Fox News vs. mental stability

[Condor]

To be honest? I don't feel safe being around someone with an assault rifle slung around their neck if they aren't in a uniform. I have no idea who the guy is. Why would I trust him enough to be comfortable with that? I have to agree with the principle of random citizens being barred from bringing firearms to any type of legislative building. Who knows what asshole is going to walk into a place and start shooting? Whose rights are they violating? Mine. It's violating my right to freedom, because as long as someone is standing in front of me with a gun, I'm not free. I'm restricted to what they allow me.

I cannot abide someone standing behind an misinterpreted clause on a bit of paper no longer applies to the modern world. It's misguided, misinformed, and antiquated. The world has evolved beyond that, and the laws need to catch up. This is not to say that I'm supportive of gun control laws one way or the other. It doesn't mean that I don't believe an individual has a right to protect his/herself. It means I'm against any citizen, anywhere having the ability to walk into a place carrying an assault rifle, pistol or musket where the officials that I have elected are holding court.

It means I'm against anyone having the ability to carry a weapon in public. Period. I agree that citizens should have the right to bear arms, but the purpose is to maintain a militia to keep their governing body in check, not to go to the grocery store with a 9mm in the small of their back because they have a concealed carry license. Those people represent as much of a danger to me as the drug dealer on the corner with his 9mm.

I think it's a blatant misreading of an outmoded "law" which was drafted in a very different world, and it's convoluted and distorted to no end, and for no real benefit to the citizens as a whole.

First off, those aren't "assault rifles". By definition "assault rifles" are fully automatic military rifles. The rifles in the photo are simply semi-automatic rifles. As a matter of fact the one carried by the guy prominently centered is a .22lr Walther G22.

I get you don't like guns, don't want to be around them, I can respect that. BUT, why can't you or other anti-gunners respect those of us who are law-abiding citizens that do like guns, want to use them for recreational target shooting and to have them if they are needed for self-defense? Yes the original purpose of the 2nd Amendment was to allow Americans to defend against a tyrannical government (some would argue we are facing that today), but if it's argued that it's an outdated idea then I suppose this discussion on the internet isn't protected by the 1st Amendment since the "Freedom of the press" originally referred (literally) to newspaper presses.

but you have the same rights he does, he's not barring you from anything. in fact, more than likely, he's just like you: a law abiding citizen. so you're saying, that in order to facilitate your false sense of security (because remember, criminals carry guns in gun free zones, that's why they're criminals) you would bar someone their right to an actual sense of security in the fact that they have the ability to defend themselves from the criminals who don't care about the law? i take personal offense that you are calling me a criminal. i know it wasn't meant that way, but i am the person in the grocery store with my concealed handgun, and to compare me, and all the people like me, to a criminal who commits violence as a means of facilitating his illegal enterprise, is a gross misrepresentation of us, or an outright insult (i don't think you meant it that way though). i don't understand how a principle that has proven itself out over and over can be said to be out dated, or out moded. the benefit comes from the more than 5,000 honest citizens who defend themselves everyday in this country with firearms. it comes from the fact that chicago, which has had the strictest gun laws of any city in the nation, has the highest murder rate, at one point up to a murder every 3.5 hours, and tampa, a city in florida aka the gun-shine state, just recorded their first murder last week. it comes from safer schools in utah, where teachers carry guns and there has never been a school shooting, and safer streets in our cities and towns. anyone who says the second ammendment is outdated and we need to prohibit citizens from carrying needs to pay attention: the US is one giant experiment where different flavors of law are implimented across the country to see which one is best. where liberals reign, there are stricter gun laws, higher crime, higher poverty, higher unemployment, and where true conservatives have control there is less gun control, lower crime rates, lower poverty, and lower unemployment.

I totally agree, not sure I could have said it better.

You have the right to security, as do I. I feel that someone standing behind me in the checkout with a pistol is as much a threat to my personal security as the drug dealer standing outside with the pistol in his pocket. Now, to be completely clear: This does NOT equate the average gun owner with the average drug dealer. What that means is the person standing in front of me has as much potential to harm me with that pistol as the person standing outside. I don't want him to have a gun any more or less than I want the person standing in front of me to.

I think there is room to improve gun laws, and I think there is room to improve the consequences of breaking those laws. They are far too lenient.

As for arguing that "law abiding" gun owners differ from "criminal" gun owners, you can't really make that argument without raising the questions of mental stability of individuals. Saying that the guy you go shooting with every weekend isn't going to snap on Tuesday morning when he comes home to find his wife in bed with his neighbour. It doesn't go very far in defence of that argument when the guns and ammunition used in Aurora were purchased legally. Or Colorado, again legal acquisition. This is the area that needs the work. Who can buy, as well as what they can buy. You can argue now that, "Well, the drug dealers have assault rifles, so we should be able to have them, too," and I'll tell you, "No, that's both near-sighted, and short-sighted." The fact that they are made available is the reason they are on the streets.

I can tell you for a fact, the guy at the Pho restaurant down the road selling guns gets them from a local gun store, not Colombian warlords. It is too easy to get things that are not needed--rather, shouldn't be--in a first world country. As far as your support of the idea that guns don't kill people, people kill me people--as evident by the statistics you've thrown out--I say that simply isn't true. People with guns kill people. There is no evidence to support your thesis that carrying weapons prevent violent crimes. That's a myth, plain and simple. I could say, "More guns being available equates to higher incidences of gun related fatalities," and I would be correct, because the numbers add up.

As far as your politics, that's your own business. I'm not going to argue the merits of one over the other, as it isn't applicable to the fundamental issue: who is violating whose rights, and which is more important? How do you separate them? Are you arbitrarily assigning a greater value to one simply because it conflicts with something you feel you shouldn't have to give up? What right is worth more in the grand scheme of things, and which is fitting more fitting for an advanced, intelligent civilization that we seem to be striving for?

Sadly anytime a crime is committed with a gun, legal gun owners are almost always vilified as just as guilty as the criminal, even though 93% of guns used in crimes are obtained illegally and less than 1% of all firearms will ever be used in the commission of a crime. Also, 90% of all violent crimes in the U.S. do not involve firearms of any type.

There are already over 20,000 gun laws. The problem is those aren't being enforced and the ones that are the offender gets less than a slap on the wrist as punishment. For example, the girl (mentioned in the state of the union speech) from Chicago that was shot and killed. The person arrested for that was on parole from a prior gun violation and in fact should have been locked up at the time of the murder for a parole violation, but wasn't due to a clerical error. So, yes harsher punishments for violators are definitely needed, but new gun laws, NO. No new laws will help, especially when current ones aren't being enforced.

Now, mental stability, that's not really a black and white issue. The example you give of a husband catching his wife cheating, sorry but no amount of mental screening could predict or prevent that. For that matter, even if the husband didn't have a gun, what's to prevent him from using a knife, bat, rock or whatever and that goes for any violent crime. As for the guy in Colorado (& Connecticut), there were plenty of red flags that should have had them locked up in a mental hospital. The problem is lack of facilities and funding for mental health care. The mom in Connecticut had repeatedly tried to get help for her son, but no one would help her. There is also a growing problem among military veterans being flagged with PTSD at VA hospitals for minor issues of depression and anxiety and that medical notation will forever take away their legal right to own a gun. I do realize there are severe cases of PTSD that would & should disqualify gun ownership, but I'm talking about vets that have temporary issues that they can and do overcome.

As for your guy at the restaurant, he's a criminal selling guns illegally. He may have a clean criminal record (for now) and can legally buy from the gun shop, but him reselling them is basically a "straw purchase", which is illegal.

To borrow a quote from Ted Nugent, "If guns kill people, all mine are defective."

Again, what gives you the right to force me to conform to your way of thinking? You seem intent to push your way of thinking upon anyone and everyone around you, content that your beliefs are the only ones that matter. That simply isn't true. As far as your facts, they are also not true. You show me the proof, and I'll say sure. You can't do that, because that proof doesn't exist. The reason it doesn't is simple: it isn't true. Harvard seems to support the idea that more guns equate to more gun related crimes and fatalities. The studies are on their website if you care to read them.

The idea that you have the ability to define and manipulate the law to fit your way of thinking is 80% of the problem with gun crime. Registered owners are just as likely to commit crimes with their weapons as anyone. Sorry, but that's just a fact of human behaviour. It has nothing to do with a piece of paper. You can't argue against that because thousands of years of human history support me. Human nature is not defined with a piece of paper. As far as getting rid of "gun free zones," we're once again getting into whose right is more important? It's simple. If I don't have a gun, and you don't have a gun then neither one of us can shoot the other. Therefore, we are safe as houses from gun crime. If you have a gun, and I don't have a gun then you can shoot me, and one of us is no longer safe as houses from gun crime. Therefore, it is my right to make myself safe by having your gun removed from the equation. You can argue that I should simply arm myself, but now I've comprimised violated someone else's right in doing so.

You can argue that guns are property, but I can argue that anything can be construed as property, and we'd both look like idiots for doing so. Again, it's a manipulation of language to stand in favour of a personal opinion, not at all in the spirit or intent of the language in which it was written. Which is what makes it antiquated, and outmoded. It doesn't apply any longer. Just ask the blade runner. Registered gun owner, caps his old lady. He's not safe, what makes you safe? Because you say you are? I bet he said he was safe, too.

I'll ask the same question, "what gives you the right to force me to conform to your way of thinking?"
You want facts and statistics, how about these: http://www.gunfacts.info/pdfs/gun-fa...6_1_screen.pdf
I'll admit I haven't read all of this, but I'm sure the information is more up-to-date and accurate than any of the anti-gunner statistics and propaganda, like the president's pronouncement that 40% of all gun sales are done without a background check. That 40% number comes from a 1994 survey of only 251 people, yeah, real up-to-date and accurate.

Is there violence in human nature? Yes, but taking away the guns won't stop that. We'd have to also ban knives, bats, sticks, rocks, fists, etc.
Look at the UK, there are over 2000 violent crimes per 100,000 population vs 466 per 100,000 in the US and 935 per 100,000 in Canada. These are numbers of ALL violent crimes, not just gun crimes.

Speculative. Show me definitive proof. There isn't any. I can show you examples of people who followed the system to the letter only to commit crimes later on. Please tell me that those stories are made up by the media who are in favour of gun control to sway public opinion. Please tell me that they are lies. Who is deluded here? I'm standing on 2000 years of human history, what are you standing on?

Sadly, yes the mainstream media does often manipulate or totally make up stories (MSNBC), especially related to gun violence and/or gun control.

Are you against smoking in public? It's a matter of property. The cigarettes are my property, I've a right to do with them as I please.
What about drugs? I have a right to do with my drugs as I please, so is it ok for me to shoot up in public, or to give those drugs to someone else? Perhaps outside of a school yard? It's a matter of property by your definition of the law.
How about nudity? My body is my property, are you going to refuse my right to do with my property as I see fit? Even if what I see fit is to walk naked into your business?

Not in to any of that personally, but I really don't have a problem with someone else doing it if they want.
Smoking, can't stand to be around it, but tobacco money paid for the property I live on. I'll walk away from smokers if it bothers me, but I won't raise a fuss.
Drugs, feel free to do all you want, just stay away from me.
Public nudity, I all for it if she's hot, heck even if she's not hot or a dude I don't have to look. Don't expect me to join in, don't want a sunburn on a sensitive area.

To be honest, I'm pretty much against all government control in our lives. When the government starts telling people what they can/can't eat or drink that's going too far. Enough of telling people what they can/can't do with their own property and telling people what you can/can't buy.