Danger with a gun in hand

[RetiredUSNChief]

This is the title to a recent letter to the editor in The Virginian-Pilot. Here's the content:

The latest spate of shootings leaves many people wondering why we are not discussing the need for more stringent gun-control laws. Of course, the gun enthusiasts and the National Rifle Association will continue to cry that criminals will always find a way to buy guns, no matter what laws are put into effect. While that mantra is true, the fact is that criminals are not committing these senseless massacres, such as the Aurora, Colo., theater shooting, the Virginia Tech shooting, Columbine, the Sikh temple, and on and on and on.

These shootings were committed by 'law-abiding' citizens who happened to have psychological issues. We do not need gun-control laws to protect us from criminals; we need gun-control laws to protect us from law-abiding citizens.

Source: http://hamptonroads.com/2012/08/danger-gun-hand


I know the subject of gun-control laws has come up repeatedly here, but this particular article jumped out to me because of the closing statement...the part I put in bold.

This was the first time I have actually seen in writing any kind of statement which boldly proclaimed a need for "gun-control laws to protect us from law-abiding citizens". All other articles I've ever read only alluded to this indirectly, requiring people to read between the lines in order to arrive at this not-so-hidden message.

Politicians usually stay away from such bold statements, because the backlash is strong against it. It's politically good to address such issues with respect to criminals, to child safety, and accidents; and political doom to address it with respect to law-abiding citizens.

But this lady is not a politician...she's an ordinary citizen, like the rest of us. She would appear to be a prime example of someone to whom Ben Franklin was speaking of when he said that anyone who would trade liberty for security deserves neither liberty nor security. And, despite the gains made in the last two or three decades, the numbers of such people are growing.

As a conversation on this topic, how would you go about continuing to secure our right to keep and bear arms over the long term?

I'm not talking about people-bashing for their pro-gun control beliefs. Remember, not all of these people are "out to take away our rights": some of these people honestly don't know of any better way to deter such acts than by gun-control laws. I'm talking about ultimately maintaining the right to keep and bear arms, through thick and thin as the years and decades pass us by, even though some people would have us give up that right.

Let's hear your ideas.

 

[Esoxchaser]

We have 312,000,000 people in this country, give or take a couple million. Every few years a screwball or two go on a nut and shoot the place up. They never do it in a place where people that may be capable of defending themselves may be, but where their victims have been disarmed.

Chicago, Washington DC, New York, and Aurora CO all prime examples of how various forms of gun control only works to disarm the law abiding. Those intent upon doing others harm will do so, and they prefer to prey upon those who can;t defent themselves..

 

[RetiredUSNChief]

This is true. But how does that knowledge translate into fortifying our second amendment right in the long term?

 

[ArfinGreebly]

Oh, wow.

I have a brilliant idea!

Let's suffocate every newborn child and eliminate even the remotest possibility of anyone growing up to become a criminal.

That way we will all be totally protected and crime will have been totally prevented.

Hmmm. There may be a downside to that. Let me think . . .


Okay, here's a better idea: we'll put all the law abiding citizens in jail so they can't turn into criminals and go on killing sprees.

Hmmm. That seems to have some kinks in it as well.


Hey, I've got it, we'll make a whole bunch of laws that nobody can avoid breaking, and that way everyone will be a criminal, and we don't have to worry about "law abiding citizen" violence any more.


Brilliant!

 

[doc2rn]

Chief the solution is pretty simple, eliminate the gun free zones. Make everybody do 2 yrs of service, like in some European countries, upon completion of which they can then purchase firearms and ammunition. In essence make their DL their CCW, only revocable by a court of your peers.

 

[Deltaboy1984]

YEP Gun free zones are free fire zones for nuts.

 

[gym]

Good thoughts but not likelly to become actions.
I think a "draft" in some hybrid form would go far in as far as teaching some of these young folks a little resposibility and teamwork. It also would show them that you only get a trophy for winning, not just showing up. But the education system is so out of wack it may have to be torn down before you cand fix it.
Secondlly as mentioned, once in a while one of the millions of crazys is going to go off the reservation, there isn't much you can do about that. It will happen from time to time. Best offense is a good defense. Another reason to teach our youth the value of serving our country.They may feel more ownership if they actually participated in keeping it safe.

 

[Mobuck]

Since when is being a murderer not a criminal act? The premeditation part of these criminal acts takes one out of the choir boy profile.

 

[longdayjake]

When did they make murder legal? Last I checked, you can't be a law abiding citizen and a murderer at the same time. Nor can you further a plan to murder people. That is against the law as well. Typical of people of the same political mindset of this guy to think of criminals as people who get caught breaking the law and law abiding citizens as people who break the law but don't get caught.

 

[scaatylobo]

If/When

When guns are outlawed,only outlaws will have guns.

AND that will turn a huge count of lawful citizens into outlaws.

If you doubt that fact,look back at prohibition and see how many decent citizens broke the law and drank AND made hooch in their bathtubs.

I pray that does not happen.

 

[Owen Sparks]

Crime is an action. not a tool.

 

[buckhorn_cortez]

Rather than outlawing guns, let's outlaw bad behavior - that would be equally as effective.

 

[Deaf Smith]

Ever since Cain and Abel people have wonder how to stop crime but never ever have they achieved zero crime rates except where everyone had died.

Realistically you can't stop 100 percent of the crime without a 100 percent police state and even then Russia and China never achieved it so it's doubtful it can be done no matter how much freedom is taken in return for the 'safety' promised.

But what can be done?

Well back in the '50s people who had mental problems were institutionalized. Unfortunately some shrinks felt the way to stop those with profound problems was to lobotomized them. Yes it was a horror show that needed to be stopped. BUT the pendulum swung to far and many a person who was insane but not deemed a 'threat' to themselves or others were released. Hence the number of 'homeless' people.

So many a person with schizophrenia were releases as well as others. And if one is diagnosed with schizophrenia that does not mean automatic institutionalization.

I feel anyone diagnosed as schizophrenia or other potentially dangerous conditions should be at the minimum in the NICS database for instant background checks. They should also have a due process way to object to their being on that list but they should be on it!

And if diagnosed with schizophrenia they should be INSTITUTIONALIZED until considered cured!!!

That would cut down mass killings by nuts far more than banning guns for you see, before guns were 'invented' nut jobs used fire, as in arson, for mass killings as well as sword attacks.

Don't ban inanimate things, ban the nuts that cause those things.

Deaf

 

[bikerdoc]

Chief I saw that piece and bet my retirement against yours my rebuttal wont get printed.
Like mobuck said thet crossed the line to criminal when they began to execute the premeditated plan. I pointed out all The perps were all known to the broken mental health system.
I also believe that lady was not an ordinary citizen but a cognitive infiltrator for some group.
As for the future of our rights, we , collectively must reach out and rebut, reeducate, or simply invite shooting every anti or fencesitter we can. Start with our own families and friends. Take that video playing, nephew to the range. Teach him the 4 rules, make him safe and put a 22 in his hand. Watch the smile.
We are the future, we can create the future, but first we got to get off the couch. Get our facts straight and talk intelligent, We are missionaries or ambassadors or mentors or whatever label you want. One at a time.
Thats how I see it anyway.
YMMV

 

[tobenheim]

This mental illness thing can be a slippery slope. Millions of Americans every year are treated for clinical depression. With counseling and medication many of them beat depression and lead full and productive lives. Would you consider anyone who had clinical depression anytime in this past unfit to posses a firearm? I'm not trying to be a jerk here. I am genuinely curious about where you would draw the line for people mentally unfit to own a weapon. Also, how would you determine that eligibility or lack thereof. Would it be purely self reporting?

 

[ConstitutionCowboy]

Law abiding citizens? BAH! All those shooters had intent to do harm. They just hadn't acted and weren't caught yet. That's why we ALL need guns, carry them EVERYWHERE, and ALWAYS!

Being prepared to meet such violence with equal or overwhelming force is the only way to deal with these people.

Those who have already demonstrated they can't be trusted with arms can't be trusted out in society - armed or not! Arms cannot effectively be kept out of the hands of violent criminals, ergo, the criminals hands need to be kept away from arms. If not executed, prison is the next best thing.

Until total mind control is achieved, there is no other way. Period.

Woody

 

[barnbwt]

These shootings were committed by 'law-abiding' citizens who happened to have psychological issues.

But I thought criminals were the ones with mental and emotional issues brought on by their low station in life?

It seems like there's two kinds of people:

-Those who seek improvement by changing themselves,
-And those who seek improvement by changing everything but themselves

I don't know what possesses someone to think that it is more practical to attempt to change every other person in a bid to improve their own situation, instead of taking the problem into their own hands and dealing with it. Neither forcing everyone to carry arms, nor banning them is an intelligent or practical solution.

People just need to realize their security is ultimately their own responsibility, and no one elses. They can then choose whether to defend themselves or not, and in whatever way they wish. And all without interfering with their fellow man's responsibilities.

We do not need gun-control laws to protect us from criminals; we need gun-control laws to protect us from law-abiding citizens.

Soccer mom, hippy, or whatever. This person is a domesticated animal. The kind of pathetic soul who yearns (in vain) everyday for an omniscient authority to deliver them from the uncertainty of life and their own incompetence. The kind of citizen who has enabled every terrible act of governance throughout history. The reason liberty tends continually toward oppression. Fascist, Communist, Socialist, or Zealot; they are all the product of the same kind of populace.

Once a person reaches that state, they have completely ceased to think for themselves, so they are beyond convincing. Their entire world view is defined by the narrow lens of an oblivious bureaucracy; they cannot face life without them. Hopefully this writer is not that far gone, and just made a reprehensible statement because they thought it sounded clever.

Some people find religion, others find governance. A "religion" with imperfect "gods" as corrupt, petty, and capricious as those from Greco-Roman times.

TCB

 

[akodo]

clearly we need a better way of detecting those who are seriously mentally disturbed.

In Cologne Germany in the 1960's there was a school 'shooting' where the attacker was denied guns, so he took a garden type pesticide spray, filled it with gas and added a small lighter to the tip. He created a flame thrower and went about roasting students and teachers.

The guy who shot up the batman movie made elaborate booby traps. If he had been denied guns he would have gone in lobbing pipe-bombs, or concocted some other weapon.

No, this isn't a gun issue. This is a failure to detect crazy people issue.

 

[mnrivrat]

These shootings were committed by 'law-abiding' citizens who happened to have psychological issues.

No ! They were NOT commited by "law-abiding" citizens. By the very nature of the action, they became criminals.

If you want to try to regulate society by saying that every law abiding citizen is one act away from being a criminal, then just how does that work ? Do we then treat all citzens like criminals ?

But this lady is not a politician...she's an ordinary citizen, like the rest of us.

Because this lady has the hardware to commit the crime of prostitution , does that mean we have to regulate her access to that in some way ?

 

[CSC_Saint]

I agree with Tobenheim, the mental illness is a very slippery slope. Even conditions such a schizophrenia can be controlled under monitoring. Then you have HIPA laws to get around or change in order to "register', almost comparably like a sex-offender. The argument could be made that because someone has or has been diagnosed with a mental condition(btw, would severe PTSD fall into that?) then they are to be unable to provide for themselves the tools to enable self-preservation that everyone else is entitled to. So because of no fault of their own, they are no longer in the same class of citizenship as the rest of Americans? Mental illness and guns is a touchy subject for many, myself included as I have some pretty severe PTSD, but I still stand proudly in the belief that I am and will always be a sheepdog. So for the sake of argument and those law-abiding citizens who have a mental condition, there are those that regardless of what ails them, they stand ready to do violence on behalf of those who sleep peaceably at night, so they will not have to know or face the horrors of the human condition.

 

[RaceM]

Bottom line here is to stop depending on others for your safety or protection. Either carry (legally or illegally), learn unarmed combat skills, or just plain grow a pair.

Depending on the government or its minions to detect and/or deter the nuts is foolish. Look at who's running things. Our safety is up to us as individuals.

 

[ArfinGreebly]

clearly we need a better way of detecting those who are seriously mentally disturbed.

In Cologne Germany in the 1960's there was a school 'shooting' where the attacker was denied guns, so he took a garden type pesticide spray, filled it with gas and added a small lighter to the tip. He created a flame thrower and went about roasting students and teachers.

The guy who shot up the batman movie made elaborate booby traps. If he had been denied guns he would have gone in lobbing pipe-bombs, or concocted some other weapon.

No, this isn't a gun issue. This is a failure to detect crazy people issue.

And I'm almost going to agree with you.

It is less a "failure to detect" crazy people, and more a "deliberate manufacture of" crazy people.

If you remove the traditional vehicles of morality, insert the State as parent, lie to the students about history, science, and anything having to do with right & wrong, and preach to them that they are important, they are special, they are not responsible, and that they deserve whatever they want, you will eventually harvest a generation of slothful, confused, self-important, criminally irresponsible folk who have no clue about life, how it works, and what has to be done to sustain it, but who will be convinced that somebody owes them a living.

And that right there is a recipe for a dramatic rise in psychotic breaks.

Failure to detect? Why bother? We've put the machinery in place to ensure a bumper crop of them.

Of course, it's so terrible what "society" has done to these poor souls. We (the State) must take care of them. ALL of them. They will be lost without us.

And we must protect them from everything. Guns, knives, harsh words . . . quick -- bring me that stack of proposed laws -- I think we forgot to outlaw harsh words.

 

[labhound]

You're not a law abiding citized if you kill someone, you a criminal. Secondly, everyone assumes that the mass shooters are somehow all crazy and we must find a way to detect them. I think it makes us all feel better if we write them off a crazy and assume society has failed them. There are a lot of evil people in this world that are perfectly sane. They will kill you, stop by Mickey D's, get a meal, go home and watch Monday Night football and never give it a second thought. Gun control laws ultimate effect is to deny the people a way to protect themselves. There has never been a law written that prevented a crime. Laws don't prevent crime, they just give our local, state and federal government a means to prosecute those that break the law.

 

[catinthebat]

I'm with ArfinGreebly on this. Can't take any chances.

 

[RetiredUSNChief]

And I'm almost going to agree with you.

It is less a "failure to detect" crazy people, and more a "deliberate manufacture of" crazy people.

If you remove the traditional vehicles of morality, insert the State as parent, lie to the students about history, science, and anything having to do with right & wrong, and preach to them that they are important, they are special, they are not responsible, and that they deserve whatever they want, you will eventually harvest a generation of slothful, confused, self-important, criminally irresponsible folk who have no clue about life, how it works, and what has to be done to sustain it, but who will be convinced that somebody owes them a living.

And that right there is a recipe for a dramatic rise in psychotic breaks.

Failure to detect? Why bother? We've put the machinery in place to ensure a bumper crop of them.

Of course, it's so terrible what "society" has done to these poor souls. We (the State) must take care of them. ALL of them. They will be lost without us.

And we must protect them from everything. Guns, knives, harsh words . . . quick -- bring me that stack of proposed laws -- I think we forgot to outlaw harsh words.

Out of all the responses so far, this one strikes a chord.

It seems to me that personal responsibility is what's lacking in many of the social ills which plague us, this topic being just one of them.

Would that the idea of personal responsibility and accountability were something we emphasized more in the various venues of a person's upbringing. And things like honor and integrity.

One would think that we could institute a long term campaign to influence the next couple generations...lay the foundations for a fundamental change in these characteristics.

It's not as if such long term campaigns haven't been/are not used for other things. TV shows, movies, ads, cartoons, magazines...an indirect and subtle shift in the undercurrents to swing society back the other way.