Discussion of the Mass Shootings in America

With emotions running high and amok, it is obvious to some that many people in today's world are suffering because they lack a life of spirit.

There have always been weapons readily available in this country. But today, there are more people who lack self-control; they are deeply troubled in soul and spirit. The root of violence is a violent mind--- not an inanimate object.

Only sincere prayer and a life in communion with the God of Love will change this.

As well as proper medication, since 3 of those in the photo line-up are mentally ill. The 4th one may be an alcohalic. Have not heard anything as to his mental condition.

Yes, thank you, Dorothy. Medication may be helpful for many people, in addition to a reconciliation with God.

Oh please. Telling everybody to love God is not a realistic solution to this situation. The same words have been said after each of these shootings. But more guns were sold to people of borderline sanity, and the killings continued.

It's not appropriate to look upon all instances of public policy as an excuse to peddle God. I say that not from hostility, but from a desire to see something REAL about the problem of insane people with guns in the USA.

With gun deaths running at such high levels one wonders if the solution is really to have more guns.

"They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety." Ben Franklin 1775

I think you are confusing weapons with liberty. Possession of the one does not give you the other. It is our constitution which confers liberty on us, not our guns.

Not trying to ban guns in general, only to ban military automatic weapons from the public, which they don't need. Also, to increase the requirements to obtain a gun. So no one is trying to take your guns.

Susan,
Why exactly do we even have a Second Amendment? When you look, you will find that it is a bulwark in defense of liberty.

Cynthia,
There are no automatic weapons currently allowed in public civilian hands. No one is trying to take the guns......, really?

OK Ken, tell me, should fully automatic hand- or shoulder-fired weapons be allowed in civilian hand with no more regulation than my pump-action 30.06?

If the answer is "No," please justify it, given the "no regulation or registration" stance of the NRA and its apologists.

If the answer is yes, please justify limitation to hand- or shoulder-fired.

Lebrea, Many are trying to further restrict gun ownership. Surely you recognize that.
Chuck,
Automatic weapon ownership is highly regulated in the US, much more so than your 30-06.
Again, why did the founders include a Second Amendment in the first place? Why that "Freedom"? Hunting? Target shooting? Eradication of troublesome animals? What?

Chuck,
Automatic weapon ownership is highly regulated in the US, much more so than your 30-06.

I know, Ken... the question is (since you obviously didn't really read my comment)... Should it be? If so, why? If not, why limit to automatic "hand weapons?"

Chuck,
A better question is:
"If you control gun ownership in the law abiding population how effective will that be on constraining gun ownership in the criminal element?"

Cookie,
Applying your thinking consider that the government "will" because it is as George Washington said "Government is not reason; it is not eloquent; it is force. Like fire, it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master."
If you disarm yourself , it [government] will enslave you.

The only difference between Ken and me is that, while I own a 30.06 pump-action Remington, a 12 ga. Ithaca "Featherlight" pump action, a Parker 12 ga. hammerless double-barreled, a Winchester pump action .22-short and a 6-barrel pepperbox, and he may own an equally varied stock of weapons, we view them, and our government, differently.

Three of mine, the Parker 12 ga., the Winchester .22 and the pepperbox, are strictly collectibles. The Parker is shootable, but shells have to be special-ordered or self-loaded, and they're expensive either way. The .22 is also shootable, and the same bullets it fired in the pre-teen days of the 20th Century are still available. The pepperbox doesn't take shells... it's a percussion cap weapon - strictly specialty stuff. I suppose I could get or make ammo for it. The 30.06 and the Ithaca are modern hunting weapons.

Ken sees guns as defense against HIS government. THAT'S why he won't give up the semi-automatic, non-hunting, civilian versions of military weapons He thinks American patriots are going to fight (and beat) the most powerful military system in the world with semi-automatic AR-15s and AK-47s. And he believes it's gonna be necessary. He sees any attempt to restrict or regulate ownership of those, or ANY, non-automatic shoulder/hand-fired weapon as "Th' guvvamint's comin' to take my guns."

I'm not afraid of my government, I don't view attempts to create design standards for semi-auto hunting weapons, and to require "fingerprinting" of rifling, or to require that gun show gun sellers not sell guns to unvetted people as challenges to my liberty. Ken and my father would have each taken a side and been yelling the same stuff in each ear, so I know where he's coming from.

Ken and my father were both wrong.

Chuck,
You don't have to listen to me but you would do well to honor your father. Especially so since you are apparently unwilling (or unable) to reflect on why the Constitution contains a Second Amendment in the first place. Hint: It's not for holding on to collectibles.

Oh, I honor my father, Ken, but I'm not his clone. I quit arguing with him about this 30 years before he died. And the founders didn't want "A well regulated militia..." to give people a defense against them, f'r th' luvva Pete. They didn't have a standing army, and they wanted a drilled and ready militia to pull up and CREATE an army when they needed one.

I don't have a problem with people owning guns. If I did, I wouldn't own guns, collectible or otherwise. I have a problem with sillydamnonsense,,, and your defense of semi-autos and other militaria is exactly that

And you're still avoiding my questions.

Chuck,
Again, why did the founders include a Second Amendment in the first place? That fundamental question must be answered fully before any other discussion can take place. What is the 'design basis' for the Second Amendment? Without that, all other related talk is useless and uninformed noise certain to undermine the liberty of the people (among other evils).

Chuck,
Again, why did the founders include a Second Amendment in the first place?

I answered that (and everything else in your comment block) in the comment directly above this question. You just didn't like the answer.

Now, since your question HAS been answered, you now have a realistic "design basis" for the second amendment, how about you answer MY questions. Or not... I really no longer care.

Chuck,
As usual, your attempt at understanding the founders 'design basis' falls short:

- Americans have the right and advantage of being armed – unlike the citizens of other countries whose governments are afraid to trust the people with arms. – James Madison

- The Constitution shall never be construed … to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms. – Samuel Adams

- Are we at last brought to such humiliating and debasing degradation that we cannot be trusted with arms for our defense? Where is the difference between having our arms in possession and under our direction, and having them under the management of Congress? If our defense be the real object of having those arms, in whose hands can they be trusted with more propriety, or equal safety to us, as in our own hands? - Patrick Henry

- ...arms...discourage and keep the invader and plunderer in awe, and preserve order in the world as well as property. ...Horrid mischief would ensue were (the law-abiding) deprived the use of them. -- Thomas Paine

- "The constitutions of most of our States assert that all power is inherent in the people; that... it is their right and duty to be at all times armed." --Thomas Jefferson

- We should not forget that the spark which ignited the American Revolution was caused by the British attempt to confiscate the firearms of the colonists. - Patrick Henry

- To disarm the people is the best and most effectual way to enslave them. – George Mason

- To preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms, and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them. – Richard Henry Lee 1788

- When the resolution of enslaving America was formed in Great Britain, the British Parliament was advised by an artful man, who was governor of Pennsylvania, to disarm the people; that it was the best and most effectual way to enslave them; but that they should not do it openly, but weaken them, and let them sink gradually...I ask, who are the militia? They consist of now of the whole people, except a few public officers. But I cannot say who will be the militia of the future day. If that paper on the table gets no alteration, the militia of the future day may not consist of all classes, high and low, and rich and poor... - George Mason, Virginia Constitution Convention

- The best we can hope for concerning the people at large is that they be properly armed. – Alexander Hamilton

Some gun laws are reasonable and appropriate but clearly the zeal which ignites after any and every tragic shooting incident reveals a motivation that is not based on the sudden discovery of a previously inadequate barrier to gun possession but rather an endless zeal to ratchet away from free citizens all access to firearms in general.

Whether you agree with it or not, I gave you an answer. Your response (lecture? pontification? waste of space?) notwithstanding, You got an answer, now you give me one (yeah, I know... I asked a two-part question. Tough!), or leave me alone.

Chuck,, you are very perceptive. Ken's bottom line conviction is that we need guns to protect ourselves against our own government. Despite the fact that the only time we ever tried that, in 1861, it did NOT go well.

Thanks for posting on Helping Out One Another

More and more people seem to be going nuts these days. I want this hat that my boyfriend's Uncle has. It says 'Warning, this vetran is medicated for your protection' Lol But, in seriousness, I think that these shooters are not right in the head, and maybe if it had been caught and medicated this wouldn't have happened.

Thanks for sharing on Getting to 3000 Together

Cynthia, automatic military weopons are already illegal. You cannot legally own an automatic weapon. Im not aware of any mass killings in the US from automatic weapons. Can you provide some examples?

The AR-15 used by the Aurora shooter is a military style semi-automatic. Cynthia may be unclear on the difference. A citizen returning fire to the aurora shooter, wo had his weapon plus head to toe body armor, would seem to have a serious advantage in that match up.

Automatic handguns are already illegal too. Not sure if ive seen an automatic handgun. All ive ever seen is semi auto.

Should a gun be outlawed if it looks military style? Heck you can get tacticle rifles in 22lr semi auto

thanks for sharing

A few years back, my son and I were out in the backyard working on the lawnmower when a car crashed into the fence and a guy holding an AK-47 jumped out, vaulted the fence and ran across the yard, not 20 ft. from where we were frozen on the spot. The police were right behind him and one idiot rookie shot at US as we ran screaming for the house. If you've ever been shot AT, you will have very strong opinions about gun control.

Some tried to tell me that if I'd had a gun on me and known how to use it, I could have "defended myself"...and probably wound up dead (police firing at an unknown shooter or the idiot shooting at and killing both me and my son) or in jail (since the 'Castle Doctine' doesn't apply to any space outside your home.) The only 'safe' thing to do was what we did--run for the house, slam and lock the back door and get out the front where the law enforcement circus pulled up on the front lawn.

Shortly after going outside, I discovered that the woman in the car with the idiot was his sister and she had asked him to go with her to retrieve her belongings from the apartment she shared with her abusive boyfriend. The idiot-her brother-shot up the complex on their way out and tried to run over the rookie cop in the ensuing chase. He lost control when he tried to turn at the corner of my lot and crashed the car at the only spot in the fence that could have withstood the hit--I had put in concrete reinforcing rod through the chain link several years prior to the incident in an attempt to keep my dog from digging out.

When the media showed up, I found the lieutenant on the scene and told him we were leaving because I didn't want any part of being the 'Top Story Tonight'.

If I had had a gun, I might have been tempted to try for a shot--and that would have cost someone their life by escalating an already seriously dangerous situation...as it was, the police caught the guy just as he got over the fence into my backdoor neighbor's yard. Fortunately for the cops, their fence didn't cover the perimeter of their lot, only the back corner, so it was an 'easy capture'.

There is no test for common sense/judgement that can determine whether someone will make the right decision in such situations. Human instinct is 'fight or flight' and if the weapon isn't available, 'flight' is going to take over--and it is the most likely to preserve life. To me, that is the basis of gun control--NO PRIVATE CITIZEN "NEEDS" TO OWN WEAPONS USED BY THE MILITARY TO KILL PEOPLE. NOT NO ONE< NOT NO HOW, NOT FOR ANY FUCKING REASON.

*Steps down off soapbox.*

Thanks for listening.

I believe I agree with you, Linda. I'm glad your run in with crazy boy did not end in anyone's death.

but remember even with all of these killings it will never add up to what the nazi's did to the jews