tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3708610971630541261.post7408136242778619573..comments2023-03-15T06:42:09.696-05:00Comments on Slam the Gavel: Seeking a Solution to ViolenceMatt Hornsbyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11993284549487284133noreply@blogger.comBlogger3125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3708610971630541261.post-77546584434017912012-12-17T23:22:00.980-06:002012-12-17T23:22:00.980-06:00I can't buy into the militia argument - you...I can't buy into the militia argument - you've got a long way to go if the idea for private ownership is to compete with the armed forces. That may have worked when the 2nd Amendment was penned; in our modern times, the argument not only falls flat but borders on the absurd. Unless, of course, you know how to make several thousand tanks or F-16s for yourself? <br /><br />My point is this: why do you say "or" (2nd paragraph)? Your language creates a false choice; either the government can act or it can "address the problem." Can't *part of* the problem be addressed by the government? Or are your choices mutually exclusive, as you suggest when you use the word "or"?<br /><br />There is no solution to violence; no one is saying that more gun control will make all people behave peaceably. But even though its not a solution, don't all of us have an interest in reducing the number of victims? I try to think of another crime and see if the logic holds. People rob banks. People are always going to rob banks, can't change that. What can we do to reduce the impact of that crime. Well, the government could decide to regulate how much money is stored at banks at any given time. If there is only $100,000 instead of $1,000,000 to potentially steal, while you haven't (can't) reduce the number of bank robberies, you can reduce the impact. Using the same thought process, would you say that the regulation of the amount of money is pointless because it doesn't reduce the number of bank robberies? <br /><br />There is something peculiar about how guns are regarded in our American psyche. We are infatuated with them. We have 5% of the worlds population, and 50% of the guns. I was hosting a discussion group where I posed the question: should Christians carry firearms into church? One the participants asked one of his UK friends what he thought. The guy couldn't understand the question - the notion of open-carry was completely foreign to him, even more so into a church. He laughed at the thought that this was something of real debate here in the states (and especially in the South.) Other countries don't deal with these kind of shootings like we have to here in the USA? What is that about?<br /><br />The thought that our gun-saturated culture (which can accurately be described as abnormal on the world stage) has nothing to do with these shootings is shortsighted.<br />RevRossReddickhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14772794227951737596noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3708610971630541261.post-46228960923727675972012-12-17T20:45:03.790-06:002012-12-17T20:45:03.790-06:00Guns are certainly more efficient at killing, whet...Guns are certainly more efficient at killing, whether in "acceptable" situations, like law enforcement and war or in "unacceptable" situations like crime. So you are right on that account. If these crimes would have been committed with knives fewer would have died, most likely. But the realty is that technology will always be birthing more advanced and more deadly weaponry. Countless countries have seen their citizenry slaughtered throughout time because only the army had access to resources and weapons. I know we don't typically think of our government as being the type to turn on its citizens with violence, but the time could come when we can't say that. I'm not suggesting that 50 years from now we should all have access to laser beam guns, but I'm not comfortable with citizens being prevented from defending themselves from whomever may threaten. <br /><br />The bottom line for me is that the government can react to these terrible crimes by legislating away availability of guns, or it can address the true problem. Is it really a solution to say, "fine go commit your crime, but just use a knife to do it so we can minimize the number of victims"? <br /><br />When you buy a gun, your criminal record is checked, and I believe your mental health record, if any, is checked. I know it is when you apply for a concealed carry permit. If we are more proactive in that area, those people can't get guns. I support that. A longer wait period didn't prevent Friday's act. My understanding is that he used his mother's guns and didn't even have to obtain his own. Beyond a total prohibition, which will not happen, I'm not sure what could prevent these acts. You said it best when you called for better education and mental health awareness. Matt Hornsbyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11993284549487284133noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3708610971630541261.post-75885609391471474022012-12-17T20:04:57.356-06:002012-12-17T20:04:57.356-06:00I completely agree with the call to more awareness...I completely agree with the call to more awareness of the signs of mental distress. But I do have some other comments.<br /><br />You make the claim that mass killings have always been around, to which I agree. But aren't these kinds of shootings (Newtown, Aurora, Virginia Tech, Columbine, etc) different. If you disregard mass death that happens in wars, I find it hard to name many mass killings that have occurred at the hands of a single individual (Jim Jones is the only one to come to mind at present.) I think we can agree that killings that happen in war are categorically different than the aforementioned type of violence. <br /><br />While it may be true that other weapons have numerically killed more people, I'm not sure that fun fact has any relevance. I would presume the leading cause of death throughout history would be malnourishment of some kind. Does that mean we don't deal with other things that cause death? No.<br /><br />I agree that you can't blame mass shootings on the weapons alone. But I can blame the combination of weapons and people. I agree that guns don't kill people; its people *with guns* that kill people. We have to address both parts of that equation. The people; which you've argued for here, but also the guns.<br /><br />Yes, a person bent on killing can find any number of ways to do so without guns. So here's my question…why do they always use guns instead of other things? <br /><br />Isn't it because guns are a distinct kind of weapon. Guns aren't like swords in that guns can be used from a 'safe' distance to kill another. Guns aren't like knives in that that guns kill in a rapid fashion. Guns aren't like other weapons. Severals adult could overpower a person with a knife, maybe only one or two would die in the fight. A person with a gun can kill as many people as he/she wants, only limited by the amount of ammo at hand.<br /><br />Now, I agree. The answer isn't *just about controlling guns better. But I think anyone who says that better gun safety and regulations CANNOT be *part of the answer has some priority issues; ones that I am willing to debate, but ones I don't think can be defended adequately.RevRossReddickhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14772794227951737596noreply@blogger.com