28 7

I would like to hear thoughts from others in this group on their feelings about guns and gun control.
I personally think that we need to revolutionize our way of thinking. We still seem to have this old west mentality that guns empower and equalize us. I still hear people state the fallacy that we need our guns to protect us from an oppressive government.
We are killing ourselves in numbers that we would not tolerate if those deaths were caused by any other product on the market. Look how quickly Romaine lettuce was removed from shelves after just four deaths.
Do atheists, with no strong belief in an afterlife have different opinions on gun ownership than the general population? I would hope that we as a group find life more precious and not something to be squandered with a policy of more guns as the solution to gun violence

JohnHenderson2 4 Dec 4

Post a comment Reply Add Photo

Enjoy being online again!

Welcome to the community of good people who base their values on evidence and appreciate civil discourse - the social network you will enjoy.

Create your free account


Feel free to reply to any comment by clicking the "Reply" button.


When your life is threatened, the police are only 20 minutes away.

The perfect example of this is the Florida nightclub shooter. He went to a gun free zone for least resistance. When he went outside, he was taken down by a conceal carry individual. Then the police showed up. The gun is being touted as the evil, but the gun saved more from being shot. Had the police actually arrived first. The gun would have stopped him as well.

To deny gun ownership and use, is to create more victims than ownership creates. Gun usages boils down to the moral decision of the individual. You cannot filter or form a collectivist "fix". Even perfectly "normal" people can snap and do bad things.

There is no best answer. The sheer amount of guns has been a deterant to invasion for this country. This is why our Military is spread far and wide. It is not needed here.

And you never know, there may come a day when our oaths may need fulfilled to defend from a Domestic enemy.

Denying guns also places females in a difficult spot. The gun is the gender equalizer. Without guns you are condemning women to a defense of sheer strength. Which they will lose.

Beyond noting you’ve chimed in twice on this thread, let alone this issue.. I’ve read only one responder (so far) suggesting we eliminate all guns. But, from your posts above … this likely remains your ‘best strategy’ - frame it as all or nothing - then list the reasons most of us appear willing to maintain the allowance of some, if not most guns. ...just don’t want to turn in your AK, or AR, M16, ACR or AG-043 (tell me what I’ve missed, as I’ve never found a single need for them)?

@Varn Because we draw the line here. Every right is under attack. The digital revolution has minimized privacy and security by default. The current trend is to attack and through society, censor the 1st amendment. The "gun nuts", draw the line here. We will not tolerate fuckery with this one. When the country goes to shit, from the strategic chopping of rights we want our guns to fall back on. You will not peck them into abolishment.


Every gun owner should have to carry liability insurance. Every gun purchaser should be responsible for that gun for as long as it exists.


I live in Missouri, ground zero for gun nuts. I own a single pistol, a .380. I have to pick up rent sometimes and also carry bullion to and from the bank. Very rare do I even carry it. The guys I work with occasionally run out into the woods and mince about pretending to be Seal Team 6 or Rambo or whatever. Often enough they spend thousands on ammo and new weapons just to fire away aimlessly and brag about that one long range group they managed. Meanwhile none of them have decent insurance for their families and half are on food stamps, I ask about college savings for their children and get blank stares.

Decades ago I worked amid those type in the rural hills of Oregon (not all OR is ‘blue’ ). Every payday several of them would buy another gun, and most weekends there’d be a beer party so as to attract enough of them to haul an even larger gun safe into someone’s basement.. It appeared to be a sickness. And no doubt, their families suffered 😟

@Varn drove through those hill to get to Lincoln City. Definitely"Deliverance-ish" Heard banjos halfway through.


I am a gun owner and was rated "expert" with the M-1 rifle in the Army. Nevertheless, I believe that all firearms , the primary purpose of which is to kill human beings, should be banned to the civilian population. That includes all automatic weapons of any kind, assault rifles. and all pistols. "Open carry" and "concealed carry" should be prohibited except for police officers and persons whose occupation is such that they are more likely to be robbed.

Same here...I am not looking to take away anyone's guns...just to make it reasonable and safer for all...

@Morganfreeman Australia made it work. I think that we are at least as smart as the Australians.


I live in Canada. We have guns, as many per capita as the USA, by some calculations. Hand guns are closely controlled and we do not allow Open Carry. US Death By Gunshot stats should be enough to convince any sane person that gun control is absolutely necessary. The USA is the only country to have this problem.

By your logic we need stiffer car control. Licensing and fees are not reducing car accidents. Air bags saves lives, but poor driving is still a problem. Cars kill more then guns. But only crickets chirping on car control. Cars are like guns. The use of the tool is in the hands of the owner. And cars kill wayyy more then guns do.

@Veteran229 yeah, whatever.

I am Cdn so we have more control so agree with Wangobango3. I yhonk Wordywalt said it well and spoke as someone with experience. I recently got engaged in a discussion on this and was scolded for suggesting we do not need handguns, automatic or semi automatic weapons with regular citizen or to hunt game. Someone suggested I was in middle ages re guns as near all are at least semi-automatic. I am a gun owner, stored, locked and by regulations, rifles and shotguns only. None are semi-automatic. The only realistic use for auto or semi-automatic is to shoot something that can shoot back, so only military and law enforcement should be considered. Control them all, ban handguns, assault, automatic and semi-automatic for the general population period. If you need one of those to hunt, you are not a hunter but a harvester, if that even.


I love to shoot, but I think there are types of guns that private citizens neither need nor should find accessible to them. Unless the zombie apocalypse ever becomes a reality, if you find yourself in a situation where you're wishing you had a safe filled with AR-15s, having one won't help you.

Deb57 Level 8 Dec 4, 2018

Thre is gun control - for non whites - in this country. Look at the news and at statistics.
That said, there are plenty of things that could be done with no constitutional changes needed (note we do not adhere to Hamiltonian interpretations- look them up). We could ban semi automatics and restrict the number of shells in a clip. 40 years ago when I still hunted, the state only allowed me to have three bullets in my gun to deer hunt. We could do like Iceland, or to some extent Finland and Switzerland, and require mandatory training and testing. We could go back to the "old" days when gun owners were held responsible for what are now tragic accidents (nobody wants to fine or imprison a grieving parent). We could do better background checks and keep people with physical violence offenses or domestic violence from obtaining them. We could, although I believe it is already better done than reported, keep mentally ill people from obtaining guns(this has a lot of flaws, as it has been politicised as a scape goat since most gun deaths attributed to mentally ill people are suicides).


Excellent ideas being offered.

The refusal by the Republican party to support any meaningful gun control legislation is an outrage. Their solution of fighting gun violence by arming more people makes as much sense as fighting an out of control forest blaze by setting more trees on fire.

This lunacy is all the result of special interest money corrupting the system to the point where even meaningless half measures are resisted before being grudgingly put up for a vote, after which, even they're likely defeated. The Murican love affair with firearms, ALL firearms, is a sickness. Own a handgun for protection. One handgun. No one needs a military grade assault weapon to shoot a duck or even a rapist. A simple revolver will get the job done.

On a more hopeful note; a gun shop not far from me that proclaimed itself "Your AR-15 Superstore" recently went out of business. That really surprised me.

Gotta say, that’s some solid commentary!

Apparently gun sales go down when a crazy right winger is elected because the peeps know their guns are safe. And then the reverse when a Dem gets elected. Gun sales go bonkers.


This whole gun thing is crazy. The NRA love to make people fear each other so they can sell guns. Now you never know who might have a gun and want to use it because they can just say "I was in fear for my life" like the ignorant Ahole in this story []
What the story doesn't say is that the group of teens were Somalies, that is probably why he felt justified in harassing them in the first place.
I don't mind guns for hunting or if you need one for your job, but to just parade around like it's the wild west, that has to end. None of these people have the training required to carry a gun if the police apparently don't have enough training that they are shooting civilians because they get scared.


More control is needed regarding access to guns and ownership

Agreed. Hold owners accountable. Stop plea bargaining down charges. So many other options.


I don't own a gun. Conversely my father owned an arsenal. I never once thought of using any of his guns to harm anyone, and they were very available. I agree that background checks should be universal. Beyond that Second amendment issues present a real problem. Amending the Constitution is a long process, and I doubt it will happen.

Frankly, if gun reform didnt happen after the Newtown massacre of 22 six year olds, I don't have much faith in it happening either.

And to think many such arsenals are accessible by confused, angry or depressed young people…

It will take an awakening within this nation - perhaps sparked by the hideous reality of what’s currently occupying the White House, along with the filthy politics of his preferred party - And that whatever coalitions allowing such a victory maintain a discipline and purpose at least equal to what their opposition has shown.

@Varn The Second amendment would have to be amended. Amending the Constitution is very difficult.

@Bobby9 Congress could lay down some serious restrictions, with a willing president. But the final interpretation of ‘the second amendment’ would likely be trounced by the current supreme court. Honestly ...this nation’s fucked - evil won, now the rest of us lose ~

@Varn Congress could, and your observation of the current Supreme Court is probably correct. I'll only add the the Supreme Court has already ruled that the Second Amendment guarantees individual gun ownership. That still leave open many possible controls.

@Bobby9 I suspect most people are ok with gun ownership, I am. It’s just what constitutes ‘a gun?’ Some of these crazies feel they need the capability to take on our own military! what next, they’ll begin stockpiling landmines, bazookas, flame-throwers, surface to surface missiles or tactical nuclear weapons…? That Amendment has obviously been abused, repeatedly, but upholding, even expanding those abuses are what drive these single-issue fanatics 😕

@Varn I'd be amazed if any court agreed that a landmine, or anything else you mentioned is a gun. However thinking about it, the Second amendment does not use the term "gun" so maybe things are wide open.

@Bobby9 They’d just be keeping their ‘compound safe.’ Let the courts become sufficiently packed the R’s are best at doing, and it's scary to imagine the crap they’d let fly ~


This is going to generate you a metric shit tonne of points. Smart.

Do abortion next and you'll have your t-shirt before Christmas.

Was kinda wondering the same thing.. But a quick peek reveals a former teacher, they’re cool ~


Being from the UK I have no dog in this fight but all the NRA arguments for the right to own guns. Could be used for north Korea having nukes.

I don't like guns

Yup: I've yet to hear a coherent argument as to what weaponry is acceptable. If Walmart sold a gun that would allow you to kill people in a neighbouring country, would that still be considered as an Amendment right? How about wiping out the whole of another country from your back yard? No? then where is the cut off...

@OwlInASack The American comedian Rich Hall put it best in "Americans are happy because they own guns. The American govt. keeps them happy because they own guns"

The tragedy is how such a small percentage of our populous continues to dominate this issue.. We’ve a political ‘party’ that’s cultivated gun nuts, god nuts, and racist a-holes into a solid voting block that has and continues to allow these extremist views to dominate our nation. Not only is it embarrassing may be a fatal flaw ~


Who do ordinary Americans need protecting from? I hear comments on the subject stating for home protection or oppressive government, then America votes in an oppressive POTUS45, yet doesn't turn their guns on him?
The USA is a modern country with large wild areas. In most American cities you're unlikely to be attacked by bears or cougars unless they happen to be large hairy gay men or mature ladies!
You have pretty good police forces, the worlds most powerful military. So why should every citizen demand guns? With modern supermarkets, people no longer really need to hunt, just pop down the shops! I'll stop there. If you have guns, be responsible, be safe and have fun with them.


They should be much more difficult to own.


Here's how the USA could get Gun Control. Trade your 2nd Amendment rights for Free, Single Payer Maedicare. Medicare is cheaper to deliver than the current system. Gun Control would save millions of dollars. Win/win, except for those who are too scared and deluded to make a change.


America needs a national gun discussion. I believe we all agree that we're tired of all the gun deaths. At the same time, we believe in the 2nd Amendment. Somewhere in there, there's room for a solution.

Perhaps start with a definition of the 2nd Amendment. What does it mean today? Unfettered gun ownership? People seize on what is written in the 2nd Amendment like "shall not be abridged" and "well regulated militia". Move punctuation around, or add some punctuation, and meanings change. That needs to be discussed.

Solutions would have to get past our Republican saturated supreme court, though.. It would take both Congress and a willing President to make stuff happen. Every damn massacre since I can remember felt like ‘the one’ that would finally drive our nation to a solution… But the tiny minority of gun fanatics, voting at every opportunity for the party that guarantees nothing gets done on this issue continues to win, as the vast majority tear up over one massacre after another...


The second amendment ws written before the Civil War, back when there ws no national standing armies, but national defense was dependent on state militias. After the Civil War, the U.S. has had a national standing military, so the need for citizens to keep guns for national defense has long since passed about 150 years ago and the second amendment is antiquated and needs to be updated and clarified to reflect the time we now live in. Also, when the second amendment was written fun technology was limited to single shot flint lock weapons, which took about 30 seconds to reload.. The idea that a single individual could wipe out several dozen people in just a couple of minutes was beyond the comprehension or imagination of those who wrote the second amendment.

absolutely false. You are speaking your opinion here , expressing yourself via the 1st amendment. By your logic, your first amendment right, CAN ONLY be used with printed paper or vocal cords. No TV or internet.

Your lack of firearm knowledge is flagrant by the silly argument you are propagandizing, that has long been defeated.

@Veteran229 You are mistaken about the 1st amendment not covering TV or the internet. The exception woudl be what is broadcast over the public airwaves (commons owned by the people). However, i fyou pay for TV, liek with cable or satelite, Federal regulations regardign speech is not limited. Same concept is true for radio.

The internet is generally unregulated as far as free speech goes.

However, as my only original statements pertained to the second amendment... why are we talking about the first amendment now and freedom of speech via TV and the internet? It is totally off the original topic.

@snytiger6 it pertains to your ridiculous statement of it was written so long ago, so was the 1st amendment.

@Veteran229 The point o fmy stating tht it was written so long ago, and the conditions and times under which it was written, was simply to point out tht a lot of resoning for the second amendment no longer pertains to our current cultural or national sitation.

I should nto have to state this, but the founders of the country realized that situations would change, which is why they made it possible to make changes to the constitution. I thought the subtext was clear in what I was saying. The conditions which merited the writing of the seconde amendment have greatly changed and it needs to be updated to reflect the current times in which we are now living.

The first amendment has been greatly expanded through the courts (ro better refelct mocdern society and culture), but the actual wordign coudl be revised to include the expansions of the fights we have been given, so they aren't lost in the future, and could also be word3ed to reflect expced cultural changes of the future to solidify the freedoms we have.

We haven't had a constitutional convention in my lifetime. I think we shoudl have one aobut every 40-50 years to go over what is there and update as needed. After all, change is the only real constant.

@snytiger6 Your statement is correct. Ruling have been used to EXPAND the first amendment. This does not violate the constitution. Ruling to limit or change the meaning to degrade a right by judicaiary, does violate the constitution, IN SOME WAYS.

@Veteran229 I think we can at least agree that judicial rulings can expand individual rights, but should not take rights (freedoms and liberties) away.

Having been raise to be conservative, I still feel most comfrotable when expansions of rights are at least implied our of and a logical progression out of what has already been established. I think major changes would require constitutional amendments. Changes to the constitution shoudl always be logn considered and debated.

Whiel I coudl understand the need for the original constitution to be written behind closed doors in secret, because they were creatign something very different, I'd prefer any constitutional conventions and their debates to be very public and transparent, because they would tnot be creating something new, but only making revisions to better reflect the modern world and conditions.

@snytiger6 Modernized firearms and such are already heavily regulated if not abolished. Little to no one complains about that. Nukes, artillery, conventional missles, automatic weapons, etc etc. When the Gun control crowd starts to come after a semi automatic weapon, they hit a wall. That is 100% of pistols on the market and about 75% of long guns on the market. The line is drawn here. Reasonable weapons banning/regulation has been done. To further peck away is to further peck away from why the 2nd amendment was crated. A free individual defending himself, and his country when needed. Gun control is not the real issue, its how much is too much. Rights can be abolished, or pecked away to obliteration. This is why the line is here, no more.

@Veteran229 I think gun control is aobut "how much is too much" as well as about how much is too little.

It would be much prefer it if sun owners were all responsible individuals and they regulated themselves, There are just too many stupid people for that to ever actually happen. So, to insure public safety the government has to step in and put limits on just how much harm can be cone by stupid and/or nefarious persons.

That you say that most fire arms are semi-automatic now, kind pf makes my point when contrasted with the single shot flint locks that were the best guns at the tiem of the writign of the second amendment. Conditions and situations change, we need to update the second amendment to keepup with changing situations, and also to prevent the takign of innocent lives.

@snytiger6 They were not the best guns at the time, had you watched the video, your ideological stance would have been clearly shown to be ignorant. The guns named in the video can be researched easily. The "musket was the best at the time" argument is a lack of investigating the history of firearms.

Innocent lives continue to be taken in gun free zones. Because they know there will be the least resistance there. If you want to curb gun violence and not infringe on gun owners(as well as property rights), then quit supporting establishments that are gun free zones. Use your dollar to change your environment. It makes an effect quicker than fighting for some broad reaching law denying people their rights. When gun free zones flip to allowed zones, troublemakers will know they have a good chance of meeting resistance.

What you propose is pre-crime. You propose making it harder for one to be able to express/defend their right, because bad people do bad things. And yet i see no sympathy from you or persons like you, for the people who die because gun free zones prevented them from defending themselves. How about harping on theaters and others who discourage peoples self defense. Or twisted stae laws laws that will prosecure someone invading a home, and the owner shoots them in the back in ambush style tactic, then has to be prosecuted for not shooting them in the front.


We need much stricter gun laws. Thorough background checks, waiting periods, limits on magazine capacities, bans on military weapons, age restrictions, etc.


Just counted my guns, four rifles, two of which are antiques. Two pistols, one of which is an antique. All are .22 caliber. I am sorry for those who feel they need an external penis to be a man. I would not put up with the hassel to carry a gun. What comes to mind is the statement, "If you think education is exspensive try ignorance!

BillF Level 7 Dec 4, 2018

I live in the UK, I think the US is fucking nuts to have just about anyone running around with weapons of war. Revolutionary think not required, just common sense. Guns kill people, more gunskill more people.

I agree (except for the sweary 😉 )

@Amisja Ooooh! Don't you like swearing? Always interested in that one. Tell us more. (I'll put my cards on the table early: I'm with Brian Blessed and Steven Fry on this one)

@OwlInASack No just a history of getting the living daylights out of me if I said anything worse than 'damn'

I thought it an appropriate use, calling gun mania in the US just nuts, really don't do it justice.

@Amisja Well - I had a bit of that too. But then I got into it!

Brian quoting the Queen saying fuck

And then there was some research:


"I still hear people state the fallacy that we need our guns to protect us from an oppressive government." How would your argument play to a survivor of 1930's Germany? There were many then who said the same thing when warned of what was coming..." cannot happen here!". Hitler did not seize power...he was elected. Trumps oligarchy of the wealthy did not seize power, they were elected. They violated the Constitution by not allowing Obama to appoint Supreme Court the Court is loaded with Trump's minions. Republicans gerrymander and suppress opposition votes as well as other measures to solidify their strangle hold on the nation. You seem oblivious to the parallels of the 1930's. Not only can it happen here, you may be witnessing it happening. You strike me a very naive, or lacking in historical knowledge. Nothing remains the same, everything is in constant flux...our Democracy is being threatened any yet you seem oblivious. It cannot happen here, can it?

Hitler was elected then passed laws to give him absolute power. Then he used already existing gun laws to get Jews disarmed. Then they were carted off with no means to defend themselves.

The personal attacks are not necessary or productive.
I am well aware of Hitler and Germany. Hitler did not need to seize guns because there were very few to seize. The Weimar republic had very strict gun laws. In fact Hitler made it easier to own guns for Germans with the exception of the groups he considered undesirable. The Jews made up about one percent of the population in Germany. Even if they had been armed to the teeth it wouldn't have made a difference. No sane person will awaken to 30 soldiers outside his house at four in the morning and risk his family in a gunfight he can't win.
Gerrymandering has been around and in practice by the party in power since the inception of this country. It is nothing new. I do agree that it is not healthy for a democracy and needs to end.
The flipping of 40 seats in the house by Democrats seems to fly in the face of your statement that Republicans have a stranglehold on power in this country. The Mueller investigation also demonstrates the rule of law is alive and well in this country. We will soon learn the effect of that investigation.
I have no doubt that Trump would love to be a dictator but despite his fascist dreams, it won't happen. You can put your guns away.

@JohnHenderson2 The possible Republican take-over of the government ala Nazi style is only one scenario of our (U.S.A.) possible futures. I could offer several more, but the point is that there is no way of knowing what possible and life threatening scenarios that can of will play out. But, what ever scenario one can imagine, it is likely that the U.S. will, at some point will cease to exist as has all the other previous democracies. Given that, one must ask one's self, would I and my family be better or worse off if I were armed when it happens? Little chance of survival if armed, or none at all?

@Elganned The details of Hitler's rise to power are immaterial. The point is that everything being in flux anything...unanticipated changes do happen. What happened in GENERAL in 1930's Germany is similar to what is happening in the U.S. currently...THAT IS THE POINT.

It would seem that I am not alone in my "...paranoid and delusional with an agenda to push."

@Elganned Yes I agree...they must be "...paranoid and delusional with an agenda to push."

@Elganned "It's the gun-toting, "we gotta protect ourselves agin the gubmint" crowd who have the agenda, which is More Guns. And More Guns" But, it is the Left that seems to give dire warnings about the dangers and parallels to the rise Nazisum that I keep reading...the pro-gun people are mostly Republican and Trump supporters so your statement makes no sense...but go ahead with your rant anyway if it makes you feel better.


The only way to prove gun control does not work , would be to require everyone open carry. But that would be illegal, we cannot force people to use a right, they have a choice.

Civility would return to America in a real short time span. Sure you would have "tards" , but they would be eliminated quickly.

Much like bad drivers. Replace steering wheel airbag with a steel spike. Let Darwinism work its magic.

Guns and cars are no different. The more safety you throw at these object, the crappier the operators become.

@Elganned []

Enjoy statistics from the CDC. Center for Disease Control. Your TRUSTED government.


Statistically the less guns you have the less gun violence you have (crazy right?) but Americans are fucking petrified of everything, ESPECIALLY the right. They're fed bullshit that criminals can always get guns regardless of laws even though this isn't true in other countries, and that the only way they can not die is by having a gun on them that again, statistically is more dangerous to the owner and family of. But they're stupid, so there are cold dead fingers that you'd need to pry them from.

"Statistically the less guns you have the less gun violence you have (crazy right?) "
While true. It just shift violence to other forms. Which is why some countries are trying to ban knives, even butter knives.

If the kill count actually mattered, cars would have been abolished a century ago.

@Veteran229 ...people aren't intentionally mass murdering with cars, or butter knives. That’s beyond weak..

@Varn "mass murdering with cars, or butter knives." you mean like that muslim guy that drove a truck through a crowd in France?

@Veteran229 Then we’d have to outlaw Dodge Chargers, maybe rental trucks, fertilizer & diesel.. Wherever it ends, it needs to begin with the oversold civilian assault weapons, the apparent weapon-of-choice.

@Varn and they are not assault weapons. The liberal use of the word assault is in error.

@Veteran229 There's a reason that your arguments are stupid and weak. You can feel insulted but that won't change the fact that they are. You've based your outlook on fear, and not logic.

The right has a revenue model based off of you staying afraid and stupid so you'll buy more guns. The gun manufacturers pays the NRA and GOP directly who keeps you afraid of everything so you buy more guns and around and around it goes. You're afraid and they're rich, they win. Kids get shot at school but you think it's necessary because you're afraid and stupid. That's life in America.

@mattersauce Worse, whenever there’s another mass murder ..employing the darlings of their gun collection - assault weapon sales increase! Not for ‘defense purposes,’ but the same mentality we’re witnessing here, the fear someone’s going to outlaw their manhoo … I mean their assault weapons..

@Veteran229’s the best this moderate can come up with: “Assault weapon is a non-technical term referring to any broad category of firearms with certain features. Assault weapons include some semi-automatic rifle, some pistols and some shotguns.

… including: “Additionally defined as assault weapons were semi-automatic shotguns with a rotating cylinder, or with at least two of these features: a pistol grip, a folding or telescoping stock, a detachable magazine, or a fixed magazine that can hold more than five rounds.” Let’s let Congress define them ~

@Morganfreeman No, it’s not - and I’m sick of those attempting to frame this as a ‘Guns vs. No guns debate.’ If you don’t understand or appreciate moderation or negotiation - then leave it up to those who do ~


Most definitely, each and every life is precious! Each life is a singular and unique entity, and all are worth protecting to the utmost. Concerning guns... I push for full disarmament, of both citizens and enforcers. We should be utilizing non-lethal means, at all cost, in policing. It's senseless to give lethal means to enforcers, and watch as they kill an innocent bystander by mistaking them for the perp. We have militarized the police, so they act as military, with much less training, and citizenry become the enemy. As for gun ownership and mass shootings... As a mental health worker, I will posit that no murder or mass shooting is ever done by someone who could be considered "sane" at the time. Within every group of humans on earth, there is a percentage of group members with mental health concerns with symptoms that can include possible losses of reality (e.g. times of possible "psychosis" -seeing, hearing or believing something that isn't there or is way outside the realm of normal reality). So, one day, as fans of gun ownership bond over their love of shooting and their gun collection, they don't realize that 1-3% of the other gun fans in the conversation may have these mental concerns. It's great to think that we could take guns away from those who were appropriately diagnosed, but this often only occurs AFTER a possible grave incident. And if guns are in society, a person who wants a gun can get a gun if they desire, legally or illegally (be that because the person knows who owns one that they can steal, or their dad was holding their guns and decided it was okay to return the guns to the individual, or the individual just goes to the black market). I believe that the only way forward is to remove guns from being available at all. I willingly give up my right to own a gun, if it keeps society safer and protects life. Some say "if guns are outlawed, only outlaws have guns". That's a neat idea that is short sighted. You can outlaw them now, and in 20 yrs, we'll have a gun-free society, or you can wait another 20 yrs, and in 40 yrs we'll have a gun-free society. Many very rational nations have outlawed guns, and do we really still have fears that the Gov't will exert control over us with weaponry? They have many ways that are working just fine already that have naught to do with actual bullets. The concept of Gun control being one of them.

That’s a well written (if lacking paragraphs..) argument I’m afraid will never go over here in the USA… Honestly, I’d not want to hand over my guns, my ultimate self defense from the barely sane to the certified insane.. But you’re right, other nations appear to be functioning quite well without them, Japan comes to mind with me.


I understand how gun possession is rooted in the days of the frontier and the need for protection. As times change so do social requirements and I suspect about 100 years ago it should have been addresses. Probably too far down the track now for any reform not be seen as an erosion of freedom. Difficult for any administration to address.

Write Comment
You can include a link to this post in your posts and comments by including the text q:236830
Agnostic does not evaluate or guarantee the accuracy of any content. Read full disclaimer.