Active Topics | Member List | Search | Help | Register | Login
The John Byrne Forum MOBILE
Byrne Robotics | The John Byrne Forum << Prev Page of 3 Next >>
Topic: Enough? No? Never Mind, Then... Post Reply | Post New Topic
Author
Message
Rebecca Jansen
Byrne Robotics Member


Joined: 12 February 2018
Location: Canada
Posts: 2632
Posted: 07 April 2021 at 11:57am | IP Logged | 1 post reply

This is "liberty"; the people have voted and spoken many times, even while the price of that liberty is paid by many who don't benefit or even get a say. And yet you see polls of up to 75% of NRA membership wanting restrictions and background checks and wait times made universal while the head of it lives in luxury, then declares bankruptcy for this non-profit founded to promote gun safety. Their poster cowboy Ronald Reagan specifically asked people to support "restrictions against military style assault weapons".

Fubar.

Back to Top profile | search | www
 
Michael Roberts
Byrne Robotics Member


Joined: 20 April 2004
Location: United States
Posts: 13759
Posted: 07 April 2021 at 12:01pm | IP Logged | 2 post reply

The problem is that crazy people and evil people get access to guns, and use them to do crazy and evil things.  

------

NO. The problem is that the average person can be put in situations where they can be careless or desperate or violent. When you put a gun in the hands of that average person, it makes that situation fatal.
Back to Top profile | search
 
Marc Baptiste
Byrne Robotics Member


Joined: 17 June 2004
Location: United States
Posts: 3530
Posted: 07 April 2021 at 12:10pm | IP Logged | 3 post reply

Michael,

I totally agree - perfectly normal people are subject to become frustrated, angry, violent, suicidal, etc. etc.

Saying it's just "crazies" is well... just crazy.

Marc
Back to Top profile | search
 
John Wickett
Byrne Robotics Member


Joined: 12 July 2016
Location: United States
Posts: 184
Posted: 07 April 2021 at 1:57pm | IP Logged | 4 post reply

"The problem is that the average person can be put in situations where they can be careless or desperate or violent. When you put a gun in the hands of that average person, it makes that situation fatal."

A person who becomes frustrated, angry, or desperate doesn't need a gun to become violent.  

Most of the murders we are reading about or seeing in the news are not the result of the average person having a terrible day, week, month, or whatever time period you want to suggest, and succumbing to stress by killing someone.

The logical conclusion of your argument is that no person can safely own any type of gun (for any purpose) because anybody could be placed in a situation that turns them desperate enough to shoot another person.  

I think that's going to far and veering into paranoia.  The vast majority of gun owners will never be a threat to anyone. 

I think we need reasonable gun control measures to eliminate the highest risks by taking assault rifles off the streets, eliminating high capacity magazines, increasing penalties on people who modify fire arms, and making it harder for people who shouldn't have guns to gain access to them.  That's just at the federal level.  States and municipalities should be able to impose additional restrictions as needed to address the particular needs of their communities, so it doesn't have to be a one size fits all approach.  
Back to Top profile | search
 
Jim Miscedra
Byrne Robotics Member


Joined: 16 April 2004
Posts: 208
Posted: 07 April 2021 at 1:59pm | IP Logged | 5 post reply

All due respect, but at the most the "normal" person  in an abnormal situation isn't really the problem.  All individuals are flawed by design and environmental factors.   You will never eliminate gun violence or for that matter any other violence altogether.  This argument  stems from both the proliferation of illegal firearms and those that should never be legal in the first place.

This is about Sandy Hook & Mandalay Bay and Columbine, et al.  This is about overproduction of firearms that allow them to get in the wrong hands and midday shoot ups in Chicago. This is about a government that sanctions the sale and proliferation of completely unnecessary possession by its "citizens" of assault weapons.  Weapons of mass destruction.  

If we concentrate on the average citizen who snaps, we will lose the narrative on the true problem.  Indeed the average person under the wrong circumstance is capable of extraordinary malice.  That can't be stopped; otherwise we would be speaking of banning kitchen knives as well.  

Guns are created for one reason and one reason only...to kill. The fact that a firearm can be purchased to kill in masse is not only reprehensible, but anathema to the spirit of our rights as individuals in our country.  There are monsters among us. Armed monsters with the ability to take down a village; with but a pull of the trigger.

That being said, I see no need for any gun whatsoever, but the toothpaste is already out of the tube.  This problem must be dealt with first and foremost by banning production of all assault weapons for public use.  Private sale from individual to individual must become a felony.  And here is the best part.  Hand guns can now be manufactured from 3D printers.  Where do we go from here?  I certainly have no idea.  Do we enforce true psychological profiles on the individual who wishes to purchase an assault weapon or any other gun?  That could be a very slippery slope.  Not just for the purchase of guns, but for other individual life choices.

The only real solution is the very opposed fear the NRA professes..."they are coming for our guns".  Which, unless we decide to live in a military state may be the only true solution.  This problem can only be minimized through legislation and enforcement of new laws. It can not be eliminated and that is the real problem. 
Back to Top profile | search
 
Marc Baptiste
Byrne Robotics Member


Joined: 17 June 2004
Location: United States
Posts: 3530
Posted: 07 April 2021 at 3:49pm | IP Logged | 6 post reply

Jim,

You hit the nail on the head here: "the ability to take down a village; with but a pull of the trigger"!!  Every liberty has responsibilities and some degree of reasonable restrictions to prevent abuse and anarchy.  

Some people often use the old reductio ad absurdum "if your neighbor wanted a tank or nuclear missile, is THAT right protected the 2nd Amendment?" - I just don't know why it's so difficult to accept that certain firearms are essentially weapons of mass destruction and have NO business being in private hands.

Marc




Edited by Marc Baptiste on 07 April 2021 at 3:54pm
Back to Top profile | search
 
Michael Roberts
Byrne Robotics Member


Joined: 20 April 2004
Location: United States
Posts: 13759
Posted: 07 April 2021 at 3:52pm | IP Logged | 7 post reply

If we concentrate on the average citizen who snaps, we will lose the narrative on the true problem.  Indeed the average person under the wrong circumstance is capable of extraordinary malice.  That can't be stopped; otherwise we would be speaking of banning kitchen knives as well.  

——-

Focusing on the Columbines, avoids talking about the 20,000+ suicides by gun per year and the over million women who have been threatened, injured, or killed with a gun by a domestic partner. 

I had a friend who was shot and murdered by her husband. It wasn’t a premeditated thing. He wouldn’t have grabbed a knife instead and stabbed her. That kitchen knife argument doesn’t fly with me. She’d still be alive if there hadn’t been a gun in the house. The judge in the case said the same thing, and it was an all too common happenstance from his perspective. 

There’s a cultural attitude toward guns in the US that needs to change. Americans don’t look at them as tools for protection; they look at them as tools to settle disputes, solve problems, and assert dominance.  
Back to Top profile | search
 
Rebecca Jansen
Byrne Robotics Member


Joined: 12 February 2018
Location: Canada
Posts: 2632
Posted: 07 April 2021 at 4:30pm | IP Logged | 8 post reply

I've known and lived around people with guns in two countries. I feel most 'average' people can be responsible keepers of arms. I can understand the fears of people who live in rural or near wild places having difficulty in getting something they definitely do need because of some urban folks having 'problems'. There was a long gun registry created in Canada that was near pointless and just forced a lot of 'average' hunters and gun owners to choose a side against it. It cost a lot to create and the next government basically threw it all out in reaction so it was a total waste.

What I think the U.S. can do is establish national wait times and background checks that are across the board, reinstating some of what was lost when they threw away the Brady Bill. Also make very clear that there is nothing more that will come, because there is nothing more that is worth doing outside of amnesty buy-back programs. There are so many guns around it is a lost cause practically, but you can do those things, and more likely to get compliance if you show that this is all of it and nothing more.

Edited by Rebecca Jansen on 07 April 2021 at 4:35pm
Back to Top profile | search | www
 
Rebecca Jansen
Byrne Robotics Member


Joined: 12 February 2018
Location: Canada
Posts: 2632
Posted: 07 April 2021 at 4:37pm | IP Logged | 9 post reply


 QUOTE:
certain firearms are essentially weapons of mass destruction and have NO business being in private hands.

In this you agree with Ronald Reagan of all people.


 QUOTE:
There’s a cultural attitude toward guns in the US that needs to change

Seriously, good luck with that, that is going to take a looooong time.

Back to Top profile | search | www
 
John Wickett
Byrne Robotics Member


Joined: 12 July 2016
Location: United States
Posts: 184
Posted: 07 April 2021 at 5:01pm | IP Logged | 10 post reply

"Focusing on the Columbines, avoids talking about the 20,000+ suicides by gun per year"

I think they are part of a different discussion that may involve gun control, but also involves many other issues. 

"Americans don’t look at them as tools for protection; they look at them as tools to settle disputes, solve problems, and assert dominance."

We'll have to agree to disagree on this point. I think you're making a huge generalization, and one that is false in most instances. I know many gun owners, and they don't fit this description.    
Back to Top profile | search
 
Jim Miscedra
Byrne Robotics Member


Joined: 16 April 2004
Posts: 208
Posted: 07 April 2021 at 5:14pm | IP Logged | 11 post reply

Focusing on the Columbines, avoids talking about the 20,000+ suicides by gun per year and the over million women who have been threatened, injured, or killed with a gun by a domestic partner. 

What we have here is no argument or dispute.  Columbine and Sandy Hook are not exceptions, they are the rule!  Children.  Sweet children. Focusing on Columbine...those that had no say?  Four and Five year olds gunned down by the most vile of humans, is no comparison.  I grieve for yur friend.  Truly.  It is abhorrent.  But, you framed the argument that she would be alive today, were it not for a gun.  She partnered with a truly troubled human.  Truly, truly troubled.  

You posited an argument that can't be fought reasonably.  I present children; you have an adult friend, who I truly feel quite regretful for.  But to compare the two instances as equal?  To propel 4 year olds playing with blocks at lunch time, to that of an adult is counter productive.

My point.  To take the entire aggregate of violence against the mass catastrophe diminishes the argument against guns.  I pity the person who perishes unnecessarily by a firearm.  My pain is 10, 20,100 fold when it is a mass killing.

Suicide?  That is a deep ditch.  Are you going to blame guns or the media or just the general despair?  And in case you randomly read my post I HATE GUNS!  Your issue is a systemic issue, for which guns become shorthand.  These folks wallowing in despair and I truly pity them, would take their life regardless.  Sorry. True.

I get it it and agree.  All guns are bad. But, Jeebus..you presented an argument which I state again can't be fought.  Your friend died and dammit I am saddened and pissed for her.  But to apply equability to Columbine and Sandy Hook is just using a terrible experience of yours to prove a point that is not commensurate with mine of mass shootings.

I apologize if I offended you.

PS-30 years ago, At the age of 10, my cousin was stabbed to death 100 plus times by her brother.  Violence, will always seek the lowest common denominator.  Or highest, your call.
Back to Top profile | search
 
Rebecca Jansen
Byrne Robotics Member


Joined: 12 February 2018
Location: Canada
Posts: 2632
Posted: 07 April 2021 at 6:28pm | IP Logged | 12 post reply

I had a non-related uncle hold his family at the time at gun point for several hours before taking his own life, it was going on while his children by a previous marriage were with me. We heard it reported on the radio so I knew, and their mother knew, but the kids weren't to be told. That was someone who had a history of mental illness and was in Canada. I don't know who to ask about if it was a gun he legally had gotten or if it was someone else's. It seems a no-brainer that people with mental illness that has taken violent form at the very least not have the 'right' to a deadly offensive device just as a drunk shouldn't be behind the wheel.

I saw people online questioning if the Sandy Hook massacre was a hoax or a conspiracy, and was absolutely relieved when people who lived near that school spoke up about what they were able to witness first hand!
Back to Top profile | search | www
 

<< Prev Page of 3 Next >>
  Post Reply | Post New Topic |

Forum Jump

 Active Topics | Member List | Search | Help | Register | Login

You are currently viewing the MOBILE version of the site.
CLICK HERE TO VIEW THE FULL SITE