Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I don't have any great passion on the issue of gun control, from either side of the question, but I do have a comment for those that rely on the arguement that "Guns don't kill people, people kill people."
If you are a law-abiding gun enthusiast, or even simply a big fan of the right to own a gun, it would seem to me that you should have a greater interest in seeing to it that a gun, of any sort, should never fall into the hands of a lunatic like this guy. In particular, a gun designed for the sole purpose of killing lots of people, quickly, should never fall into the hands of somebody like this guy, or anybody that is less than a law-abiding citizen, because it's incidents like this one that will eventually sway the weight of public opinion to the point where a majority will support a government that wants to take away your guns. All of them.
If you want to own a gun, you should be doing everything in your power to insure that a gun, any gun, never again finds its way into the hands of the type of people, that will use it to kill other people. Yours is the voice that should be the loudest in calling for some sort of remedy. How else do you protect the welfare of all law-abiding people, while protecting your own right to bear arms?
Well in a PERFECT world, we could use our crystal ball and predict how a "normal" person will one day lose their mind and go crazy with a gun. If a person has NO criminal background(record) at the time of purchasing a gun and the background check verifies the person is "clean", that person has the right to legally buy a gun. Period. If this "normal" person then becomes "abnormal" (that "type of people") then society has NO control over this. How do we "get inside" a person's mind in the "future"? There is no way to be "proactive" in this regard.
I will say it again. There are over 250 MILLION guns already sold in the USA. If a person, normal or abnormal, wants a gun they will find a way to get one. It is FAR too late to get guns out of our society.
There is no gun that has ever been made that can aim and shoot itself at an object. There is no car, knife, hammer, spear, etc., that can do anything but sit there and do NOTHING on it's own. PEOPLE need to be added to the mix and take these "objects" and make them "do something"............shoot people, run people over, stab people, etc., etc., etc. People DO kill people and they will continue to do so by whatever means possible. Period.
Now, in UTOPIA, none of this stuff would NEVER, EVER happen. Sadly, Utopia does NOT exist.
Location: About 10 miles north of Pittsburgh International
2,458 posts, read 4,203,610 times
Reputation: 2374
I didn't say I have an answer, or expect that you or anyone else does either. But when the subject is debated, it generally seems that the gun lobby, and the NRA, for instance, take the stance that any regulation is an infringement on their right to own the gun(s) of their choice. If we assume, just for the sake of argument, that they are all law-abiding people, who would never use a gun to do wrong, then to me, that seems counter to their interests.
Quote:
There is no gun that has ever been made that can aim and shoot itself at an object. There is no car, knife, hammer, spear, etc., that can do anything but sit there and do NOTHING on it's own. PEOPLE need to be added to the mix and take these "objects" and make them "do something"............shoot people, run people over, stab people, etc., etc., etc. People DO kill people and they will continue to do so by whatever means possible. Period.
Sooo....the day you decide to kill somebody, which of those instruments will you choose? The one that makes it easiest, most efficient, and most sure? Probably. There's a reason the armies of the world have largely discarded their hammers, swords, and spears, in favor of guns. If your intent is to kill, guns are a better choice, no?
It seems to follow, that a person who wishes to have the option to kill somebody, would be the most likely to support unrestricted availability of the tool of choice. That's why the, "it's the people that kill people, not the guns that kill people" argument doesn't hold any water. If you're one who wishes to own a gun and never, ever use it criminally, you're intrests are being hurt by that unrestricted access. That's why you should be coming up with some better arguments, and making them.
Quote:
I will say it again. There are over 250 MILLION guns already sold in the USA. If a person, normal or abnormal, wants a gun they will find a way to get one. It is FAR too late to get guns out of our society.
Fair enough. But is it not said that, "When guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns"? It may be too late to get guns out of society, but it's not to late to outlaw them. Then, by definition, anyone who keeps theirs will be one of the outlaws. Is it impossible that enough gun violence will finally sway the weight of public opinion to the point where guns might be outlawed? I can see it happening.
Again, that's why it seems to me that the responsible and law-abiding gun owners should be the loudest voices calling for a way to keep guns out of the hands of those who would use them for killing people, instead of just relying on the tired argument that the problem is bad people, not bad people with guns.
Again, that's why it seems to me that the responsible and law-abiding gun owners should be the loudest voices calling for a way to keep guns out of the hands of those who would use them for killing people, instead of just relying on the tired argument that the problem is bad people, not bad people with guns.[/quote]
I am a life long hunter/gun owner. I do not agree that ALL types of guns should be available to the masses. I see no use for an AK-47, etc.
"a way to keep guns out of the hands of those who would use them for killing people"......................That was the point I was trying to make prior. HOW do WE do this????? How do you predict who these folks are or will be? You can not. A criminal can not purchase a gun LEGALLY, so, they get one ILLEGALLY. A non-criminal is able to legally purchase a gun and should be able to. The "good-guy" may one day turn into a "bad-guy" and he has a gun obtained legally and can use it in a bad way if he snaps.
It's like a terrorist. They look and act like everyone else.............that's why you never see them coming until it's too late.
IT IS THE PERSON............not the weapon. It's not a tired argument, it's a fact. Tell me how we as a society can identify future bad-guys and what they may do in the future. You simply can not do it. I wish we could.
I stand by to orginal statement that I made earlier and feel free to research and correct me if I'm wrong. There has not been a black cop killer in Pittsburgh that lived after killing a police officer. This is in contrast of whites who have shot at and killed officers and lived to go to trial.
Really? What would cause you to post something like that? What are you even saying? That they were summarily executed after killing the officer?
Since 1885 65 Pittsburgh Police officers have died in the line of duty. 35 died by gunfire, and 4 of those were accidental. Other officers died a variety of ways including vehicle accidents, heart attacks, falls just to name a few. One officer contracted pneumonia and died as a result of working long hours downtown in the aftermath of the famous St. Patrick's day flood in 1936. In 1974 a white officer was shot and killed by a black assailant. This man was sentenced to death, retried in 1979 and eventually got life in prison to the best of my recollection. In 1983 a very well liked black narcotics detective was shot and killed by a black assailant during a narcotics raid. The detective had gone to the aid of a fellow officer who's gun was stolen by the assailant. The actor also died in the ensuing gun battle which occurred in the close quarters of a Terrace Village apartment. In 1995 an off duty black sargaent confronted a gang of graffiti taggers and was killed with his own weapon in the ensuing fight. His assailant, also black was only convicted of voluntary manslaughter. Recent cases near Pittsburgh include a white state trooper shot and killed at a hotel in Carnegie. His assailant who is black was convicted of first degree murder and sentenced to life plus 13 to 26 years. In 2001 a white Aliquippa officer was shot and killed by a black assailant who was only convicted of third degree murder and got a comparatively light sentence. I have purposely left out the names of both the downed officers and their killers. Someone posted on here that you are a professional. I hope you're better at whatever it is you do than you are at research.
Location: About 10 miles north of Pittsburgh International
2,458 posts, read 4,203,610 times
Reputation: 2374
Quote:
IT IS THE PERSON............not the weapon. It's not a tired argument, it's a fact.
Whether you consider it a tired argument or not, it's an ineffective one.
The fact is that persons with guns are more able to kill than persons without guns. When was the last drive-by hammering murder? Could Poplawski have stabbed, or speared all three of these officers to death?
It's the frequent repetition of the argument that seems to me to be an attempt to persuade that guns are never a factor at all in the murders they are used to commit. It's disingenuous to try to say they're never a factor, because in many cases, they are. They are a BIG factor. That's where the public perception is formed.
Please understand, that I'm not arguing against your right to own your guns. A friend of mine recently moved to my county, and asked to use me as a reference on his application for a CCP. I agreed to, without reservation, because I know and trust him, and have no problem with his gun ownership or desire to be allowed to carry.
What I'm saying is that if you (the collective you--meaning law-abiding gun owners), want to be allowed to keep your guns, it's in your best interest for you to come up with, or support, a way to keep guns out of the hands of crimials and cop killers, and to come up with an agrument that's more persuasive than, 'It's not our fault. We can't help it when bad people do bad things with guns'.
Whether you consider it a tired argument or not, it's an ineffective one.
The fact is that persons with guns are more able to kill than persons without guns. When was the last drive-by hammering murder? Could Poplawski have stabbed, or speared all three of these officers to death?
It's the frequent repetition of the argument that seems to me to be an attempt to persuade that guns are never a factor at all in the murders they are used to commit. It's disingenuous to try to say they're never a factor, because in many cases, they are. They are a BIG factor. That's where the public perception is formed.
Please understand, that I'm not arguing against your right to own your guns. A friend of mine recently moved to my county, and asked to use me as a reference on his application for a CCP. I agreed to, without reservation, because I know and trust him, and have no problem with his gun ownership or desire to be allowed to carry.
What I'm saying is that if you (the collective you--meaning law-abiding gun owners), want to be allowed to keep your guns, it's in your best interest for you to come up with, or support, a way to keep guns out of the hands of crimials and cop killers, and to come up with an agrument that's more persuasive than, 'It's not our fault. We can't help it when bad people do bad things with guns'.
You make it sound like there "is" a way to keep guns out of the hands of criminals and cop killers. I will try one more time..........there are 250 Million guns in the hands of the citizens of the USA already. Criminals can not legally purchase a gun. They WILL get one illegally if they want. "Cop killers"........show the country how to spot them and I will be the first one implementing it in my area.
If you think the country can round-up 250 million guns you are misguided. Do you really think ANY criminal will willingly hand over their gun? NO, it will not happen. Do you feel comfortable with the vision of you, me and other law abiding people NOT being able to have a gun while ALL the BAD GUYS do have them. Talk about making a criminal's job 100x's easier.
For the record, I do not make nor have I made "excuses" for "legal" gun ownership. I simply realize the fact-of-the-matter.............. bad people can and will obtain guns if they want one, even if NO MORE guns were produced as of today.
I don't know what more I can say about this. I truly wish I, or you, had the answer. The reality it is not a simple black & white, cut & dry solution
Location: About 10 miles north of Pittsburgh International
2,458 posts, read 4,203,610 times
Reputation: 2374
Quote:
Do you feel comfortable with the vision of you, me and other law abiding people NOT being able to have a gun while ALL the BAD GUYS do have them.
No. Which is why I expressed the thought that I did.
To recap, and summarize--Poplawski, well armed, legally well armed, based in some part on his fear that the government will take away his guns (a fear that's not totally groundless, as there does exist a contingent of both the government and the general population that does support that idea), kills three police officers.
I express that it seems to me that the law-abiding gun owners would be acting in their own best interest to find a way to keep guns out of the hands of both the criminals and the mentally unstable, yet-to-be criminals; that it's surprising that the voices of the law-abiding gun owners are not the loudest in advocating for some sort of solution to the problem of gun violence, for guns both legal and illegal.
You express, that while that might be nice, there is no solution to the problem.
Quote:
If you think the country can round-up 250 million guns you are misguided.
No, I don't think the country can round up 250 million guns. What I do think is that if the violence continues, a fearful population is going to elect somebody, or more accurately, a legislative majority of somebodies, that does think the country can round up 250 million guns, and the legal ones are going to be the easiest to locate, and the first to go.
THAT is why I'm surprised that law-abiding gun owners aren't doing more; thinking more creatively, about how to preempt that eventuality.
I agree with ditchdigger. My political beliefs are sort of traditionalist because I support the Constitution as it was conceived by our forefathers. I strongly believe in our right to bear arms. As Pennsylvanians, we should be acutely aware of our state's history since the core concepts of our nation are rooted in William Penn's vision. When faced with the tragic events that result from our freedoms, the conundrum intesifies when we look to our forefathers for guidance.
"Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety." ~Benjamin Franklin
These powerful words should not be disregarded; however, allowing anyone to bear arms puts our very freedoms at risk. Many claim a slippery slope--taking freedoms away from some will lead to loss of freedoms of all. Yet many states have adopted restrictions on gun ownership for crimes and we still retain our right bear arms. I contend the blatant disregard for the need to regulate is what will ultimately lead to loss of freedoms of all.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
If a person has NO criminal background(record) at the time of purchasing a gun and the background check verifies the person is "clean", that person has the right to legally buy a gun. Period. If this "normal" person then becomes "abnormal" (that "type of people") then society has NO control over this. How do we "get inside" a person's mind in the "future"? There is no way to be "proactive" in this regard. 
