The Gun Debate: Why Does it Seem to Render People Incapable of Using Common Sense?

nugent-gunIt goes without saying that the topic of guns in this country is highly controversial.  Every time there’s any kind of mass shooting, the topic becomes front page news all across the nation.  We get an endless stream of opinions from both sides as to what the answers should be.

The thing I rarely see from the fringe on either side is common sense.  You have the far left which screams for a ban on all guns, and then you have cries from most on the right who seem to believe gun ownership is one of our greatest American rights.

I’m a liberal, but to me a gun is a gun.  It’s a tool used for hunting and self defense.  Maybe even an item one might collect if they like historical items.  It’s also something that can be extremely dangerous if put in the wrong hands.

Gun ownership is an American right, but that doesn’t mean we should have the right to own any kind of gun we want.  In fact, the Second Amendment doesn’t even specifically say “gun”—it just says “right to bear arms.”

Heck, one could argue that any sort of weaponry could be considered an “arm,” couldn’t they?  Missiles, tanks, RPG’s, nuclear weapons. Aren’t they all “arms?”  After all, don’t many of these people feel that “guns keep our government fearful of its citizens?”  Do they really believe basic guns keep a government, which controls some of the most advanced weaponry that’s ever existed, fearful of its citizens?  Shouldn’t they then believe we’re allowed to own more lethal weaponry?

Or the silly argument that guns have nothing to do with gun violence.  Come on, really?  They have nothing to do with gun violence?  Of course mental health and other factors play a huge part, but so do the guns.

More specifically, the access to the guns.  Which is something that would be helped by expanding background checks—something Republicans gleefully blocked earlier this year.

Or the line I love most, “If guns are responsible for gun violence then spoons are responsibility for obesity.”  Anyone who takes that line seriously should be ashamed of themselves.  The total ignorance behind that statement shows what kind of a short-sighted mental capacity that person has, along with a total inability to think critically about anything.

All weapons are essentially tools that, until used by a human, are harmless.  Yes there are some that can be dangerous even without human interaction, but for the most part a weapon is only dangerous when a human being uses it.

So to say that a gun isn’t a catalyst for gun violence by comparing it to a eating utensil is simply outrageous.

Why can’t both sides come together and face the simple reality that both guns and mental health are leading factors behind gun violence?

It’s not one or the other—it’s both.  It’s called common sense.  A mentally healthy person doesn’t kill a group of people, nor does a gun spontaneously pop up and commit the same act.  However, when you mix the two, they become very dangerous.

And why is it such a “threat” to gun rights activists to limit the style of guns or magazine sizes?  Like I said before, do you really think you’re overthrowing the United States government with an AR-15 and 30 rounds in a magazine?  If you do—you’re an idiot.  Not to mention a traitor as well.

There’s a reason why certain types of guns are most often used in these mass shootings.  It isn’t a coincidence.  And while there might not be any concrete evidence to say this is why one gun is more dangerous than the other—reality is undeniable.

And I’m sorry, ordinary citizens do not need magazines larger than 10 rounds.  If you need more than that to hunt or defend yourself, you don’t need to own a gun in the first place.

And as far as the “ban all guns” fringe goes — it’s never going to happen and it’s a pointless solution.  Guns are a deep-seated American tradition, protected by the Second Amendment and they’re not going anywhere.  Starting your counter argument with “let’s ban all guns” simply puts you in the same radical category as those who believe guns have nothing to do with gun violence.

So either accept the fact guns are going to be a part of the “American way of life” and find a sensible, common sense approach to dealing with them — or don’t be part of the conversation.  Because quite frankly your side isn’t getting us anywhere productive.

I just don’t get why, when it comes to guns, so many people seem to lose all common sense.  If someone hoards 200 cats they’re insane, but if they own 200 guns they’re a “gun enthusiast.”  If someone wants to get married we need government regulations which define marriage, but any mention of any new government regulation over the purchase of firearms and it’s an “unconstitutional attack on our rights.”

It’s simply astounding.

That’s honestly the biggest reason why we struggle in this country with gun violence — because too many people lack the simple ability to apply common sense when discussing them.

And if we can’t even do that, just how in the hell are we supposed to fix this problem?

Allen Clifton

Allen Clifton is a native Texan who now lives in the Austin area. He has a degree in Political Science from Sam Houston State University. Allen is a co-founder of Forward Progressives and creator of the popular Right Off A Cliff column and Facebook page. Be sure to follow Allen on Twitter and Facebook, and subscribe to his channel on YouTube as well.


Facebook comments

  • Paranormal Skeptic


    We have a winner, right here!

  • zac

    Aside from a few on th finge left, I don’t think many are calling for an absolute ban on guns. However, whenthe fetishists reach out and call for an absolute right to bear whatever arms they want and preach “cold dead hands” rhetoric they force the moderate viewers into a corner and reinforce a radicl view. Common sense and a centrist position should win this debate, but the minority that never stops screaming will win this….

  • Matthew Reece

    “Or the line I love most, ‘If guns are responsible for gun violence then
    spoons are responsibility for obesity.’ Anyone who takes that line
    seriously should be ashamed of themselves. The total ignorance behind
    that statement shows what kind of a short-sighted mental capacity that
    person has, along with a total inability to think critically about

    Ad hominem and ad lapidem are admissions of defeat and ignorance.

    • GL

      Did you read afterwards, Matt? That whole paragraph where he explained why this line of reasoning is so full of holes even Swiss cheese has more solidity than it?

      Let’s face it. If you seriously use that statement, you are, indeed, demonstrating a devastating inability to think critically about anything. It would be like claiming that guns are anti-religion because one of the commandments Moses gave the Israelites in the bible is “Thou shalt not murder”. The line of reasoning is so flawed that if it were a gem, you’d have to grind it to dust to get any use out of it.

    • Pipercat

      The quote, quoted is a false equivalency fallacy in the form of a straw man due to the conditional if. It’s fallacious because the comparison is ridiculous and an obvious non sequitur. GL is correct about the following paragraph, insomuch, as it corrects the fallacy used to discredit the fallacious example. Furthermore, your tag line can be considered ad hominem due your automatic dismissal, i.e. your use of the word ignorance is based on the exact same logic as the writer’s.

      • wilwave

        hey philosophy 101 graduate….address his argument and not the framework .

      • Pipercat

        What argument?

      • GL

        The problem is that his argument is nothing _but_ framework. There is nothing fleshed-out about the argument Pipercat is replying to; it’s a mere skeleton of an argument dressed up in a stuffed suit.

  • Matthew Reece

    “And I’m sorry, ordinary citizens do not need magazines larger than 10
    rounds. If you need more than that to hunt or defend yourself, you
    don’t need to own a gun in the first place.”

    Perhaps 11 or more violent criminals should break into your house.

    • John E. Conway


      • Matthew Reece

        Or just have a magazine as large as you want, because no one has a right to interfere with the logical right of property ownership by banning large magazines.

      • Jonas Miseh

        Sorry but the constitution does not guarantee ” logical right of property”. Perhaps you should brush up on your civics….you can start with the concept of States interest versus individual rights.
        You will find that YES, the state does have the right to interfere with what citizens can posses. There’s a long history of it with Supreme Court decisions.

      • GL

        Not just Supreme Court decisions, Jonas. We have a freaking AMENDMENT TO THE CONSTITUTION as well.

      • Matthew Reece

        The Constitution is not a valid document. The Constitution is a contract signed by 40 men, all of whom are long dead. They had no legitimacy to impose that contract on anyone who did not consent to the terms of that contract, or to bind all future generations under its yoke.

      • GL

        No, you’re thinking of the Declaration of Independence (and that’s 54
        men, by the way). The Constitution is a document that each state’s
        chosen representatives had to join in order to become a part of this
        Union, and which future states will also have to join. Saying that the
        Constitution is not a valid document in terms of legal precedent and
        usage is like saying the Bible is not a valid document in terms of the Christian faith. Not only is it wrong, it shows a fundamental misunderstanding of how societies work.

      • Matthew Reece

        A state does not exist. Each individual person exists. Those representatives had no right to act on behalf of anyone who did not wish to be represented in such a way. You are confusing society with government.

      • Matthew Reece

        Rights do not come from the Constitution, or God, or one’s humanity. A right is valid by logical proof, which is typically constructed by showing that the invalidity of a right leads to contradictions. This proves a right valid by the law of non-contradiction and the law of excluded middle.

        For example, the most fundamental of all logical rights is the right of bodily ownership, to own one’s own body. To argue against this right, one must communicate. To communicate, one must use the body which one can control. One cannot legitimately use that which one does not own. Therefore, to argue against bodily ownership, one must implicitly assume bodily ownership. This is a contradiction, which falsifies the argument. Thus the right of bodily ownership is logically proven.

      • GL

        Ah, but here we go with the problem with that reasoning. “To argue against this right, one must communicate” — in order to communicate, one must agree to a social construct known as language. Otherwise, you’re making meaningless sounds. For instance, if I were to suddenly decide that “Tuesday jigs flophouses” means “I respect your opinion and I wish to learn more”, that doesn’t mean that when I go up to someone on the street who’s saying something and say “Tuesday jigs flophouses” they understand what I mean. In fact, it’s the opposite. They’d look at me like I was insane and, unless they wanted to make sure I was getting treatment, they’d slowly back away.

        The problem with your argument, in other words, is that you’re eliminating the necessity of consensus. Without consensus… well, let’s just say things get hairier than even someone like you, who I suspect is an Anarcho-Objectivist, would find to be a bad situation.

      • Matthew Reece

        Language is not necessary for communication. It just makes things much easier. Even so, having an agreed-upon form of communication does not break the logical chain.

      • Matthew Reece

        The state does not exist. Each individual person exists. Therefore the state cannot have rights; only an individual can have rights.

      • GL

        So, in essence, there is no such thing as society. Each person is an island unto themselves, and only by their own force of arms can they take, protect, or otherwise own property and enforce their ownership of property. Tell you what, if you believe that, why not live without the following benefits of society: The fire department, the police department, roads, any currency system more advanced than barter, language… I can go on.

      • Matthew Reece

        You are ignoring the possibility that such benefits can (and have) been created voluntarily in a free market. Remember that society and government are two different concepts, and that concepts are not entities which have a form in physical reality. The dichotomy between statism and each person as an island is a false one. I am in favor of voluntary agreements between people to accomplish things that one person cannot accomplish alone, but this does not create some new entity.

      • GL

        Actually, it does. By forming an agreement with someone, however temporary, to do something, you are creating an alliance. Or a confederation or a union or whatever you want to call it. The point is, if I may borrow math for a moment, it forms a new set. Now, that set is a subset of humanity, and you are a subset of that set. But because you are not the only subset of that set (in essence, you are not that set’s only element), if that set did not exist, it has been created as a new entity. Even if that set did exist at one point in the past, once it ceased to exist, your set became a new set. That new set is an entity in its own right.

      • Matthew Reece

        The set is a concept, not an entity. It has no independent form in physical reality. There is nothing you can point to and say “this is the set,” because all independent forms are occupied by the individual people in the set. The way that a mathematician uses the word “exist” is not the same as the way that a philosopher uses the word “exist.”

      • GL

        The free market is a concept, not an entity. it has no independent form in physical reality. There is nothing you can point to and say “this is the free market,” because all independent forms are occupied by the individual people in the free market. The way that an economist uses the word “exist” is not the same as the way that a philosopher uses the word “exist.”

        Well then!

      • Matthew Reece

        I agree. The free market is a concept; the idea of each exchange occurring without force, fraud, or coercion.

        As a side note, this is why the validity of macroeconomics is suspect. Each individual transaction is a process; the economy as a whole is not a process independent of the individual transactions.

      • GL

        “Without force, fraud, or coercion”… You’d need some kind of regulation to keep force, fraud, and coercion out of all transactions. Otherwise, it’s all too easy for the people who have the sort of guile to keep from getting caught in fraud, the sort of physical power to force transactions on others, or the sort of psychological skill to coerce others into transactions to use force, fraud, and coercion to get exactly what they want without paying any price. And a pure “free market” system has no place for regulation.

      • Matthew Reece

        Regulations arise spontaneously in a free market. Those who use force, fraud, or coercion would find that no one wants to do business with them until they make restitution for their wrongs. Those who are determined to be menaces would find themselves in a state resembling the Roman punishment of homo sacer or the English punishment of outlawry. As a result, certain behaviors would not occur very often because of the threat of economic excommunication.

      • GL

        I can actually think of one example of something citizens can’t possess
        hard-wired into the Constitution thanks to one of its amendments. The
        Thirteenth Amendment specifically banned US citizens from possessing
        people as property. Before that, I’m pretty sure I could’ve rounded up a crowd of all sorts of people in the South who would’ve argued that banning slavery was “interfering with the logical right of property ownership”.

      • Matthew Reece

        “Before that, I’m pretty sure I could’ve rounded up a crowd of all sorts
        of people in the South who would’ve argued that banning slavery was ‘interfering with the logical right of property ownership'”

        Such arguments were based on an incorrect definition of property. The right of property ownership is a corollary of the right of bodily ownership, therefore it cannot supersede bodily ownership. Thus the right of the plantation owners to own property cannot legitimately supersede the rights of the enslaved to own their own bodies.

      • GL

        The problem with that argument is that the way slavery was structured, a slave had the same rights as an animal, or perhaps a table. Does a cow have the right to own their own body? If so, then I suppose we ought to ban farming, or the domestication of animals, or eating meat. All of which depend on animal-as-property to function.

      • Matthew Reece

        Rights are for sentient beings which are capable (or at least have the potential) of understanding rights. That is where the line is drawn.

      • John E. Conway

        Let us also not forget that no rights are absolute. Even the rights we have that we consider sacred have limits. , such as free speech. There is similar wording in the first amendment baring congress from passing laws limiting it, however it is illegal to lie about someone (libel slander), threaten someone (assault), or incite a riot for example.

      • Matthew Reece

        I have never claimed that rights are absolute. Rights are equally valid for all sentient beings, so one cannot use one’s rights of a certain level to infringe upon the rights of someone else at the same or more fundamental level. By the level of a right, I mean how far removed it is from bodily ownership, the most fundamental logical right and the source of all other logical rights.

  • Matthew Reece

    “Heck, one could argue that any sort of weaponry could be considered an ‘arm,’ couldn’t they? Missiles, tanks, RPG’s, nuclear weapons. Aren’t
    they all ‘arms?’ After all, don’t many of these people feel that ‘guns
    keep our government fearful of its citizens?’”

    Yes, and private citizens should have all of these weapons except for nukes. WMDs are different in that they cannot be used in a targeted manner against individuals or small groups, and are therefore inappropriate for self-defense.

    • gun owners are dumb

      So you dont consider a tank, rpg or grenade to be a weapon of mass destruction? surely it cant devour an entire city like a nuke, but an entire building…sure. if i blew up a building, or better yet, through just 1 grenade at say a bus. wouldn’t you consider that i had just committed a mass murder? so would that be a weapon of mass destruction? i would say your logic is flawed. I dont think an rpg would be appropriate for self defense. It would be hilarious if someone tried to rob me and I whipped out a missile launcher, but not very smart.

      • Matthew Reece

        You don’t need an RPG to deal with a single robber, but it certainly makes it easier to take out an armored vehicle full of people who wish to do you harm. Responsible use is everything, and the reason to rid the planet of WMD is that they have no responsible use on the planet. (We may keep some nukes off-planet somewhere to deal with an incoming asteroid, of course.)

      • Jonas Miseh

        You clearly live in video game land. Try reality.

      • Matthew Reece

        Ad hominem admits defeat and ignorance.

      • Jonas Miseh

        As you respond with ad hominem. Neat!

      • GL

        Matthew, let me ask you something. Do you live in Afghanistan, Iraq, Israel, Syria, Libya, Pakistan, or Egypt? Just named those off the top of my head, that’s a list of places where you’re likely to run into an armored vehicle full of people who wish to do you harm. You know what armored vehicles in the US are generally filled with? Either soldiers or money. And unless you’re actively fighting the US government or actively trying to rob the money delivery truck, neither the soldiers nor the people guarding the money are your enemy. And if either of those are the case, well then, looks like you just turned into one of those criminals you claim to want to defend yourself against.

      • Matthew Reece

        The state is a criminal enterprise, so fighting against it would not be criminal.

      • GL

        No, the state is a necessary function of a social structure that has evolved beyond the stage of “Each person is a society unto themselves.” If everyone in a group is the leader, then nothing gets done.

      • Matthew Reece

        “The state is necessary” is a positive claim, so it carries a burden of proof. Prove it.

      • GL

        You do realize that it’s impossible to prove a positive, right? You can say “All crows are black” all you want and provide all the proof you want, but you haven’t proven it, and a single crow that’s not black disproves you. Science knows this, and we accept things as proven because we haven’t been able to disprove them. The evidence all fits. The burden of proof is, in fact, on disproving the positive — in essence, one must prove the negative, or disprove the positive (that’s how things are proved in mathematics and proven in science). So the burden of proof is actually on you. Your move.

      • Matthew Reece

        Wrong. Science does not work like logic.

    • Jonas Miseh

      JRR Troll-ken in da house.

      • GL

        Actually, I’m not entirely sure about the troll bit. I think he’s just an angry conservative.

      • Pipercat

        Matthew leans to the extreme Libertarian side of things. I truly believe he is a solipsist.

      • Matthew Reece

        I am a free market anarchist. I am not a solipsist because that position is unfalsifiable.

      • GL

        On the other hand, so is just about any position. One could argue that solipsism is actually the _least_ unfalsifiable of systems because Descartes managed to get it out ex nihilo. Admittedly, after that he added God and he built the entire world, but… looking at it from a purely logical viewpoint, “Cogito, ergo sum” is probably the most easily-proven statement when starting from zero baseline assumptions.

  • TimSPC

    “You have the far left which screams for a ban on all guns”

    Stopped reading right there.

    • Courtney

      Thanks for letting us all know, I may have lost sleep tonight otherwise.

    • glebec

      Yep. I am pretty far left – and so are my guns. Being left leaning means that I can read and think and know dang well that my guns are not in jeopardy. It also means that there is almost zero chance of them harming anyone because I take very, very serious safety precautions and don’t act all “tough” with or around them or anyone else’s guns. I also don’t talk about them all the time because I don’t need to be known as a gun nut to be respected. I am respected for the quality of my thinking and the contributions I make to my community.

  • gun owners are retarded

    the problem with the 2nd amendment is people are either so dumb or flat out ignore what the word amendment means. The right to bear arms needs amended. I am all for banning guns to anyone that doesnt need it in the duty of their job. hunting is a stupid sport, usually engaged by stupid people. seriously, anyone that thinks “killing” is fun or should be a past time, is a fucking psycho and has failed to evolve.

    • GL

      What about people who actually go hunting for food? Yes, I’m aware that you can get food from the supermarket, but I know several people who hunt because it gets them good food, albeit not without its costs (butchers aren’t necessarily cheap). It’s not merely sport. It’s a way of life with a long and rich tradition in these United States. Now, does that mean we need to have someone hunting a deer with a shotgun, or firing 30 rounds at some doe to help keep down deer populations where they’ve grown out of control? No, because if you need 30 rounds to kill a deer, you have no business holding that gun.

      • glebec

        If we base national laws on the varying preferences of every “several” people we will never be able to co-exist. I and many more than “several” people would like to see a whole of changes in the laws to make our lives more livable – and we don’t have a chance. Why should the “several” that you know control the lives of the rest of us when me and my “many” don’t?

      • GL

        I’m just talking about people I know. I also know for a fact that many Wisconsinites go hunting on a regular basis, and in Wisconsin, at least, they provide bounties on deer (I believe it’s on female deer) in order to decrease the surplus population (yes, I’m aware that I’m using that particular phrase at Christmas time, but I’m not talking about a human surplus, I’m talking about an amount of deer in excess of what the environment can support).

    • Kinneroth

      Ok. Let’s say we ban everyone from hunting. Well that would lead to another problem. Over population of animals that no longer have an abundance of their natural predator, because Americans were pretty naive, and over hunted big cats, coyote and wolves. So now you have deer, or other large herbivores, with very little to keep them from breeding on a very large scale. This means they use up their food source in the wild, and turn to the nearest food source available. Anything on farms, or possibly whatever they can find in urban settings. So now we have animals eating up resources that humans need to survive, and possibly getting sick from eating things not appropriate for them in urban settings. That means those animals will most likely die, and their carcass will lie around for stray animals to eat, which might kill them if the animal was really sick. That can then lead to serious infections. So now we can’t do anything about it, because hunting is not allowed. Yes, the situation I’ve described is very extreme, but that’s a very real possibility, when there’s not much out there to keep animal population in check. Plus, there are many people who’s personal beliefs won’t let them eat anything they don’t hunt and/or grow themselves.

    • modera8

      “Hunting is a stupid sport, usually engaged (IN) by stupid people” – not true. I think football, basketball, baseball, hockey – pretty much all sports – are a horrible waste of time, but I understand that not everyone who enjoys them is stupid. Don’t pass such quick judgment, you’re showing your own lack of intelligence or maturity (or both). Also, be very careful with your wording when you call others stupid. When you can’t write proper English, looks like you’re the pot calling the kettle black.

  • Michael Siever

    Conservative Logic 101:

    “Gun control doesn’t work, because criminals and gangs will get their guns off the black market anyways. Sure, many people are murdered with legally-purchased firearms every year, but you just punish law-abiding citizens with gun control, so we must never take that route.”

    “Abortion is murder and it’s bad. If we ban it, we’ll stop abortion from ever taking place in this country. It’s not like women are going into back alleys and having them performed with coat hangers or whatnot. Plus, it will help us get the votes of the religious right/pro-life crowd, so yeah, let’s ban abortion.”

    My brain is so full of f***!

  • Pandalishus

    “The Gun Debate: Why Does it Seem to Render People Incapable of Using Common Sense?”

    Asked myself the same thing after reading this.

  • xnerd

    Look no one wants to ban guns, if you have even half a brain you know that, that will never happen in this country.

    Im a gun owner. Mostly long arms, shotguns, vintage and new but a couple of handguns as well.

    Im going to tell you a little story about my ex wife. Been divorced about 7 years now. She was in and out of mental institutions for treatment of schizoaffective disorder among other things. She from time to time would talk about getting a handgun. She was never forcibly institutionalized so no judges order was ever put her away. I used to have to tell her that it was all on record so she would not be eligible for a handgun. It was a lie and she eventually found out that all she has to do is lie on the from and no one would ever know.. Thats the way it stands now! To my knowledge she has never gotten one YET. God help whoever she would feel was out to get her if she ever does.

    The very thought is terrifying because she is in actuality a very kind and gentle person. If she had a handgun I have no doubt that sooner (not later) she would kill someone or herself.

    Just think about all of the sick people out there……

    Anyone that would argue against comprehensive background checks needs to never vote again.

    • Brian Daugherty

      Thank you for having a brain and common sense. We need more true Responsible gun owners like you out there.

    • Charles Vincent

      The Feinstien AWB sought to outright ban 200 common use firearms and accessories something that DC v Heller explicitly said was unconstitutional that’s 200 weapons that are taken via a ban that’s taking guns from people.

      • xnerd

        I read the bill and you are incorrect. the Bill require that those weapons be forfeited and destroyed upon the owners’ deaths, not turned over.

        Also, most of the weapons characteristics were already banned in 1994. Reagan enacted an almost identical bill….

      • Charles Vincent

        It also forbade purchase of new weapons by anyone that’s taking common use weapons and accessories from law abiding citizens.

        Reagan signed the Brady bill that gave us the current model of background check.

        And DC v Heller nullifies any future AWB because they are common use. Learn to read the whole story instead of picking the parts you can spin.

  • mom of teens

    I agree with what you are saying, I just don’t agree with the way you are saying it. If you want people from either “side” to see reason and meet in the middle, than yelling at them and calling them “idiots” or “traitors” is not the way to do it. You, most likely, lost half your readers when they read those words. The voice of reason that is heard is usually the calm voice that is free of insults and antagonism.

    • Lauren Linden

      I understand how abrasive language might be a turn-off and counterproductive in presenting a case, but regarding this topic it’s somewhat warranted. Considering how many lives have already been lost, and how many of those were cut way too short by senseless gun violence, it would seem the time for talk and playing nice and going “too bad, so sad” while nothing changes after each gun-related tragedy is long past. We need comprehensive action and for people to not be afraid to ask the hard questions and “go there”.

      Now on that note I somewhat agree that calling people idiots is more likely to get people to shut down than to listen to one’s argument but, as we’ve seen countless times, the soft approach is far from effective on what is anything but a soft issue.

  • Charles Vincent

    “More specifically, the access to the guns. Which is something that
    would be helped by expanding background checks—something Republicans gleefully blocked earlier this year.”

    They blocked Universal background checks. We already have background checks via the Brady bill. It would be more accurate to say they blocked expanded background checks.

    “Why can’t both sides come together and face the simple reality that both guns and mental health are leading factors behind gun violence?”

    I submit the article written by Regina Garson on this very site shows how drugs are a bigger factor in the mass shootings than the guns and a more worthy thing to discuss.

    Tools cannot assault people or commit violent acts this is only achievable by people period. We are not seeking to ban swords or knives or any other weapon just firearms. Why? Because they are a better tool?

    Let us explore the definition of assault and violence and self defense.

    1. a sudden, violent attack; onslaught: an assault on tradition.
    2. Law. an unlawful physical attack upon another; an attempt or offer to do violence to another, with or without battery, as by holding a stone or club in a threatening manner.
    3. Military. the stage of close combat in an attack.
    4. rape1.
    verb (used with object)
    5. to make an assault upon; attack; assail.

    1. swift and intense force: the violence of a storm.
    2. rough or injurious physical force, action, or treatment: to die by violence.
    3. an unjust or unwarranted exertionof force or power, as against rights or laws: to take over a government by violence.
    4. a violent act or proceeding.
    5. rough or immoderate vehemence, as of feeling or language: the violence of his hatred.

    self-de·fense [self-di-fens, self-]
    1. the act of defending one’s person when physically attacked, as by countering blows or overcoming an assailant: the art of self-defense.
    2. a claim or plea that the use of force or injuring or killing another was necessary in defending one’s own person from physical attack: He shot the man who was trying to stab him and pleaded self-defense at the murder trial.
    3. an act or instance of defending or protecting one’s own interests, property, ideas, etc., as by argument or strategy.

    “Heck, one could argue that any sort of weaponry could be considered an
    “arm,” couldn’t they? Missiles, tanks, RPG’s, nuclear weapons. Aren’t
    they all “arms?” After all, don’t many of these people feel that “guns
    keep our government fearful of its citizens?””

    Let us dissect this in terms of the definitions above.

    ” Missiles, tanks, RPG’s” would fit into the militia as weapons for defense against either our own government or a foreign invader, along with traditional fire arms like the AR-15 etc… i.e. if someone is attacking me from an armored vehicle I might need an RPG to aid my in defense against the force levied against me.

    “nuclear weapons” This notion of people carrying a nuclear device for self defense is completely absurd, this line of thought is obfuscatory in nature as it promotes mutually assured destruction not self defense.

    In closing if you truly want to solve violence then examine the variable that causes the violence, humans are that variable, and there are variables in side that variable like psychotropic drugs and mental illness.

  • Tillmann Puschka

    America (and its citizenry) isn’t nearly mature enough to responsibly handle the lax (pretty much nonexistent) gun laws that exist there. For one, you have a society that is quite violence-prone (ESPECIALLY for a so-called “Christian” nation), and you can go ahead and attribute that aspect of your society to the huge gaps in wealth between your haves and have-nots- many of whom are too stupid to vote for the representatives most likely to have their interests at heart. Another pressing issue is that of racism- it runs rampant in your society, and those for whom racism is a way of life are the ones who aren’t even remotely aware that it is still very much alive (they’re typically the ones who are offended when you call them on it). Combine these two aspects of American life and throw in the bullshit about the “American Dream” and how anyone can achieve it if only they’d work hard enough, and there you have it- a selfish, violence-prone, winner-take-all society that has no business WHATSOEVER making guns so easily and freely available to its aggressive, irrational, and often hateful, greedy, and jealous subjects.

    As long as you allow these problems to fester in your society while encouraging firearm ownership based on a relatively ancient (and obviously misunderstood) doctrine from nearly three centuries ago, bloody massacres like this most recent one at LAX and all of its predecessor massacres will continue to plague your society and increase even more in frequency. Every single mass shooter you’ve ever heard of in America was a “responsible gun owner” before going on his/her respective shooting spree (I mention ‘she’ because of the looney tunes female Biology professor at the U. Alabama a few years ago who didn’t receive her tenure and pulled out a gun and shot and killed some folks right there in the tenure meeting). In every single mass shooting, the shooter obtained his/her firearms in a completely legal manner, within the scope of the weak gun laws that govern the purchasing of firearms in the U.S. When you live under conditions such as those in America that can eventually drive you over the edge, the last thing you need is uninhibited access to firearms.

    So tell me- who among the rest of you “responsible” gun owners in America shall be the next amok runner who goes on a wild shooting spree? Who ya gonna go and shoot up when you finally snap? Your wife and kids? Perhaps the neighborhood Kroger, Wal Mart, or Starbucks? Maybe your church one Sunday morning?

    Better get this under control, folks.

  • MrWereman

    Hell, if I were a politician I would occupy the compromising ground on this. 1) no ban on anything, 2) no registration for guns (to keep zealots from being freaked out that Obama is coming fer teh gunz”… Plus it’s pointless, 3) universal background checks and basic competency tests prior to FIRST purchase. Sure, there would be weird instances of people not being able to get them but a LOT more of people with psychological disorders or grossly not being able to safely operate one NOT getting guns.
    4) and obviously… Stop subsidizing the defense and weapons industries with taxpayers money… They’re successful enough getting people afraid to talk to their own neighbors to make them want to buy guns in the first place.

  • dslaby

    If you think that wanting background checks to limit gun ownership is extreme, just think how extreme being shot dead is.

    The Constitution was amended 27 times; it was wrong about slavery and denying women the right to vote, among other shortcomings. When the Constitution is wrong, it is the right of the people to change it.

    The 2nd Amendment, designed to prevent the return of British Colonial rule, and prevent the decimation of an slave based economy by suppressing escape and revolt, and enable genocide of the American Indians to confiscate their land, now functions as the lynchpin for the overthrow of the American Republic by intimidation and reprisals of elected officials all to the benefit of an arms industry that stands to profit from the militarization of the population. The Constitution places the President as the Commander of Chief of the state militias when called into national service, and provides Congress with the power to call up the state militia to put down insurgency. Use of the state militias to suppress the Whiskey Rebellion against federal taxation in 1791 during the Presidency of Washington is the first example refuting the NRA and GOA claim that self-appointed militias have a right to overthrow the government if the disgruntled vigilante groups disapprove of majority decisions.

    Like slavery before it, gun control from pistols to nukes is the abolitionist movement of the 21st Century; 2nd Amendment: change it or repeal it.

  • MrB

    I have a friend who said he was happy to allow his children to be targets to prevent any regulation of the ownership of guns.