When is it gonna be enough?

[Anguspure]

There are literally MILLIONS of gun owners in Texas. The fact that a VERY few went off the handle does not make unacceptable risk.

This is obviously something for the community concerned to decide.

The problem for those of us, looking from the outside in, is that we have long considered that the risk to the lives of defenseless people posed by the sort of society and laws found in Texas is unnaceptable.

That if maintaining tighter controls over weapons and known lunatics inconveniences a few (and really in terms of hunting and sports use it does not) then this is preferrable to people loosing thier lives because we have failed to protect and serve them.

 

[drjean]

This evil isn't about guns (or firearms for that matter).
It's too bad so many are swayed by hype and myth from the rag media.

DO something?
Yes! Let's put GOD back into schools, kick out cults, remove prayer rooms and foot washing and allow prayer by students in class, reinstate the institute of marriage as God's covenant gives it, educated ministers how to preach God's Word and not just tickle people's ears with feel good you're okay-I'm okay messages, teach civility and respect and that there are consequences for actions, put counselors back into schools who can actually advise students, not just listen and say uh huh how does that make you feel... and how about we enforce good laws and quit with the program that overlooks any teen who breaks the law!

OR if you are really angry about teens dying--- vote to raise the driving age to 21! More teens kill MORE TEENS than any isolated illegal gun use killings--- thousands a year!!! IMO if you don't want to raise the driving age, you really don't want to stop teen deaths... and with the other measures we'll also limit suicides. Now that would be doing something!

( All but one of the "mass shootings" was done by someone in a dysfunctional home with only one parent; this last guy had an Islamic symbol on his coat--- a political ideology hidden within a religion--)

We don't blame a car in a car death. Why would we blame a firearm? This guy broke 4 laws. More laws won't fix it... a law removing firearms will make things worse... think of all the people who would be shot trying to take firearms away

 

[Archivist]

I understand that that was not my point. My point was the user said that in given places guns were judged to be worth the risk because no one had ( recently) gone off the handle and committed mass murder, but that is not a good agruement when there are MILLIONS of people in Texas who have guns and have not gone off the handle. In other words, people from anywhere can go off the handle and commit mas murder the fact that thankfully no one has in a given place does not mean that they could not and the fact that a few people have in a particular place have does not make it any more or less worth the risk to have guns in that place.

And your post offers no reason why increased restrictions should not be placed on gun ownership.

 

[Anguspure]

I understand that that was not my point. My point was the user said that in given places guns were judged to be worth the risk because no one had ( recently) gone off the handle and committed mass murder, but that is not a good agruement when there are MILLIONS of people in Texas who have guns and have not gone off the handle. In other words, people from anywhere can go off the handle and commit mas murder the fact that thankfully no one has in a given place does not mean that they could not and the fact that a few people have in a particular place have does not make it any more or less worth the risk to have guns in that place.

Below is an example of a risk assesment matrix:

The laws in Texas combine an almost certain likelihood (5 Often occurs/once a week) with a catastrophic consequence (5 Death/Massive financial loss). We can see therefore that the risk is catastrophic (25).

In order to lower the risk we might take measures to lower the consequence (i.e. restriction of access to tools that create death if used, so that when people fly off the handle the consequence is moderate, minor or insignificant), and/or we could take measures to lower the liklihood (proper societal guidelines and controls, so that there is less likelihood that people will fly off the handle in the first place).

We can see however that to create an acceptable risk (in the moderate to low range) without addressing the catastrophic hazard posed by open access to fire arms, is only possible with measures taken that would lower the liklihood to rare (1), something that is not really going to be possible in a society that is increasingly rejecting the Love of God.

My prediction for America based on this assesment and the strong unwillingness of Americans to address the issue in a rational manner to protect the vulnerable and the weak (which itself points to bad moral failing), is that they can expect to see much more of the same and many more of thier kids being killed in places that they should expect to be safe and secure.

 

[dogs4thewin]

And your post offers no reason why increased restrictions should not be placed on gun ownership.

As I always say people who we can trust with guns do not need gun control and those we cannot trust (usually) do not care.

 

[dogs4thewin]

This is obviously something for the community concerned to decide.

The problem for those of us, looking from the outside in, is that we have long considered that the risk to the lives of defenseless people posed by the sort of society and laws found in Texas is unnaceptable.

That if maintaining tighter controls over weapons and known lunatics inconveniences a few (and really in terms of hunting and sports use it does not) then this is preferrable to people loosing thier lives because we have failed to protect and serve them.

and yet between suicide and justified homicide there are MANY MANY MANY more things that kill "defensless" people than guns ever will.

 

[Resha Caner]

I remember after the attacks on 9/11, people were emotional. People were saying that we should find out who is responsible and then nuke their country. It's a good thing that didn't happen, although the security measures put into place that have resulted in old ladies being frisked at the airport are a good reminder of why we should think before acting based on the emotions of the moment. We end up living with those decisions decades or more later.

Sure, it takes some calm deliberation.

 

[Resha Caner]

Oh I'm sorry I didn't know an internet forum matched the description of "Suppose you had been in the area when the shooting occurred, and immediately went to the school and said those things."

A woman made a thread about gun control and I responded. She is not a grieving parent so thus it does not match the description above and thus my reaction is appropriate.

Also YES I would die for my guns. Freedom is a broad spectrum but gun ownership is a big factor of it since it gives you the freedom of self defense.

I thought we might have found some common ground, but maybe not.

 

[dogs4thewin]

Consider how common true blue unprovoked mass shootings are to the amount of fire arm deaths and you will find that they are VERY rare and kill very few people ( certainly much less than any number of other activities ( especially driving).

 

[dogs4thewin]

You know what? I just got finished looking at the RAW data of ways people die in the U.S. (I am talking minute by minute) (yes you can actually find that online. There are roughly TWENTY causes of death that are more common in this county than murder by gun.

Here is the link

2018 Real Time Death Statistics in America

 

[KarateCowboy]

That means nothing to the families of those killed and to those wounded.

You're assuming to know their minds.

 

[Invalidusername]

Or maybe if more husbands stayed home and schooled their children. Why should the burden be placed on wives?

Oh here's someone who doesn't understand the basics of creation and how genders differ. Shall I enroll you in a course of biology?

 

[Anguspure]

As I always say people who we can trust with guns do not need gun control

That the good people of the USA are happy to allow uncontrolled gun ownership and use in a country that is clearly becoming increasingly murderous towards the weak and the vulnerable tells me a great deal about the trustworthiness of the whole lot of them, in respect of gun ownership at least.

and those we cannot trust (usually) do not care.

So in order to protect the vulnerable, who no doubt will be dead by next week without protection, we make them "care". We make them care by affecting them in ways that they care about, such as thier ability to carry firearms or move freely enough to cause harm to others.

 

[Anguspure]

and yet between suicide and justified homicide there are MANY MANY MANY more things that kill "defensless" people than guns ever will.

Ah yes, the old "you gotta die of something" argument. This argument carries weight only when those who proclaim it put thier money where thier mouth is and willingly suffer the death that they so glibbly wish upon others, in thier place.
The way forward may not be consistent at all times, improvement never is.
But when a problem is so starkly highlighted by frequent catastrophies such as this only the willfully uncaring resist change.
If I let my child use an angle grinder and she hurt herself so she had to be taken to hospital from using it I would be a blithering idiot to proclaim that the problem does not lie with the angle grinder and so leave it out ready for her to use again.
Such is the case with a society that is regressing to such a poor moral condition and so is no longer capable of safe and responsible fire arm ownership.

 

[Anguspure]

Consider how common true blue unprovoked mass shootings are to the amount of fire arm deaths and you will find that they are VERY rare and kill very few people ( certainly much less than any number of other activities ( especially driving).

You are correct that cars kill many more people. It is well known that the petrol driven motor car would never have passed muster had its operation been assesed on the grounds of modern expectations of safety. The only reason we accept the risk is because our whole world is addicted to the method of transport, hardly a rational argument.
So will you also oppose measures to improve road safety on the grounds that you want to be free to do whatever you want?
Is the USA similalry addicted to owning and use fire arms that are produced expressly for the purpose of killing people?

 

[Anguspure]

You're assuming to know their minds.

​

Very difficult to tell what this man is thinking.

 

[Dig4truth]

I had to use a gun yesterday because a large copperhead was outside the downstairs neighbor's front door. Now several of my neighbors feel a little safer - not more fearful.

There are legitimate uses for firearms.

If we, as a family of believers want to have an impact on reducing child mortality then we should demand that abortion should not be paid for with taxpayer money (At the very least).

I understand that President Trump is pushing such legislation. I have not heard any updates yet.

Just consider the number of deaths at school shooting as compared to the number of babies murdered in abortions. It's not even close.

I'll ask the question, where should our priority be?

If we want to make our kids safer at school then let's stop them from being "fish in a barrel". Use common sense and provide security there, armed security.

 

[marineimaging]

but if people were willing to "save the children" re this thread then changes could be made

as semiautomatic and automatic weapons often used in mass shooting kill a whole lot of people quickly

people seem to forget when the constitution was written, they did not have such guns available nor did they probably foresee mass shooting with such weapons

the fact that so many gun owners are unwilling to allow stricter regulations/waiting periods/background checks/and gun and safety classes is beyond me

If I may explain, gun ownership in America is considered a right. It is not a privilege but a right granted by God to all humans. Some things are already done. When we want to carry concelaed in Texas we have to obtain a license even though it is illegal to make us do so. We still have to have our fingerprints on file and our background check completed and that can take weeks.

Cell phones were not invented nor were telephones. So does that mean that the government doesn't need a court order to listen in on your conversations. Cameras as we know didn't exist, does that nullify photo ID cards as them being unconstitutional? Our second Amendment does not describe a gun, it describes a right and with it reason. Cars did not exist, so you don't get to use them as a privilege.

 

[KarateCowboy]

​

Very difficult to tell what this man is thinking.

Yah? And what is he thinking, at that exact moment in time, plus or minus 500 milliseconds?

You know, I was in high school when we had Columbine. Thirty years prior, when my dad was in high school, it was common for them to have rifle clubs. The schools were literally handing the guns to the students, and everyone was safe. In your estimation, what changed?

 

[Anguspure]

Yah? And what is he thinking, at that exact moment in time, plus or minus 500 milliseconds?

You know, I was in high school when we had Columbine. Thirty years prior, when my dad was in high school, it was common for them to have rifle clubs. The schools were literally handing the guns to the students, and everyone was safe. In your estimation, what changed?

The general Judeo Christian expectation has changed, the western world, clearly in the US at least, is loosing it's moral foundation.

Furthermore the guns that were given to your Dad were given in the context of protection of a nation against external aggressors. The people who had the guns were all on the same team looking to defend themselves against a common adversary.

Switzerland with it's high gun ownership falls within this category and they don't have school shootings for a similar reason.

In this world of relativism the enemy is defined differently and may well be our neighbour. There is little moral foundation to temper the thoughts of one who is loosing the plot and there is less community spirit to aid with helping the disaffected person and/or protecting the community against the issue.

So these things and perhaps a few more have changed and need to change back in order for the society to have a chance at being society in which free firearm use might be considered safe.

But this is a huge ask for a culture that has lost its way and not one that is going to happen overnight, if ever. Changing peoples hearts is difficult enough for God, what hope do mere humans have?

So the most obvious fix, if only temporarily, would seem to be lowering the catastrophic consequence of the hazard posed by free gun ownership to that which will result in a lower risk while society works out how to lower the likelihood of things going wrong in the first place.