I feel like I too have become numb to the effects of guns and violence. I don't allow my children to play any graphic computer games particularly those that portray killing of any person or animal ever! I feed them healthy food, I take them to church, I actively involve them in acts of charity, I make them have good sleep, I don't let them watch bad TV and I constantly talk to them about everything, especially how to deal with people and treat everyone equally. But, it has never so deeply bothered me until now that there are so many guns and it is so easy to get them. It is sad that it took this tragedy for me to really delve into how I feel about this subject and like you I have questions and no answers and I feel terribly helpless.
I am originally from Australia. The last mass shooting that killed 35 people occurred over a decade and a half ago. The govt subsequently acted with a weapon buyback program, ban on firearms and extensive background checks. It reduced the homicide rate by about 60% in the decade following that tragedy. Most importantly it set in the minds of citizens that this is unacceptable and it needs to stop. Sadly, this kind of change will never happen in the US purely because of the vast gun ownership and most importantly because of the deeply ingrained believe that we NEED to have a gun.
We can make ourselves more sensitive to the tragic results a gun in the wrong hands can cause. We need to be more sensitive and we need to keep EDUCATING our children in so many ways that will make this world a better place.
Shelter from the EVIL, the shelter from the storms, the shelter from thief, shelter from those hell bent of injuring or killing…..All of us have hese same concerns, what help to we get Law enforcements agencies, Socializing of our fellowman, Our Churches, and mosdt of all from Our prayers and Our God.
Fool proof shelters are what we make of tife, and what our government provides us….As for Our mental sheltering that appears to be Our Faith and Our belief in Our Lord. Everything, or aanything else, is life as we are exposed to live it….If your looking for something else to sooth your thoughts, and protect your children, your in a dream world that YOU have created for yourself. The majority of us are in this life as you should be….husband-wife-children-home-community-society…..We can never allow "the minority", under any condition, make the rules that govern Our Lives…….
Well I hate to pop your little Australian bubble, but the last time the government bought/confiscated weapons it turned out badly. Also with the last fiasco aka fast & furious disposal of weapons, that wound up in th hands of several Mexican drug cartel hands is part of the reason to be vigilant not only to our gun rights, but vigilant to what our own government is up to.
You sound like a govt plant. Australia's crime rate DID NOT drop no 60% after banning their citizens from being able to defend themselves! Nice try,'Adelle", or whatever your name really is! America's Constitution has the Second Amendment in place to save us from govt tyranny, not to shoot Bambi! We will NEVER relinquish our firearms, for in the day that we do, we will surely become subjects and serfs, not citizens!! Our govt has become an evil, totalitarian enemy of freedom and liberty!
Molon Labe!
Even Australia's Bureau of Crime Statistics and Research acknowledges that the gun ban had no significant impact on the amount of gun-involved crime:
In 2006, assault rose 49.2 percent and robbery 6.2 percent.
Sexual assault — Australia's equivalent term for rape — increased 29.9 percent.
Overall, Australia's violent crime rate rose 42.2 percent.
Moreover, Australia and the United States — where no gun-ban exists — both experienced similar decreases in murder rates:
Between 1995 and 2007, Australia saw a 31.9 percent decrease; without a gun ban, America's rate dropped 31.7 percent.
During the same time period, all other violent crime indices increased in Australia: assault rose 49.2 percent and robbery 6.2 percent.
Sexual assault — Australia's equivalent term for rape — increased 29.9 percent.
Overall, Australia's violent crime rate rose 42.2 percent.
At the same time, U.S. violent crime decreased 31.8 percent: rape dropped 19.2 percent; robbery decreased 33.2 percent; aggravated assault dropped 32.2 percent.
Australian women are now raped over three times as often as American women.
While this doesn't prove that more guns would impact crime rates, it does prove that gun control is a flawed policy. Furthermore, this highlights the most important point: gun banners promote failed policy regardless of the consequences to the people who must live with them, says the Examiner.
Source: Howard Nemerov, "Australia experiencing more violent crime despite gun ban," D.C. Examiner, April 8, 2009.
Well stated Adelle! Thanks!
You say, "A man in China killed 20 some kids with a butcher knife, not a gun."
No, NONE of those people DIED. They were hospitalized, but they ALL LIVED.
….unlike the victims in Newtown.
Ok, I admit, I could not read far into this. Some editing is much needed for OCD grammar people like me, sorry…
Grammar Counts, I couldn't agree more…and I wrote it. I wrote it so quickly that I didn't proof it properly.. I've sent in a corrected version, but it hasn't been posted yet. I appreciate people like you. Below is my blog (under construction), you can read th corrected version there. Thanks!
http://militarykidsintransition.blogspot.com/
Making your point is important too. I read it, I enjoyed it and I learned something about myself from it.
For those of you who have a fear of guns and are not willing to shoulder the responsibility of a CCW I'll be happy to take that burden off you. CCW holder for 20+ years(haven't had to take my gun out) and I'm proud to stand up and be counted! Donald R. Hohman CWO USA (RET) POW
I agree with you sir. I am an inactive Marine who servered two tours in Vietnam. I have held a CCW permit for many years, and, like you, I have never had to take my gun out of it's holster. But I certainly would not hesitate if the need arose. Please count me also!
I for one believe that we as Americans have the right to protect our families from people that want to take away our lives and our belongings. If they take away our guns, who is going to take the nuts gun's out there whom are crazy, and have no respect for other people or anything. I am a vet of 22 years, an I respect guns and people , but don't come in to my home and try to take what is mine, or worse kill me. I think as law abiding people, we should have the means to protect our self's. The 2nd amendment gave that right. It is not the gun that is the bad instrument, it's the nut that has no respect for life. So don't blame the gun.
O.C.Peters MSG retired 12/20/2012
Well said.
I do not consider it a right to bere arms. I consider it a duty.. I believe I have the duty and responsibility to protect my family and my neighbors. They looked out for my family when I was deployed to viet nam
Part 1. I don't have a good answer, either, but while some worry about their safety in a public place, I feel better knowing I have the means to defend myself and others if some fool starts randomly shooting. Yes, I have a carry permit in my state and I'm also an active law enforcement officer, so I have the authority to bear arms under multiple laws. As a law enforcement officer since 1972, I have NEVER had a problem with someone who was lawfully carrying a gun under the authority of a permit or while engaged in an activity, such as hunting where they are authorized to carry a handgun on their person. The problem has always been those who are not law-abiding, and no additional gun laws or restrictions are going to stop the bad element from obtaining and using a gun. It will only increase the size of the black market in guns. New restrictions on guns will only impact the law-abiding. Controlling an object in order to influence human behavior does not work. Stacy talked about becoming numb to guns — our society has also become numb to the carnage we create on our highways.
Part 3. Perhaps we should include mental health information in criminal history files so that it shows up when an instant background check is conducted. Perhaps a doctor's certification that an applicant to buy a gun has no mental health history before they are allowed to complete the purchase. We spend way too much time worrying about the privacy rights of individuals with mental health records while attempting to ignore or overlook the Constitutional and personal property, and self-defense rights of gun owners. The Center for Disease Control's own commission looked at the effect of the Brady gun control laws and found that they had absolutely no impact on the gun homicide rate while they were in effect. Bottom line — as a career law enforcement officer with some 40 years of empirical evidence to examine, I have never worried about the vast majority of law abiding gun owners and those who carry a gun, with a permit, for self-protection. I worry about the non-law abiding element that will obtain guns and use them in crimes of violence no matter how many laws and restrictions are place of the sale and possession of guns.
Part 4. As a school resource officer working in a middle school, I know that the only thing that will stop an armed intruder into a school will be another armed person such as myself or an armed school staff member. The shooter in Newtown, CT forced his way into the school despite their physical secuirty measures, and only a gun would have stopped him sooner. I weep for the victim of the Newtown attack, but a knee-jerk reaction to ban or restrict guns is not what we need. We need a comprehensive review of ALL the factors in the incident, including the mental health of the perpetrator and how we can make mental health concerns more applicable to the gun-buying process. It is already against the law for a person who has been in a mental health facility or has been adjudicated mentally ill to possess a gun, but that doesn't stop them. Our drug laws already prohibit the buying, selling, cultivation, and possession of many illegal drugs but that doesn't even slow down a lucrative illicit drug market. New restrictive gun laws will NOT prevent criminals or anyone with a desire from obtaining and using a gun. States and cities with the toughest gun laws have the highest gun murder rates.
Tim As to the stationing an armed guard or teacher, I think that a backup is necessary to make this a better application for people in schools. My opinion would include a security guard with a security dog. As you probably know dogs have a better reaction time than humans plus their sences are more acute. The bad guy or guys would have a lot more on their hands with 2 trained individuals. I believe the team would provide a formable safeguard for schools. This also might help those returning troops comming back home in need of Jobs. They have been trained by the military already. One could elimate two problems with this solution.
14OLDYANKEE
Part 5. Britain and Australia have some of the most restrictive gun laws amongst "free" nations yet their gun crime rates are rising annually. And banning so-called "assault" weapons?
There is no such thing as an assault weapon. This is a name, a tag applied to a certain type of firearm by the gun-control lobby to make them sound fearsome and dangerous. Any weapon can be used to assault. The news said the Newtown shooter killed 26 people in ten minutes. That doesn't take an "assault" rifle with a high capacity magazine. It can be easily done in less than ten minutes with an old fashioned bolt action rifle and a pocketful of bullets. We need to have a serious discussion about the causes of these violent acts. A gun will lay on the ground until it rusts and never hurt anyone until a human being picks it up and manipulates it. It isn't the gun that kills, it's the person holding the gun. It isn't the car that kills, it's the driver behind the wheel. Let's address the REAL issues.
Stacey, Your livelihood as a blogger depends on the First Amendment. You said you are not a fan of the Second. You would not have the First without the Second. You can't pick and choose. It is who we are as a country. The whole 'keep and bear arms' thing is the why and how we were even able to became the greatest country in the history of this planet in the first place.
I legally carry a weapon and I don't use shifty logic to justify it either. Weak justification such as "it is who we are as a country" and the logic that militias are necessary for maintaining the First Amendment undermines the military and won't hold up if this issue is brought to a vote. YES, a militia was necessary to get the ball rolling but even I, an advocate for bearing arms, am aware that they are not actively defending our right to free speech. Rather they protect our future in the event that we are invaded. They have a place in the hands of sane and trained, good, calm people. That is a tall order and fairly rare these days. As Stacy said the Second Amendment demands a responsibility the right to free speech does also…that responsibility is to be thoughtful and informed. Please exercise your rights freely and also be responsible.
Ana, the right to keep and bear arms was enacted for two primary reasons. First, to provide the militia (the founders didn't want a standing army) with armed, trained personnel immediately. Second, and more importantly, they had risen in armed revolt against their lawful king, and enshrined the right to do so in their constitution. The 2nd amendment was supposed to be the teeth that made that stick. Never mind that the founders could not have foreseen the civil war proving that we'll never be able to rise in armed revolt successfully…
The 2nd amendment was intended as the guarantor of the other 9, and is still the canary in the coal mine. ToddMac could have stated it more tactfully, but he is right. If we allow them to take our 2nd amendment away, soon the 4th and 5th will cease to exist, and the 1st will wither. About the only amendment we can expect not to lose is the 3rd – no-one uses quartering troops on civilians anymore as a control measure.
The founders also did not foresee the invention of firearms with high-capacity magazines, capable of perpetrating MASS murder. Think about it. Mass shootings did not occur before the existence of these types of firearms.
Banning ALL guns is not what the gun control advocates want. So, the 2nd Amendment argument is not valid here. What they (and a majority of the population-according to the latest polling) want is a ban on high-capacity firearms and magazines. There is absolutely no need for civilians to possess these types of weapons.
So let's be reasonable in the discussion and sensible in the legislation we enact. It is possible.
Most of the people pushing these bans are on the record as wanting to ban guns of all shapes, sizes, and more than their current agenda. I believe it was Feinstein who said she wanted to take every gun from everyone through confiscation in the 90's.
Also, remember when the Constitution was written guns were almost universally single shot muzzle loaders. Rifling was new. Cannons could lob shells accurately a whopping couple hundred yards. Handguns were single shot monsters that weighed what an M-4 weighs today…
…and the average citizen could own ALL of them. If you wanted a cannon and could afford it…buy one. If you wanted to sail your ship around with cannons poking out the sides or on a deck gun swivel…have at it.
Brown Bess with a bayonet hanging on the end? Thousands and thousands of them in private ownership at the time of the Revolution.
Those were the "assault weapons" of the day.
They trusted us to use our legally possessed firearms sensibly. Criminals break the law, citizens obey the law.
Funny, NONE of the shooters in ANY of the past mass murders had a CRIMINAL record.
And no, "most people pushing these bans" want ALL guns banned. Now, you're just making stuff up. But please, do feel free to provide citations to support that ridiculous claim.
Guns are made to go bang. I have a bunch that punch paper, knock over bowling pins, and make a metal plate swing pretty well. Not a single one of them has ever killed anyone and likely won't unless someone tries to kill me and mine. Guns are tools. People are who misuse tools.
Guns are "tools" for killing. Period. That is their sole purpose. So no, people who murder others with guns aren't "misusing" them. They're USING them.
An elderly man or woman routinely runs over pedestrians 2-3 times a year, killing several and "wounding" many. Their lives are changed forever.
Twice this week drivers with cell phones glued to their ears ran clearly red lights and almost hit me as I entered the intersection where I had right of way.
Hundreds of times per year drunk drivers kill entire families driving the wrong way on Interstates. In fact we kill over 40,000 people each year on the highways due to drunk, distracted, and unskilled drivers. Compared with what, 50-75 mass killings by criminally insane? Note this: The highway deaths are preventable and committed by legally sane adults.
So, as you pick up your cell phone behind the wheel next time, think about it.
Let's face it. If the situations above got the attention each and every time that these gun cases by mentally ill patients, perhaps highway deaths would go down.
The Connecticut murders were a mental health issue, and a cultural violence issue, not a gun issue. Our kids are bombarded by sex, graphic violence and drugs from their earliest days. Just this week, during prime time, "Two Broke Girls" were joking about oral sex, and baking pot into their cupcakes. This type of corrosive exploitation coupled with the desensitization due to video games is eating away at our young people.
Lt.Col David Grossman, a psychology professor at West Point, and well known author on shooting and its aftermath explained that the military uses the same video games, only with scripts, shoot/no shoot scenarios, and training objectives…the average teen has no such scripting, no moral or ethical discussions following "training", just shoot 'em up. BTW, if you think YOUR kid isn't exposed due to rules in your house, the kids know who the latch key kids are, and are over there watching the movies, playing the games (that mom/dad bought to assuage there conscious about being gone), and surfing on the Internet.
The world cannot be made perfectly safe. Turn off the cable news, get involved in your kids life. Know what the rules are in their friends house. Don't be afraid to speak up if one of their friends is an accident waiting to happen.
30 yrs of service
Lt.Col Grossman was also involved in a study of WWll and Korea era soldiers which found that even in the heat of battle,being actively attacked by the enemy,one third had not fired their weapons at all,or fired in the air because their inhibitions against killing another human being or even pointing their weapons at a live human were so strong. (as opposed to aiming at a paper target in the typical firearms training of that time) Today's video games are so realistic and condition players to just blast the s*** out of everything that moves as fast as you can pull the trigger.
The reality of death is also sanitized in our society. If High School students were required to visit a morgue or view an autopsy of gunshot victims and car accident victims,it may be a counterbalance to fantasy.
I think we should be more concerned with the dehumanization of people in society. We are profiles on internet sites, text messages and names without a face.
Part 2. We kill more people each year in automobiles than from all forms of murder, no matter what the weapon, but no one has proposed controlling or restricting access to motor vehicles. We prohibit habitual drunken drivers from driving but they obtain and drive vehicles anyway, and they often kill or injure again. Timothy McVeigh didn't use a gun to kill over a hundred people, including 19 children under the age of six, but no one suggested we should restrict the sale of fertilizer and diesel fuel in order to prevent a future act of that type. Rather than ban or severely restrict guns, we need to address the other factors. We hold bartenders responsible for serving too many drinks to the driver who kills on the way home from the bar. Perhaps we should hold the gun owner responsible for allowing access to their firearms when they are used in a crime or by a person whom the law says cannot have a gun. A few states already do this because of incidents where children gain access to and hurt someone while playing with a gun.
So far I've heard there's evidence that the mother in this shooting kept her struggles with her dangerous child hidden. Also seems like she didn't keep her guns hidden enough.
If this is the case she's as guilty as him.
Comparing guns to cars and fertilizer is a logical fallacy. Cars and fertilizer are not designed for the sole purpose of killing. Guns are.
"Guns are designed to propel a projectile, not kill."
You are seriously deluded.
Ditto. Don't blame guns. Guns that myself and others (the vast majority of gun owners) legally and rightfully own.
Don't confused a criminal/crazy/madman/mentally challenged person/terrorist/whatever with us. Our guns are no threat to anyone unless someone breaks the law.
Each of these incidents lately has been similar to your incident in one respect…the person was either a criminal or had a background and shouldn't have been able to possess the weapons they used.
It's a failure in our system, our society, and our beliefs.
Taking away my guns to prevent gun crimes is like taking away your car to prevent drunk driving. Even if you're a teetotaler.
Not a recommendation, just a point to consider as we open the debate on guns. I would be more inclined to favor linking mental health records to instant background checks. Under this system, if you want to buy a gun, you have to waive your right to the privacy of your mental health records. No waiver, no gun. It's more of a method to appease the gun control lobby.
Madam moderator, where is my Part 2? Parts 1, 3, 4, and 5 posted without hesitation but I got the dreaded "your post must be approved" for Part 2. Sort of broke up the continuity of my comment.
Tim let me take a look. Sorry! Id love to say our system works without flaw but, well .. :-)
(It's up now — but sadly out of order. And I'm afraid there's nothing I can do about that. Very sorry, tho!)
No problem. Thanks for looking!
I can remember in the 60's and 70's when the CRAZIES were instatutionalized until a bunch of DEMOCRATS figured it "COSTS" us too much and mandated that they be "FREE"……Just how much does it cost NOW? Let's blame an inatimate object and not the real problem.
Just a thought. Do we really need assalt rifles in our homes? Don't you feel that our miltary and law enforcement should be the only ones to have them? They are meant to slaughter or attack. I understand hand guns and rifles – self protection, hunting. Totally get it. Assalt rifles, machine guns? Help me understand why anyone would need them? I am trying to understand the argument for not banning them. Open to a reasonable argument.
A-Assault rifles are fully automatic rifles that are mainly used by militaries and police forces around the world. What was used in this latest case, and in most cases, is a semi-automatic rifle that looks like an assault rifle. Fully automatic assault rifles can be owned by US citizens but it requires an intensive background check, permission of your local law enforcement, permission from the FBI and BATFE, and it isn't cheap…a simple fully automatic M-16 is around $16,000. Some of the rarer and funner ones are well into the 50+ range.
Since 1934 two fully automatic weapons that were legally possessed have been used in crimes. One was a police officer who used his duty weapon to kill his wife.
B-Do you need an SUV to drive your kids around? How about a 3500 square foot house? A 55" big screen TV? A 600hp sports car that can touch 200mph?
This is a free country. One of the great things about it is we can do what we want, be who we want to be, and have what we want as long as we can earn it. Taking away legally owned and possessed firearms due to the actions of criminals and crazies penalizes law abiding citizens and not the criminals. Gun crimes will still continue. They haven't stopped in England or Australia and still happen in countries where guns are very hard to get. Chinese criminals have them…so will ours.
I've been in a situation where my life was in danger due to a crazy person with weapons. I felt MUCH better because I had my weapons there to defend me and mine.
Not exactly a reasonable argument of "because I want one". Hoping to find meaning in why Americans should not ban these guns. I do appreciate what you said, but if you can still protect yourself with hand guns and pistols, I still not sure why we shouldn't return to the ban on assault rifles that existed a few years back.
…but how is your argument, based on an irrational fear of something you don't understand, reasonable?
Go read the wording of that ban. The silly things that were banned, similar things that weren't, the specifics that made no sense, the "evil" features that were banned, etc. What part of that ban was effective in reducing crime, what "Drive by gang bayonetings" were stopped, and what crimes have increased since it expired in 2004? Several of these attacks by mentally deranged individuals happened during it.
So again…why restrict MY law abiding rights to protect YOU against what CRAZY/CRIMINAL people will do anyway?
Stacy, did anybody ask you why you wanted to write a blog? Of course not, it is your right. Just as owning a firearm is everyone's right in this country – why they want to is nobody's business.
Because you don't have the right to take it away. If you choose to violate the constitution and strip us of this "little nibble" of our rights, then you or someone else will be back later looking for another "little nibble". You also open the door to the things mentioned above. If you think I have no legitimate purpose for owning an assault rifle (which i can't afford anyway) or an "assault weapon" (which is a false category), then don't look for my support when the EPA bans your SUV.
Your nervousness is never a legitimate reason to take away other people's rights. Carry Nation hated demon rum and wanted to take away everyone else's right to choose whether or not to drink. She got her way, eventually, and look what Prohibition caused. Remember the law of unintended consequences. Prohibition did nothing to solve the alcohol problem, the War on Drugs has only succeeded in limiting our civil liberties to a level that would have had the colonists shooting, while not getting drugs off the streets, and gun control will never work either. All are equally immoral.
Speaking of immorality, we didn't have an assault rifle ban a few years ago. We had an unconstitutional ban on scary-looking guns that made people nervous.
Banning a certain type of firearm that is capable of MASS murder is NOT a violation of the Constitution. You still get to keep your other firearms.
Stacy wants to know why people like you feel the need to have automatic and semi-automatic firearms. So far, no one has been able to give her a reasonable answer.
And comparing guns to vehicles (of any size) is not reasonable because vehicles are not designed to kill.
Oh, contraire — the Constitution is silent on what kind of firearm is permitted under the right to keep and bear arms. Since it does not so specify, any firearm is permitted. When written, the authors intended that citizens keep the most modern and capable firearms available in order to be able to respond to the "call to arms" and defend the country against an invader or other threat. The authors also intended that the citizens have the capability to remove a tyrannical government from power if need be, thus the citizens require the most modern and capable firearms available. Today, the most modern and capable is a semi-auto weapon with high capacity magazines. Oh, I know a machine gun would be even better, but even I draw the line somewhere, although well-regulated ownership of machine guns is still legal in the country and should continue to be. You think comparing guns and autos is not reasonable? Please tell me why an object supposed to be beneficial to society kills twice as many people each year as an object you claim has only one purpose, to kill?
You make me laugh. The "tyrannical government" argument is not only worn and tired, it's completely flawed. Think about it. If TODAY'S government wanted you dead, they wouldn't come knocking on your door. They'd drone your ass.
Nevertheless, why do you "draw the line" at machine guns? If you truly believe the "tyrannical government" crap, you certainly would support the right to "bear" them, as well, since their firepower would give you an even better chance of defending yourself (according to your logic).
Which brings me to your original argument – that the 2nd Amendment doesn't specify which weapons we can and cannot possess. If that were a valid argument, then why aren't ordinary citizens allowed to "bear" rocket launchers, surface-to-air missiles, tanks, fighter jets and nuclear weapons?
And your comparison of deaths by autos vs. guns is also extremely flawed because it ignores frequency of use and level of ownership, among other variables. Show me the number of deaths from each alongside how often each are used (i.e. billions of cars on millions of roadways every single day vs. how many guns being shot in public on a daily basis?). In addition, show me how many deaths are caused by drunk driving compared with drunk shooting. Or how about driving while texting vs. shooting while texting. Do you see how absurd the comparison is now?
What is an Assalt Weapon, My definition is any thing used to assalt another person or object, consequently, a thrown pie is an assalt weapon. Assalt weapon a Media spawned word.
First of all, Stacy, the term "assault rifles" is not a real or technical term. It was a term made up by the anti-gun lobby to make the rifles sound scarier. Second, ownership of machine guns by the general public has been illegal since the 1930s. In order to get a fully automatic weapon (machine gun), one must live in a state where they are still legal to own, get a federal Class 3 firearms license (a very involved and grueling process), pay hundreds of dollars in taxes and transfer fees, and then come up with the thousands of dollars that it would take to pay for the machine gun. The dreaded and uber-scary AR-15 is the most popular sporting rifle in the country. It is NOT a military weapon, just an ordinary rifle that LOOKS military. These are important things to know when making statements on this subject.
The AR-15 is a "sporting" rifle? For what sport? Mass deer hunting? C'mon.
It's not about the way these weapons LOOK. It's about what they DO.
It's also quite telling that people like you seem to be okay with the ban on automatic weapons like machine guns (that discharge multiple rounds with one trigger pull), but not semiautomatic weapons (that discharge rounds as fast as the shooter can pull the trigger).
Actually you'll find most of us think the ban on fully automatic weapons, silencers, "street sweepers", and other "destructive devices" are silly and stupid. There's also a bunch of legal issues with just how the latest version of the ban (1986) came into play. If a law is made illegally, is it still a law?
Target shooting is a sport. So is deer hunting. Hog hunting. Prairie dog hunting. These and many more are valid sports that AR's are used for.
The last "assault weapon" ban was based on, worded about, and restricted features and guns that were deemed bad. The flaws in it's logic were epic since some guns and features were left off while very similar guns were banned.
If "most of you" don't agree with the machine gun bans, then why aren't you all up in arms (excuse the pun) about it, too?
You ask, "If a law is made illegally, is it still a law?"
If the Supreme Court says so. That's their job.
AR's are used for hunting? Geez, those "hunters" must be horrible shots. No self-respecting (or sport-respecting) hunter would use an AR to kill defenseless animals. Those who do, have no right to call themselves real hunters and should have their hunting license revoked. The same can be said of target practice. If you need an AR to hit a target, you might want to rethink your hobby.
TeeJae what does having a ar have to do with hunting or target practice. It's not fully automatic. And you can pull the trigger as fast as you want but if you do not have the right skill sets you will not hit anything does not matter what platform you use. There are plenty of weapons that are not ARs and are semi auto and are capable of the same performance. Do your research before you bash something.
Calling a rifle and ASSULT RIFLE is like calling a car an assult CAR. As a free society we can leagally have what we can leagally obtain. We call the Police, Fire department, and our Military FIRST RESPONDERS, when in reality the first responders are or is the Home Owner. So If they are to be the only ones with guns no matter what it is, who is going to protect me in my home in those first 10 minutes. They (Guns) are not meant to slaughter or attack they are to defend yourself, your family, and your country. History can not be allowed to repeat it's self ( Read how Hitler came into power with gun control)–Study up on the mess Great Britain has gotten it's self into by Total gun control, Even now their police are carring guns again).
To be clear, I'm a former Marine Sniper and Law Enforcement Officer, and have been a Master Hunter Safety Instructor for over 30 years.
A rifle is a rifle is a rifle. The only difference between my hunting rifles, and what you call my "assault" rifles is the stock. The barrels are the same, the actions are the same, the calibers are the same and the killing power is the same. When I retrieve one of these rifles from my gun safe, I've already determined whether I'm going out to fill my freezer or am protecting my family or others put in harms way. One is more suited to slow paced hunting activities, and the other is more suited (by virtue of weight and configuration of the stock) to responding to a close quarters situation.
My handguns are for the same purposes, both hunting and personal protection, and only come out as the need arises based on their configurations.
What is different, is that I (along with the vast vast majority of gun owners) am not mentally unstable or in possession of my rifles and handguns to perform illegal acts. My possession of these weapons poses no threat to any human being that does not threaten me or my family, or is not committing an illegal/violent act upon others. Protection of "property" is never a consideration. Property can be replaced easily, life and limb cannot.
Now to make one more point clear. The "assault" rifle in Adam Lanza's possession, was found later in the trunk of his car and was NOT used in the unfortunate killings in Newtown, Ct. Adam Lanza killed those kids with handguns. Adam Lanza had a history of mental illness, and his mother purchased those weapons and trained him to use them for "therapy". The responsibility for those killings lies squarely on Adam Lanza and his mother, not on the handguns that were used. Those same killings could have been committed with knives, pencils, screwdrivers, hammers or the most popular murder weapon of all, the Louisville Slugger baseball bat. Murder is committed by deranged people with bad intentions, not law abiding and sane people.
You say, "Adam Lanza killed those kids with handguns."
You might want to recheck your facts. The handgun was used on himself. The AR-15 was used on everyone else.
You say, "The responsibility for those killings lies squarely on Adam Lanza and his mother, not on the handguns that were used."
No, the "responsibility" lies PARTLY with Adam and his mother. It ALSO lies with our legislators for writing lax gun laws, the inadequate regulation and enforcement of existing laws, and irresponsible industry-protecting lobbies like the NRA influencing those legislators. If stricter laws and/or bans were in place, his mother would not have possessed her arsenal (giving Adam ready access to it), and those 27 innocent people would still be ALIVE.
You say, "Those same killings could have been committed with knives, pencils, screwdrivers, hammers or the most popular murder weapon of all, the Louisville Slugger baseball bat."
That statement is absurd, and makes it VERY hard to believe you are who you say you are.
You say, "Murder is committed by deranged people with bad intentions, not law abiding and sane people."
EVERY one of the shooters in the past mass murders were "law abiding" until they committed that first atrocious crime.
Stacy, your right, most people don't need Assault Rifles in their homes, thats why it's almost impossible to get a permit to have an assault rifle. The M-16's and A4's that the military uses are assault rifles. The assault weapons that any one can go buy is NOT an assault rifle. The difference is, one is selective burst firing or full automatic (assault rifle) and the other is semi-auto, where you have to pull the trigger each and every time to fire a bullet. This isn't any different than a Remington 7400 hunting rifle, and works exactly the same way, just is the housing is plastic and black on the assault weapon and wood on the hunting rifle.
Then let's go back to the original reason for the Second Amendment. Our founding fathers never envisioned automatic and semi-automatic weapon, so they jusy used the term "arms," which is all inclusive. They did not specify which arms one could bear and which one could not nor did they see a need to do so. They also believed that keeping citizens armed would prevent the new United States government from becoming tyrannical like the British government they had just overhtrown. So there are two reasons for the Second Amendment. The first is that back in that day there was no standing army and the government would call all men "to arms," to rally to defend the country from an outside invader. The second reason is that the citizens could remove the government if needed. If you don't believe me, then read the writings of the forefathers – Adams, Jefferson, and many others. So, in order for the citizens to invoke their right to remove the government, they need modern weapons to do so – the so-called assault rifles with hi-cap magazine. As long as the government fears the people, they will remain free.
That argument is absurd. American society in the 21st Century is VASTLY different than the post-revolutionary society in which the founders lived. No reasonable (i.e. non-tinfoil-hat-wearing) person today feels the need to "remove the government."
And you are deluded if you think the government "fears the people." If they target you as a threat, they won't come knocking on your door.
Part of what makes our country great is we HAVE the option to remove the government. The how, when, and why is up to us to decide.
Maybe they should fear the people some. As it is they have a wonderful record of knocking on your door or just kicking it in and stomping your cat. Or shooting your wife and infant child while standing on the porch.
You're too funny. You honestly believe we have the option to remove our government? So naive.
The Center for Disease Control's own commission/study found that the old assault weapon ban, which lasted ten years from 1994 to 2004, had absolutely no positive impact on gun deaths, and also that very few gun deaths are actually by assault weapons. The ban was a joke, anyway. It did not ban the weapons but only required manufacturers to remove features such as collapsible stocks, bayonet lugs, and magazines with a capacity of over ten rounds. And there were other loopholes. I legally purchased a weapon with all those features during the previous ban and so did many other people. What needs to be addressed are violent movies, video games, and a lack of moral education of our young in this country. But then you'ld be facing the powerful Hollywood and electronics arts industries, who have a lot of political pull and contribute lots of money to politicians. Mark my words, no one in the government is going to have the wherewithall to address the root problems and will instead apply the band-aid fix.
"Numb to guns"…how idiotic! This country is numb from lying politicians, lying media…all trying to tell you to take Almighty God out of the equation! How dare you put the 10 commandments up that say "thou shalt not kill"….or flash in front of a thief "thou shalt not steal"….quit talking about inanimate objects you clowns…and turn back to God….from whom this country got its blessings and protections for the past couple hundred years….you don't believe it? read the papers Vern….you actually think things are better now WITHOUT GOD?
Stacy, the reality is we were never and will never be safe from the actions of those intent on doing us harm. Think about the death and damage inflicted on 9/11/2001, simple box cutters were the weapon. Think about Oklahoma City 1995, a single man with a rented truck, barrels of fertilizer and racing gas killed 168 people, 19 of whom were children and injured 680 others.
Why don't you read a little about Suzanna Hupp, a Texas doctor, who wishes every day she had carried her pistol into a Luby's restaurant where she would have had a chance to stop a massacre and save her parents from being executed. Is her situation one you would like to be in?
Your article/blog is emotional based rambling rather than a critical thought based analysis and outcome. It loudly proclaims you were naive about the world as it exits. Oddly to me, you are willing to publicly state to the world you don't feel safe yet you also state you are not willing to take one of the only actions you can to make your life and that of your children safer, and that is too learn how to use a firearm and carry it when you can. You recognize the danger exists but it seems you want to rely on others to protect you when they can't. If you believe any amount of legislation can make you safer, or the police will arrive in time in every case than all you are doing is practicing Pollyanna thinking.
As tragic Ct. was, we as a people of every income and culture and race from every corner of the world pause and reflect on what a shame it was for innocence to be tragically be killed this way. We pause and reflect and what could of prevented this carnage. And the only real answer is another trained person with the courage to act to save lives. The bottom line is, CCW people do not carry a weapon to hurt others on a moments notice, but to save lives. Of their own and of others around them. People who buy arms for the most part do it, because they believe in The America that believes in Freedom in the truest sense of the word. History has taught to those who listen to harsh reality, from time immortal, we cannot live among each other in peace, because of the awful seen and unseen evil that is real in our world. It does not come in the form of a tool, a car, chemicals, or by any weapon, but that of men/women that are bent on destroying. Covering our eyes, shutting down the tv, not driving, passing laws, and locking up people will never ever take out the criminal, insane person from rendering harm to others. We hope, prepare for the worst, and prey for God to keep us safe. If you believe in protecting yourself by not allowing others to do so, prop up a sign in front of your home, and write, GUN FREE ZONE to witness your true belief.
Well stated Edgar.
I fully agree with you.
We are numb to the continuing Moral Decay in American Society? Gun control is not the answer.. I do not remember after 9/11 anyone advocating banning Muslims and also when a Drunk Driver kills someone we do not advocate banning cars. Americans are Stupid and I think our demise is starting. Its just one step into bringing America under the control of the United Nations…
Banning Muslims? Are you kidding? What do you call the wave of Islamophobia (and the ensuing nonsensical anti-Muslim legislation) that swept this country after 9/11?
Cars are not designed to kill. Guns are.
Your irrational fear of the UN is very telling.
Stacy, you like many others only are hearing what you want to hear. There have been many good responses to why those that want to have a AR-15 should have one. You say that is not a meaningful answer. Sorry if you want a knee jerk reaction and to ban something that is proven will not help. How many studies do others have to quote that say it will not help? So let me put it in plan English for you. When you give up your alcohol, pot, cocaine, heroin, cars, planes, trains, kitchen appliances and utensils,cellphones, iPad, smart phones, gaming, movies, trash on TV, sports arenas and all the rest the of your "instruments of mass destruction" and the things you love so dearly, and yes each one of them and many more kill or cause death in some way, then those who want what they want should "think" of giving there gun up. Also a AR-15 with 16" barrel is better home protection than a deer rile with 24 or more inch barrel for the same reason police and military use them for defending and clearing confined spaces. I prefer a 12 gauge, but to each his own. Also many of them are used for target practice and yes speed shooting. Why do they need to speed shoot??? Why do you need a mini-van or a Corvette that goes faster than the speed limit??? I do my speed shooting legally at the range, Many speed throw school zones on a daily bases, endangering the ones they now profess to cry out for…
Also there is one other "mass murderer" that no one seems to want to bring up, WE could stop the murder of hundreds or more "children" a day by banning the "Abortionists Tools of Mass Destruction." YES and all who voted for Obama and his platform and all who didn't vote at all to stop them, have those children's' blood and the blood of many more to come on there hands. Those who would cheapen life in any way are all to blame for the slaughter, not a piece of metal and plastic……
Yes and after you read this and all the other comments, you will still be looking for answers, because you want to ban the piece of metal and plastic so you can say you did something and "FEEL" safe again… YOU WON"T BE>>>>>>
You say, "There have been many good responses to why those that want to have a AR-15 should have one."
Really? I haven't found a single one. Please, point one out to me. And no, hiding behind the 2nd Amendment is not a "good" one.
Where are these studies that show a ban on semiautomatic weapons and high capacity magazines will NOT help? Consider for a moment the ban and mandatory buy-back implemented in Australia several years ago that dramatically cut down on the number of gun deaths:
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2012/12…
That is an excellent example of how a ban WOULD help.
All those "instruments of mass destruction" you list are not designed to kill. Guns are.
You say no hiding behind the 2nd Amendment? Mean while you are hiding behind the 1st Amendment.
You say where are the studies that show a semiauto weapons ban would not help. Do you think you are important enough that studies should be shipped right to your door? And just because gun muder rates went down in Australia dosnt mean murder rates didn't go up and rape and robberies and home envasions. So yeah it is an example of how this buy back program would work. Not well. And those gun death rates how do you know they didn't take in suicide and self defense into those rates. When you look at statistics you must look at the reasons behind them not just the numbers.
Who was the other person dressed in camo clothing and a bullet proof vest found in the woods behind that school and arrested and escorted away in a squad car ? The mass media zombie reporters are having a fied day whipping up mass hysteria against assault rifles even though the shooters rifle was found in the trunk of his private auto by State Police officers. This entire incident is fishy and until the facts can be reported there is no way I beleive what the mass media zombies publish as supposed truths. Enforce the laws on the books and lock the mentally deranged people where they cant hurt anybody.
Place a firearm on your kitchen table for a couple of days and watch it closely. Then write down everything it does on its own without any human involvement.
Here is a thought. Will we need to arm our day care providers our hire more cops to protect them?
Stacy, you are right: a crowded mall IS the perfect target for a madman with a gun. I imagine awful scenarios like that all the time when I’m in a public place: mall, symphony hall, church, etc. and think “what would I do?” You didn’t just FEEL helpless in that mall, you WERE helpless, and the fact is that the best way to protect yourself and your precious kids is to conceal carry a firearm.
I never was into guns, but my soldier fiancé slowly got me comfortable with them until I got to the point where I was receptive to “If you get your CHL (Concealed Handgun License) I’ll buy you a handgun for your birthday.” I made it one of my goals for this year to do that, and I did! I’m still waiting to receive my physical license, but I am already carrying my piece in the car and I’ve gotten so in the habit, that I can’t go anywhere without it now. It is so empowering as a woman to own a gun, take it places with you, and practice at the shooting range. I hope I NEVER ever have to use it in self-defense, but I am prepared to do it if it means saving my life and others’ lives.
If one knows how to use a handgun (and it’s not rocket science), one should feel completely comfortable conceal carrying with kids in tow. I will want to carry ESPECIALLY when I have children because I will want to be equipped to protect my babies. We cannot walk around with a victim mentality, because those are the people who get killed. I refuse to stand around and be helpless. I don’t want to be part of the “sheeple” crowd and be gunned down by a crazy person.
I strongly am in favor of public school teachers and admin being allowed to conceal carry in school. There’s a small school district in Texas that is allowing this, and AG Greg Abbott is all in favor of it in other districts. Of course, the teachers will have to be a CHL holder as well as go through more extensive training required by the district. But if teachers can protect their students in this way, less people will die in these tragic shootings.
I personally would love to see a pro-gun/pro-2nd Amendment post here on Spouse Buzz. This article, along with Amy Buschatz’s post “My Husband Wants a Gun in the House” on Dec. 6 aren’t exactly anti-gun, but I’m sure there are ladies who visit this site, other than myself, who feel quite comfortable with firearms. It would be interesting to read how some military wives have embraced personal defense along with their husbands.
Until you are a parent, it is impossible to contemplate what you would do with a firearm around your children. Have you even considered the possibility (and probability) of your "babies" getting ahold of your gun and accidentally hurting (or worse) themselves or someone else?
Moreover, in the mall scenario, have you considered that if you were one of the several people gunned down by the shooter, your concealed weapon would be meaningless to you, your babies and everyone around you.
Additionally, have you considered how you would TRULY react in a situation like that? We all like to fantasize about being the hero, but all the target practice in the world does not prepare us for all the chaos and trauma of such a situation. Only military and law enforcement training can do that.
Now consider the reality of teachers conceal carrying. If you understood the day-to-day chaos of an elementary school classroom, you would vehemently oppose this idea. Nevertheless, where do you suppose the school districts will get the necessary funding for such training (let alone purchasing of the actual firearms) when education budgets are being slashed all over the country? Schools cannot get funding for updated textbooks, teaching supplies and fixing leaky roofs, but somehow we'll find money to provide teachers with firearms and the necessary training? C'mon.
What most people don't grasp is that this issue is very nuanced (not black and white) and therefore must be looked at from all possible angles. This requires that reason, logic and common sense be injected into the conversation.
Way to Save Many Lives
I have a suggestion that will save tens of thousands of lives in the United States of America.
There are over two hundred million guns and, the same number of automobiles in the USA. Statistics indicate over thirty percent of deaths involving autos are caused by excessive speed. I suggest putting governors on all autos to limit the maximum speed of autos to forty-five miles per hour.
This makes much more sense than limiting the number of bullets one can have in a firearm.
We register autos but, this has no effect on auto deaths.
We require individuals to pass tests to obtain a driver’s license but, this has no effect on auto deaths.
Statically the above proposal reducing auto speeds will save many more lives than limiting number of bullet a firearm can fire before reloading. What’s so magical about fifteen bullets that makes it worse than thirteen. It’s time for logic to be applied
Can We Afford Armed Security in Schools
Before one rejects out of hand the proposed idea as costing too much consider the following. We provide most schools with school lunches because of concern for student’s nutritional health. We provide psychologists for the mental health wellbeing of students. We provide guidance counselors to provide help in choosing students future careers. We provide already in some schools unarmed security personnel for safety. Why not provide armed personnel to protect our student’s lives, possibly an administrator, a teacher ,a counselor, a psychologist , a security person, or a facility’s staff member could assume this responsibility ?
…Think of all the protection we could pay for if we ony cancelled almost all foreign aid…the money the US gives away without a clue what it is buying is pathetic…a good amount goes to buying arms and ammo for the fight against the Christian way of life…
I'd feel more secure in the mall or elsewhere, if when I reached in my pocket I'd feel a gun, knowing it was there in case I needed it to protect my life and my child. I sympathize with the few and minor tragedies of our times, but I will not allow any knee-jerk, overreactions by liberals to erode my freedoms. On any given day we face a scintillionth of a percentage point of probability that our life will be changed by a random act of violence, but we must hold onto the higher odds that our life will go on. Fear not death as it is God calling you home, but fear death as you have much to accomplish until then.
Your, “not going to carry a gun with a kindergartener and preschooler in tow”? Not something you would be comfortable with! Those kids are exactly the reason you SHOULD be carrying a concealed weapon. Wake up! There will always be bad guys with guns. You better exercise your right to carry and protect yourself and your loved ones. If you don’t have the stomach for it, then you better stop talking anti-second amendment so that the rest of us responsible citizens can carry our concealed weapons to protect YOU and your family. I always carry and I wouldn’t hesitate to take out an active shooter trying to kill myself or my child, or unarmed sheeple like yourself and your children. Don’t live in fear.
You say, "I always carry and I wouldn't hesitate to take out an active shooter trying to kill myself or my child."
Have you had proper training in such a high-chaos, high-stress mass-murder scenario? If not, there's no way you can say for certain what you WOULD do. All the target practice in the world (and fantasies about being the hero) cannot prepare you for such a situation. Let's be realistic.
Stacey,
I don't understand what you actually mean to say with this article.
Do you promote more gun control ?
Do you think we need less gun control ?
You're afraid of gun wielding madmen – as you should be – but removing guns from the hands of law abiding citizens only makes you more vulnerable to criminals and crazies.
If the Newton school had NOT been a gun free zone – as all schools are – it's possible that one or more of the teachers may have been carrying.
If they were properly trained, and willing, the shooter would have been taken down long before he killed so many.
I grieve over the deaths of all the innocents, children and adult alike, but gun control has not stopped a single crime in this country.
Criminals don't care about the law; that's part of being a criminal.
They don't buy their guns in a store, legally; they get them during a break-in or off the street.
Gun control laws only make the citizens more vulnerable and the criminals safer when committing crimes.
Look at the statistics, DC has the tightest gun control laws and the highest crime rate.
States with less gun control have fewer crimes; the smarter criminals, fearing injury and death, go to places with tighter gun control where THEY ARE SAFER.
Removing guns from law abiding citizens is not the answer.
Severely punishing those who use guns in a crime is a start.
Providing citizens with clear, concise legal protection of Castle Doctrine and Stand Your Ground will permit citizens to better protect themselves and each other.
You say, "gun control has not stopped a single crime in this country."
Please cite the studies that support this claim.
You say, "Criminals don't care about the law; that's part of being a criminal."
None of the mass shooters have had criminal records.
You say, "They don't buy their guns in a store, legally; they get them during a break-in or off the street."
Or from their mother's (legally-obtained) arsenal. Since we're speculating here, we could also say that had the weapons Lanza used been illegal, his mother would not have had them, thereby giving her mentally-deranged son easy access to them. Therefore, he wouldn't have been able to kill all those innocent people.
You say, "DC has the tightest gun control laws and the highest crime rate."
First, that's absolutely false (see link below). Second, crime rate does not equal gun deaths. In fact, New Orleans has the highest homicide rate. Next is St. Louis. Next is Baltimore. Then Detroit. Then Newark. Then Oakland.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_cities…
You say, "States with less gun control have fewer crimes."
Really? Would you say Texas has "fewer crimes?"
You say, "the smarter criminals, fearing injury and death, go to places with tighter gun control where THEY ARE SAFER."
Pure unsubstantiated speculation. Cite your supporting evidence.
You say, "Removing guns from law abiding citizens is not the answer."
No one's advocating that. Just the ones capable of MASS murder.
You say, "Severely punishing those who use guns in a crime is a start."
For those who do not kill themselves, we already do.
You say, "Providing citizens with clear, concise legal protection of Castle Doctrine and Stand Your Ground will permit citizens to better protect themselves and each other."
Right. Because that worked out so well for Trayvon Martin.
So well stated! Thanks. Love reading your replies!
Thank you, Stacy. Just trying to inject some much-needed reason and logic (which is sorely lacking) into this discussion.
Thank you for the compliment and for that well thought out response. I, too, was sick of reading all the illogical and emotional responses, and therefore finally had to interject. Being that this is a military site, I was not surprised by the high number of pro-gun comments, but I (as a military spouse) was disappointed by the level of logical fallacy.
You said, "many people will escalate a situation simply because of the power they feel when armed with a weapon."
This reminded me of that saying, "When you're holding a hammer, everything looks like a nail." That could also be applied to guns by saying, "When you own a gun, everything looks like a target."
Thanks again for your reasoned response.
So, you think having a concealed firearm on your person at all times gives you a 50/50 chance in such an active shooter scenario? Not if you are one of the unlucky ones to be shot before anyone figures out what's going on. Not if your aim is off and you mistakenly shoot an innocent bystander. Not if you take cover and lay low until the shooter is apprehended. Not if a group of *unarmed* people overtake the shooter (like in the Tuscon Giffords incident) while he is trying to reload. You see, there are multiple scenarios in which you would still have a 50/50 chance without adding another deadly weapon into an already chaotic and stressful situation.
I believe the founding father meant what they wrought, the second amendment is not written to protect citizens right to hunt, it is the right to bear arms. That right is not just to protect ourselves and family members from individuals who would do us harm, but also from a government that seeks the same. I believe laws are needed and it would be great if the ones that are currently in place were informed (including holding the government to those laws). I see the problem as being one of the human heart, which has the capacity to do evil, wether with a club, a sword, a box cutter, etc. etc.
Did prohibition stop individuals from drinking? Do the current drug laws stop people from doing drugs? Let me help you out with the answer, the law only guides the law abiding. Do yourself and society a favor, research the human atrocities that have occurred in the name of gun control.
Let me take this a little further! While what has happened with this recent event in Newton is tragic, what about the millions of unborn that have been killed for the sake of convenience? I assume you are equally or hopefully more outraged because of this excepted policy, or just numb? What kind of sick society have we become when the right of an individual who seeks to protect his family is threatened while the right of a mother to end the life of her unborn is lifted up.
Have you already forgotten about the Giffords shooting in Tuscon? Those UNARMED citizens took down Loughner as he was reloading.
I own a rifle that has been handed down from my grandfather. I used it once for deer hunting with my father. I keep it, unloaded, stored separate from its ammunition. When I die it will be passed on to another American citizen who knows the meaning of the Second Amendment of our Republic's Constitution. It is a weapon to counter aggression from Governments, foreign and domestic. An unarmed citizen is a slave that will become a victim. An armed citizen is a patriot that will die fighting for freedom from government tyrants.
I don’t like Tee-Jay.
Why, because I'm shooting holes in all the illogical arguments? Pun intended.
The gunman in the Oregon mall shooting was stopped by a citizen that was armed and licensed to carry a weapon. Upon being confronted by the armed citizen, he chose to take his own life. How many fewer casualties would there have been in Colorado had ther been armedersons in the theater. Without being armed, we are all just a bunch of sheep waiting for the big bad wolf to have its way.
Hmm, a dark and confined space filled with hundreds of screaming and frantic people who couldn't see anything due to all the tear gas filling the room… I think you mean how many MORE casualties would there have been had there been armed persons in the Aurora theater.
I just worked very hard to finally obtain a CCW in California, one of the toughest states to get a permit in. I am also permitted in AZ and UT, providing me with some level of comfort as I travel. Why, you might ask? Because we live in a very uncertain world. In CA, criminals are everywhere, even where you'd least expect them. I live in a senior community, and yet just last night, 3 squad cars had two cars full of young black pulled over in the shopping center. The language was 'ghetto' from the young people of both sexes. Why were they even in our community. No one under 55 is supposed to live here, and I am sure that our well concealed grocery store was not why they were in town. Lately, we've had a group of men (3) that were breaking into seniors' homes while they were home, forced them into their bedrooms, and stole everything in sight. The same group of bad guys went through a gate into a back yard where the seniors were playing cards and held them up in the middle of the afternoon. Think this is all reason enough? As far as the Newtown situation, it is just a further reminder that we aren't safe anywhere. Mr. Piazza, the founder of Front Sight in Nevada, has offered to train 3 teachers or school officials from every school in the US at his training center for FREE. This course normally costs $1000, and he had placed no restrictions on the number he is willing to train. Sheriff Arpio in AZ has organized a posse to guard the schools throughout his county. If we can guard jewelry stores, banks, S&Ls, and even bars with armed security people, why would we fail to take care of our children in a similar manner? The video games, movies, drugs and schoolyard talks have moved our country to a new level of violence. Unfortunately, we must now all be prepared to deal with it.
Because a felon was shooting carelessly you want to take guns away from those who are not felons?
I'm glad you and your family are all right but the police and firemen are not everywhere nor do they have a duty to protect any individual. I've read it took 20 minutes for the Newton police to arrive on the scene and I know in my hometown it took 30 minutes for the firefighters to arrive at a gas station fire that was across the street from the firehouse. The owner's business was a total loss.
As a parent I feel its my duty to protect my family with every asset available and I will do that with every tool I have available and my body as a last resort. My 21 years of service has taken its toll on my and I am not as fit as most typical assailants. As the sole adult in the household I will almost certainly be outnumbered as well. I need every advantage I can get to protect my family for however long is needed until help arrives, if it arrives.
Lanza was not a felon (having no criminal record), and his shots were anything BUT "careless."
Not sure what bringing up the response time of the fire dept. has to do with Newtown. Red herring perhaps?
And for the millionth time, no one's advocating leaving you defenseless by taking away ALL your guns.
Excellent post Stacy.
As a retired Army/Guard veteran of both VN & Desert who has helped train field medics for IRQ & AFGN, the specter of a running firefight between armed vigilantes, doomsday militia types and sociopaths with semi-automatic weapons and legal concealed weapons carriers is always on my mind.
One day, this nation will face a gun battle with well armed individuals bent on a big body count in some crowded shopping mall, parking lot or school and regular citizens with side arms returning fire and innocent people, caught in the crossfire will suffer preventable casualties.
This is the nightmare scenario the NRA will have to face one day in spite of its second amendment propaganda. Mark my words, it will eventually happen and all the rhetoric will not change the death toll of that atrocity.
It has been said in many different times on many different sites. "The only way to STOP a Bad Guy with a GUN, is with a Good Guy with a GUN."
Notice that most all mass shootings happen where guns are not allowed. The reason is the bad guy knows the chance of anyone ever shooting back at them is practualy null and void.
I desperatly want a gun as I know the bad guys are every where and already have them. Sadly, I can't afford one. I am a 27yr old NAVY VET. I was a ThirdClass Gunnersmate so it was my job to maintain and keep all our guns safe by any means nessary, even from the Captain of the ship. It was also my job to train our ships security force in the proper handling of a firearm and its ammunition. Because of all the poor training the common law biding citizen that actualy has a gun, I don't feel they will be able to do a good enough job to protect me at the same time as protecting themselfs. I worry because of this as I have a wife and a son, how am I to protect them if some one was to attack us while we are out or at home? Even if the bad guy didn't have a gun, I would still want to point one at him to prove my point. If the bad guy had a gun I would make shure I shoot him befo he shoots me and ill have no ill feel doing so. If the bad guy doesn't have a gun, ill give him a chance to stop. But if he doesn't stop, ill stop him with lethale force.
In an interview with Barbara Walters conducted prior to the mass shooting at Sandy Hook, President Obama said that he liked having "men with guns" around his daughters at all times for protection.
I would like to see the list of the illegal's on welfare also.
TeeJae. I was actually being conservative when I say having a concealed firearm gives me a 50/50 chance in the event of a active shooter, it's prob more like 75/25 in my favor. You say it doesn't matter if your one of the victims he shoots first. Well obviously no matter what you do matters then but having a firearm is not going to hurt you. You say you don't need a fire arm to take cover and lay down. No shit but once again you can still take cover and lay down with a concealed weapon. You say a group of unarmed people can overtake a guy with a gun, unlikely but yes possible. But once again would be much safer a more likely to take that same man down with a gun. You say that what if my aim is off and I shoot a innocent bystander. Well I am a very good shot and actually a small arms instructor, so I know when to take a shot or not. And not to many innocent bystanders are going to be runnin in the direction of the shooter. So prob wouldn't be a factor. So TeeJae there is no scenario or what if factor as I like to call it, where not having my concealed weapon would be better than having it. And why do you care about trying to harm a mass murderer with taking him down with less than lethal force.! Really .! How about you read your Oprah and doctor Phil books and let the big boys come up with options that will actually work and not kill more people in the process. That might sound like a great idea in your partially developed brain but go ask the first responders if they would look to do that.
You say, "you can still take cover and lay down with a concealed weapon."
So, if you were carrying, you would opt to do that over pulling your gun and "defending" yourself?
You say, "a group of unarmed people can overtake a guy with a gun, unlikely but yes possible. But once again would be much safer a more likely to take that same man down with a gun."
Remember the Giffords shooting in Tuscon? The UNARMED group did take down Loughner, and it was the one citizen WITH a gun who almost shot an innocent person.
You say, "I am a very good shot and actually a small arms instructor, so I know when to take a shot or not."
As a "small arms instructor" do you train in high-stress, high-chaos situations, too?
You say, "How about you…let the big boys come up with options that will actually work and not kill more people in the process."
I'd be happy to if the chest-thumping "big boys" could tamp down their overly-inflated egos long enough to give this issue the reasoned, common-sense, and logical thought it deserves.
And next time, please respond directly to my post, rather than hiding your response later in the thread for me to just stumble upon.
Well TeeJae you can actually move take cover and pull your concealed weapon all at the same time. Actually that is the preferred method is to not stand there and square off like your in the Wild West doing a quick draw. So you do not have to choose from one or the other. And yes you said there was a shooting were unarmed civilians overtook a guy with a gun, and one citizen almost shot somebody. But almost situations don't really count. Because it was "almost". And I guarantee you prob wouldn't be one of those people to charge a guy with a gun. And just because it happened to work out for them that time, which they were lucky dosnt mean it would happen again. And yes I do train in high stress, high chaos situations all of the time I am in the military and have been over sees multiple times and have been in many dangerous situations. So you can check that box off. And it has nothing to do with egos, it has to do with experience. You wouldn't give legal advice if your not a lawyer so why are so many giving advice about weapons, combat, and security when they have no experience. Google search does not make you a expert! Also how can you have common sense and logical thought about something you do not know about. Finally I was not trying to hide my post from you, obviously I put your name at the top of it. Trust me I'm not scared of a Internet blog website.
I believe that the focus is too much on the tool of the crime than the crime itself. Why do we allow a criminal who kills to continue to live when their victim’s lives have been stolen? Why is it acceptable to continue to provide care and welfare to a criminal that took the life of a child?
The gun is not the issue. The disjointed response of the criminal justice system to punish the guilty is the problem. Law abiding citizens do not need to be hindered by yet more pointless laws when the punishment for violation is not administered properly or with uniformity.
I see clearly that there is no consequence to the guilty. As soon as there is a crime, there is someone who will represent the accused and “justice” will progress. But it does not. Legal maneuvering, posturing, and political considerations take precedence over justice. The victims have no voice, the criminals gain additional rights and in the end we have proof that once again justice is blind, not because all people are treated fairly, but because the punishment does not fit the crime, nor does it deter future crime.
We still have individuals like Charles Manson, a name which everyone knows, who are still around, still using taxpayer dollars and their victims are dead an only their families remember their names._I believe that these crimes are being committed by individuals who want attention and who want to make a name for themselves. They want to be remembered by the world because no one knows who they are before they commit the act. _We need to stop rewarding them by making them famous and simply punish them permanently so they don’t do it again and so any others get the message that such and act might make your name known for a while, but you will not be around to enjoy it. _
You say, "The gun is not the issue. The disjointed response of the criminal justice system to punish the guilty is the problem."
Yes, that. AND the guns. AND the failed mental health system. AND how easily legislators can be bought and sold. AND the corrupt justice system. AND the prevalence of violence in our society.
In other words, this is a COMPLEX issue that requires a COMPREHENSIVE solution. Pointing to just one factor does the problem a complete disservice.
You say, "Law abiding citizens do not need to be hindered by yet more pointless laws."
So, saving the lives of 20 innocent first graders is pointless?
You say, "the punishment for violation is not administered properly or with uniformity."
Kinda moot when the perpetrator kills himself first.
Rock, Fire, Knife, Sword, Arrow, Gun, Explosive. All of these things are tools… developed for a purpose. Left alone sitting on the ground do nothing. Put them in your or anyone's hand… for what purpose are they now. It is not the tool it is the person wielding it. Put the blame where it is due, not the inanimate object – the person utilizing it!
Funny a soldier's wife not a 'FAN' of the Second Amendment. Your husband sworn an oath to "support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic;…". You should be a fan of the entire document…and YES I did serve US ARMY 6 years.
That the massacre of innocents in Newtown, Conn. is a horrific tragedy is without doubt. As for life changing? I'd like you to read ALL THE WAY DOWN THE SLIPPERY SLOPE: GUN PROHIBITION IN ENGLAND AND SOME LESSONS FOR CIVIL LIBERTIES IN AMERICA by Joseph E. Olson and David B. Kopel before making up your mind. I live seven miles from Dunblane, Scotland, be careful of seemingly irresistible floods of public grief lead by the main stream media. As John Adams said in a letter to his wife Abigail Adams – July 7, 1775, "Liberty once lost is lost forever."
(should be led instead of lead, sorry about that)
Where does Stacy suggest you should be completely disarmed?