The Myth that Gun Control is Good By Bob Hubbard

[Empty Hands]

Yeah, those numbers look more reasonable.

 

[Langenschwert]

Good post, Bob. I'd rep ya but I can't.

-Mark

 

[Deaf Smith]

Reasonable gun laws make sense.

Beware 'Reasonable gun laws'. What is reasonable to one, is not to the other!

Obama and company keep talking about 'sensable gun laws'. Same warning applies to that.

Deaf

 

[Bob Hubbard]

How about, less gun laws, and proper enforcement of the ones we have. There's already a few thousand of em, how many do we need again?

 

[dart68]

Absolutely an excellent post, Bob. As you said, the genie is out of the bottle. If you could wiggle your nose or cross your arms blink and make all the guns disapear at once then we would be safe from guns being used for violence. We would not be free from all violence, though, and in some instances we would be effectively defenseless.

 

[Deaf Smith]

The most defensless would be the eldery, disabled, those living alone. Ever worse would be any of those above who are poor.

Very common for thugs to run in packs. Two or more can easly take one elderly or disabled person without much trouble... as long as they don't have a gun!

All weapon control will do is allow the physicaly strong to rule the weak. After all, isnt' it said, "God made man. Col. Colt made men equal".

Deaf

 

[Bob Hubbard]

Some people shouldn't own guns.
Elderly, disabled, and the mentally unstable are 3 groups that worry me. I wouldn't want a few people I know to own one as I think it's more dangerous to them...shoot themselves in the foot, etc kind of thing. Do I support laws to stop them? No, but I don't think they should have them either.

I think penalties for unlawful use should be stronger. Use a gun in a robbery, even if it's just to wave around, and you're in really deep ****.

Keep schools gun free zones, but have an armed presence, like allow administrators to carry (with proper trainiing) or have an armed guard or 2, especially in problem zones. Minimize the risk, but allow a response should someone try a repeat of Columbine.

I'm honestly conflicted here, with my personal desire to reduce firearms while wanting to reduce crime and accidents while respecting constitutional rights. Hard position to balance sometimes.

 

[grydth]

I somehow don't see it that way... you can be against something and still want to study it... it better helps you understand WHY you're against it. It also helps to understand something in order to prevent it.

There are varied reasons why we study things.

I have studied the Eastern Front literally for decades, and it is the only topic I write on for publication. Yet I never would have wanted to be any part of either monstrous empire. It isn't only the worst human train wreck in modern history that one can't turn away from... there are lessons which must never be forgotten. One is that the worst abusers of firearms are governments, not individual citizens. Neither maniacal dictator allowed private firearms ownership.... but the Mausers and Moisins were very busy reaping an incredible toll, and very often not during battles.

It is also frequent that people who wish for a better, nonviolent world reach the conclusion that we do not live in such a place.... and very likely will not. It is only prudent to expect and prepare for violence and armed assault. Every time I chamber or round, or start my SUV's ignition, I am afraid and aware that somebody can be dead in a matter of seconds. Best be as prepared as possible to practice defensive driving... and to shoot home invaders through the head. Wish the world were a better place, but not going to let it eat me or my family.

 

[Deaf Smith]

Some people shouldn't own guns.
Elderly, disabled, and the mentally unstable are 3 groups that worry me.

Whoa Bob. I'm 54! Won't be all that long... Elderly does not necessarly translate to feeblemindeness. Some do, but some don't. Usually if they are that far gone they are in a rest home anyway.

Disabled include those that lost the use of their legs or arms... many a young man has come back from Iraq that way. Others have heart problems. Others just need a cane to walk with. Disabled has nothing to do with their mind.

Now mentally unstable. If they are that unstable they cannot by law own guns in the U.S. just as those who are dependent on drugs.

Deaf

 

[Bob Hubbard]

Not quite what I was thinking as I wrote it, but I can see I wasn't clear enough. I'l try and elaborate a little bit.

Someone older may not have the quickness of reflex, not the quickness of thought to recognize the threat, ready the weapon and show arms without risk to themselves. I know one senior who cleaned his stove top with gas, while smoking, because he wanted to get the buildup off. The danger of that situation was lost on him, then, and later. Other than th occasional error in judgement and delay reactions, he's ok though.

I know a woman whose hands are so damaged by a disease she's slowly losing a fight to, that for her to handle a gun, it would have to have no guard, nor safety, and she'd need at least 10 minutes to ready it, if she could even hold it. Most of the basic tools like the canopener are a struggle for her.

Neither are mentally unstable, and are otherwise ok. But, putting a gun in eithers hands, makes me more afraid they' shoot themselves in the foot.

In the case of the elderly, hearing and vision loss, as well as "processing speed and power" is often diminished, which would delay their ability to process something simple like friend/foe. It those cases (which also apply to anyone, not just the seniors) something other than a gun, or knife, would be better, like an alarm system which can summon those trained and able to their assistance.

Lou Theze was still wrestling in his 70's, and Mae Young in her 80's. Doesn't mean my grandfather should toss on the tights and climb the ropes.

Wasn't refering to the vet, the clear minded, or such. If they can safely handle it, and process things, pass em the ammo.

 

[Keith Kirkendall]

Excellent post. Responsible citizens deserve the right to bear arms. It is senseless to take away guns from law abiding citizens. We need some kind of a fighting chance against the criminals. Proper training for guns is a must as you will need this in case of a criminal gun threat so you will be able to respond and not panic/freeze-up. Believe it or not, law officers usually will not be there for us when the crime is actually occuring...most of the time they are only able to be at the scene of the crime after it has happened. Hey, they are only human. It makes good sense that having weapons of protection in the hands of responsible citizens is a great equalizer against the crooks. A responsible citizen's only chance of stopping a mad gunman from killing masses of people is to be armed and prepared to use the gun to protect innocent people.

 

[Brian King]

Empty Hands wrote:

“For one thing, DC is a much poorer, denser place than Vermont. That right there will get you more crime, irrespective of the laws.”

Bob Hubbard wrote:

"Very true. My points were to ssimply compare population size, gun laws and crime statistics. Mixing poverty in does change things"

I am not sure that is true. Japan dense population yet I have heard that it is pretty free of crime. And if I remember some stories and states from the depression era crime rates did not raise along with the drop in income and savings. Plenty of poor people in crowded conditions do not become criminals. EH do you have good studies that can prove that causation between crime and wealth and population density? I might suspect that unemployment might raise crime rates as people with time on their hands often get into trouble but just being poor, I have known plenty of poor people that were very honest and have met people that had plenty that still had larceny on their hearts.

Thanks Bob interesting thread.

Regards
Brian King

 

[Empty Hands]

Japan dense population yet I have heard that it is pretty free of crime.

Japan is also wealthy and homogenous.

EH do you have good studies that can prove that causation between crime and wealth and population density?

Density. Poverty.

 

[Big Don]

CA banned a rifle that has never been used in a crime, anywhere, ever. Mostly because it was "SCARY" looking.

 

[Andy Moynihan]

Does anyone else remember , or am I the last fading gasp of the last generation in which MARKSMANship was considered a duty of CITIZENship.....

 

[Empty Hands]

Does anyone else remember , or am I the last fading gasp of the last generation in which MARKSMANship was considered a duty of CITIZENship.....

You're a year younger than me, but I never saw anything like that growing up. Where did you see it? I had extensive training in marksmanship growing up BTW, but that was my choice, not for reasons of citizenship.

 

[Empty Hands]

CA banned a rifle that has never been used in a crime, anywhere, ever. Mostly because it was "SCARY" looking.

Bipods are scary. They could easily become tripods, and from there...? Better safe than sorry.

 

[Blindside]

Lou Theze was still wrestling in his 70's, and Mae Young in her 80's. Doesn't mean my grandfather should toss on the tights and climb the ropes.

Wasn't refering to the vet, the clear minded, or such. If they can safely handle it, and process things, pass em the ammo.

So constitutional rights go away because someone is now too old?

At what level of senility do people lose the right to free speech? Lose protections about undue process and search and seizure? For a someone who claims to have libertarian principles you are sure tending toward regulation. As long as a person is a responsible member of society, they should retain those rights, and if they blow their own foot off or take their own life, so be it. Their right, their responsibility.

 

[Blindside]

Does anyone else remember , or am I the last fading gasp of the last generation in which MARKSMANship was considered a duty of CITIZENship.....

Sorry Andy, I've never heard of this.

 

[Andy Moynihan]

You're a year younger than me, but I never saw anything like that growing up. Where did you see it? I had extensive training in marksmanship growing up BTW, but that was my choice, not for reasons of citizenship.

Sorry Andy, I've never heard of this.

Must have been an upbringing thing which later became a personal moral thing.....

*wistful sigh, looks at the country the way it is now, pondering how sad it is for a man to have outlived his time before he's even hit middle age......*