Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
LTnewsDawg

Reason takes on gun violence

Recommended Posts

LTnewsDawg

We are becoming an increasingly violent society. From road rage to mass shootings, violence fills the headlines. But we seem to have reached a point at which even our discussions of violent events and how to respond have become verbally violent.We have allowed extremists on both sides of the politic...

 

View the full article

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
skeptic2mod

Worth a read.

 

Would be nice if this could be discussed calmly...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
lanzate

The big question is why are we "an increasingly violent society" when there are less guns per capita today than in any time in US history? What has changed? There was a time when you would have to search pretty far to find a single house without a firearm. Guns may have been necessary for survival for much of that history but what about the last 100 years?

 

If Carol Peterson wants to call us "an increasingly violent society" then she better have numbers to back that up. The anti gun crowd should be careful in using this statement because even with all the guns being purchased now we have less guns per capita then we did before. It is actually a good argument for them since my hunch is that there were more gun deaths per capita in 1800 then today but i could be wrong, so again I ask, are we "increasingly violent". She has some good points but it was hard for me to get passed this emotionally charged statement right before she spent the next 2 paragraph poking fun at emotional charged partisan people and politics.

 

If we are more violent the discussion should be centered on why. Guns have little to do with it.

 

 

A little lesson in gun violence from 1988 Hollywood or 1888 billy the kid, take your pick.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
skeptic2mod

There clearly are not less guns per capity. You meant there are less households with guns probably. And do I need to prove that when more households had guns, those were usually not handguns but hunting rifles and shotguns?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
FDR

There clearly are not less guns per capity. You meant there are less households with guns probably. And do I need to prove that when more households had guns, those were usually not handguns but hunting rifles and shotguns?

 

So why are they attacking rifles? LMAO

 

The stats show that violent crimes are on the decline. That said.........this letter is a waste. Don't bother reading this garbage.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Citydweller

I find it interesting that this otherwise-flat-out-winger is suddenly out to have everyone play Jesus when it comes to guns.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
nvh

There clearly are not less guns per capity. You meant there are less households with guns probably. And do I need to prove that when more households had guns, those were usually not handguns but hunting rifles and shotguns?

 

Exactly! In 1960, more households owned guns, but they were hunting weapons, and there were only some million pistols in circulation. Now there are fewer hunters, but over 70 million pistols. The intent of firearm ownership has clearly changed.

 

Then there are firearms designed for a high rate of fire, and high capacity clips to go with them. i knew lots of folks with cabinets full of guns and ammo, but I knew no one who had an assault weapon or a 30 round clip.

 

The US has a murder rate that is exponentially higher than other nations in the developed world. It is fact. I was watching C-Span the other day, and a fellow was making the point that the US does not have a higher rate of assault, that we really are not more violent than other nations. The difference is in the murder rate. People get drunk, stupid and angry all over the world, but in the US it is much more likely that such violence turns deadly.

 

And that probably has something to do with guns.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
mrkglsr65

Perhaps the violence of the 1960's with assassinations, riots, and violent street crime have brought some people to realize that the peace and flower stuff is a bunch of bullshit and your have no one to rely on but yourself to defend your home and family.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Farmer Vincent

Perhaps the violence of the 1960's with assassinations, riots, and violent street crime have brought some people to realize that the peace and flower stuff is a bunch of bullshit and your have no one to rely on but yourself to defend your home and family.

 

It's hard to defend your home and family when it's a family member. I wonder who's gun this was.

 

'Horrific' New Mexico shooting leaves 5 dead; investigators arrest 15-year-old

 

(CNN) -- Sheriff's investigators combed through what one called a "horrific" crime scene Sunday after the shooting deaths of five people, three of them children, at a home outside Albuquerque, New Mexico.

A well-known local pastor and four of his relatives were among the victims, according to those who knew him.

 

Each victim was shot multiple times, said Lt. Sid Covington of the Bernalillo County Sheriff's Department, and one of the weapons used was what he described as an assault rifle. Sheriff Dan Houston said a 15-year-old boy, who "may be a family member," was charged with two counts of murder and three counts of child abuse resulting in death.

 

http://www.cnn.com/2013/01/20/justice/new-mexico-shooting/index.html?hpt=hp_t4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
52skidoo

Perhaps the violence of the 1960's with assassinations, riots, and violent street crime have brought some people to realize that the peace and flower stuff is a bunch of bullshit

 

written on martin luther king jr. day...

 

with no hint of irony...

 

lol

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Thelsa Doom

 

 

written on martin luther king jr. day...

 

with no hint of irony...

 

lol

 

The irony that King was a gun owner ? Or something else ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Thelsa Doom

 

 

Exactly! In 1960, more households owned guns, but they were hunting weapons, and there were only some million pistols in circulation. Now there are fewer hunters, but over 70 million pistols. The intent of firearm ownership has clearly changed.

 

Then there are firearms designed for a high rate of fire, and high capacity clips to go with them. i knew lots of folks with cabinets full of guns and ammo, but I knew no one who had an assault weapon or a 30 round clip.

 

The US has a murder rate that is exponentially higher than other nations in the developed world. It is fact. I was watching C-Span the other day, and a fellow was making the point that the US does not have a higher rate of assault, that we really are not more violent

than other nations. The difference is in the murder rate. People get drunk, stupid and angry all over the world, but in the US it is much more likely that such violence turns deadly.

 

And that probably has something to do with guns.

 

 

Most of eastern Europe has higher per capital murder rates are they not in the " developed " world ? Russia ? Brazil ?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Pastor of Muppets

 

 

 

Most of eastern Europe has higher per capital murder rates are they not in the " developed " world ? Russia ? Brazil ?

wrong again. Proof?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Thelsa Doom

wrong again. Proof?

 

UNODC 2012

 

Russia more than twice as high.......Brazil more than 4x as high.

 

Ouch.

Edited by Martin Riggs

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
nvh

Most of eastern Europe has higher per capital murder rates are they not in the " developed " world ?

 

I guess it depends on how you define "most".

 

 

Russia ? Brazil ?

 

We're better than Brazil!

 

USA! USA! USA!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
mrkglsr65

written on martin luther king jr. day...

 

with no hint of irony...

 

lol

 

No irony at all. Martin Luther King championed the cause of equal rights for all people, regardless of their skin color. Gun control legislation written after the civil war was aimed at keeping guns out of the hands of former slaves, who desperately needed something to "equalize" them against klansmen. MLK would argue that EVERY man has a right to defend himself, his family and his home, regardless of color.

 

Dr. King often talked about the content of character and could certainy tell the difference between a man pursuing the noble goal of defending himself and his family, as opposed to a thug who would use a weapon as an instrument of crime, or to terrorize and murder others.

 

Check THIS out...

http://kennblanchard.com/

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
nvh

No irony at all. Martin Luther King championed the cause of equal rights for all people, regardless of their skin color. Gun control legislation written after the civil war was aimed at keeping guns out of the hands of former slaves, who desperately needed something to "equalize" them against klansmen. MLK would argue that EVERY man has a right to defend himself, his family and his home, regardless of color.

 

Dr. King often talked about the content of character and could certainy tell the difference between a man pursuing the noble goal of defending himself and his family, as opposed to a thug who would use a weapon as an instrument of crime, or to terrorize and murder others.

 

Check THIS out...

http://kennblanchard.com/

 

If only Rosa Parks had had a Glock!

 

If only the marchers would have had assault weapons at the Selma bridge!

 

If only the Freedom Riders had been armed!

 

 

Would the civil rights movement have gained the international attention and sympathy that brought an end to segregation, or would Alabama state troopers and Birmingham LEOs have had a field day shooting niggers? Hells bells, they stomped and gassed and burned peaceful protesters. Imagine if they'd have had an excuse to shoot indiscriminately.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
o311mc

If only Rosa Parks had had a Glock!

 

If only the marchers would have had assault weapons at the Selma bridge!

 

If only the Freedom Riders had been armed!

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d0_rI2P44LM

 

Would the civil rights movement have gained the international attention and sympathy that brought an end to segregation, or would Alabama state troopers and Birmingham LEOs have had a field day shooting niggers? Hells bells, they stomped and gassed and burned peaceful protesters. Imagine if they'd have had an excuse to shoot indiscriminately.

 

I do not understand you response to Marks post?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sensible

I do not understand you response to Marks post?

 

Mark made it sound like Dr. King was a gun advocate or advocated for armed resistance against the government. NVH aptly pointed out that if anyone would have been justified in taking up arms against their government it was those denied their rights and persecuted based on race. But largely because of the NON-violence preached and advocated by Dr. King, the civil rights movement was a NON-violent movement.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
o311mc

Mark made it sound like Dr. King was a gun advocate or advocated for armed resistance against the government. NVH aptly pointed out that if anyone would have been justified in taking up arms against their government it was those denied their rights and persecuted based on race. But largely because of the NON-violence preached and advocated by Dr. King, the civil rights movement was a NON-violent movement.

 

makes sense, although I did not take that meaning from Marks post.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
nvh

Mark made it sound like Dr. King was a gun advocate or advocated for armed resistance against the government. NVH aptly pointed out that if anyone would have been justified in taking up arms against their government it was those denied their rights and persecuted based on race. But largely because of the NON-violence preached and advocated by Dr. King, the civil rights movement was a NON-violent movement.

 

Not only that, but the civil rights movement was successful. If the civil rights movement would have been based on force of arms, half of Mississippi would have been deputized to go "coon hunting", we'd have had a brief but bloody war, and nothing would have changed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sensible

Not only that, but the civil rights movement was successful. If the civil rights movement would have been based on force of arms, half of Mississippi would have been deputized to go "coon hunting", we'd have had a brief but bloody war, and nothing would have changed.

Exactly. I should have let you speak for yourself!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sensible

No irony at all. Martin Luther King championed the cause of equal rights for all people, regardless of their skin color. Gun control legislation written after the civil war was aimed at keeping guns out of the hands of former slaves, who desperately needed something to "equalize" them against klansmen. MLK would argue that EVERY man has a right to defend himself, his family and his home, regardless of color.

 

Dr. King often talked about the content of character and could certainy tell the difference between a man pursuing the noble goal of defending himself and his family, as opposed to a thug who would use a weapon as an instrument of crime, or to terrorize and murder others.

 

Check THIS out...

http://kennblanchard.com/

 

What did Dr. King actually say about gun proliferation?

 

 

Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. on guns and violence

 

y our readiness to allow arms to be purchased at will and fired at whim, by allowing our movie and television screens to teach our children that the hero is one who masters the art of shooting and the technique of killing, by allowing all these developments, we have created an atmosphere in which violence and hatred have become popular pastimes.

— Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.

 

1/21/2013

 

 

Martin Luther King, Jr. Would Fuck Up the NRA's Shit:

You've been hearing bullshit about how Martin Luther King would have supported the NRA or gun laws or how he would have lived if he had been armed or whatever. You may have even read how he <a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/adam-winkler/mlk-and-his-guns_b_810132.html">owned a gun and how he was denied a permit to carry a gun in his car in Alabama.

 

But did you know that he made a conscious decision to give up his gun? And that he turned away from even the idea of gun ownership? Yeah, MLK will always fuck up your tidy narrative when you want to make him less than a radical.

 

Check this out, from The Autobiography of Martin Luther King, Jr. and the chapter titled "The Violence of Desperate Men." The scene is Montgomery in 1956, shortly after King's home was bombed:

 

After our many friends left the house late that evening, Coretta, Yoki, and I were driven to the home of one of our church members to spend the night. I could not get to sleep. While I lay in that quiet front bedroom, with a distant street lamp throwing a reassuring glow through the curtained window, I began to think of the viciousness of people who would bomb my home. I could feel the anger rising when I realized that my wife and baby could have been killed. I thought about the city commissioners and all the statements that they had made about me and the Negro generally. I was once more on the verge of corroding hatred. And once more I caught myself and said: "You must not allow yourself to become bitter."

 

Midnight had long since passed. Coretta and the baby were sound asleep. I turned over in bed and fell into a dazed slumber. But the night was not yet over. Some time later Coretta and I were awakened by a slow, steady knocking at the front door. Through the window we could see the dark outline of a figure on the front porch. I pulled myself out of bed, peered through the curtains, and recognized the stocky, reassuring back of Coretta's father.

 

Obie Scott had heard the news of the bombing over the radio and had driven to Montgomery. He came in the house with an obvious sign of distress on his face. After talking with us a while he turned and said: "Coretta, I came to take you and the baby back home with me until this tension cools off:" In a calm but positive manner Coretta answered: "I'm sorry, Dad, but I can't leave Martin now. I must stay here with him through this whole struggle." And so Obie Scott drove back to Marion alone.

 

Just two nights later, a stick of dynamite was thrown on the lawn of E. D. Nixon. Fortunately, again no one was hurt. Once more a large crowd of Negroes assembled, but they did not lose control. And so nonviolence had won its first and its second tests.

 

After the bombings, many of the officers of my church and other trusted friends urged me to hire a bodyguard and armed watchmen for my house. When my father came to town, he concurred with both of these suggestions. I tried to tell them that I had no fears now and consequently needed no weapons for protection. This they would not hear. They insisted that I protect the house and family, even if I didn't want to protect myself. In order to satisfy the wishes of these close friends and associates, I decided to consider the question of an armed guard. I went down to the sheriff's office and applied for a license to carry a gun in the car; but this was refused.

 

Meanwhile I reconsidered. How could I serve as one of the leaders of a nonviolent movement and at the same time use weapons of violence for my personal protection? Coretta and I talked the matter over for several days and finally agreed that arms were no solution. We decided then to get rid of the one weapon we owned. We tried to satisfy our friends by having floodlights mounted around the house, and hiring unarmed watchmen around the clock. I also promised that I would not travel around the city alone.

 

I was much more afraid in Montgomery when I had a gun in my house. When I decided that I couldn't keep a gun, I came face-to-face with the question of death and I dealt with it. From that point on, I no longer needed a gun nor have I been afraid. Had we become distracted by the question of my safety we would have lost the moral offensive and sunk to the level of our oppressors.

 

 

http://rudepundit.blogspot.com/2013/01/martin-luther-king-jr.html

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
skeptic2mod

 

So why are they attacking rifles? LMAO

 

The stats show that violent crimes are on the decline.

2/3 of the biggest arguments from the NRA, the third being the whole effort to try to nullify the term "assault weapons" or blur the distinction between really rapidly firing weapons and semiautomatic pistols.

 

After the predictable obfuscation about technical aspects of loading systems, magazines, barrel length, etc., can we acknowledge that everyone is working for more than gun control.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
FDR

2/3 of the biggest arguments from the NRA, the third being the whole effort to try to nullify the term "assault weapons" or blur the distinction between really rapidly firing weapons and semiautomatic pistols.

 

After the predictable obfuscation about technical aspects of loading systems, magazines, barrel length, etc., can we acknowledge that everyone is working for more than gun control.

 

Um.......you're saying my AR shoots at a faster rate compared to my 45 or my 12guage? Bet you couldn't get rounds out of it any faster let alone on target.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Thelsa Doom

2/3 of the biggest arguments from the NRA, the third being the whole effort to try to nullify the term "assault weapons" or blur the distinction between really rapidly firing weapons and semiautomatic pistols.

 

After the predictable obfuscation about technical aspects of loading systems, magazines, barrel length, etc., can we acknowledge that everyone is working for more than gun control.

 

 

Typical response......." what I say is how it is" as evidenced by the use of your term " everybody". For liberals that means they have spoken and what is wrong with everyone else.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
skeptic2mod

Typical response......." what I say is how it is" as evidenced by the use of your term " everybody". For liberals that means they have spoken and what is wrong with everyone else.

Who is it that is working only for gun control, and not suggesting that we research causes of gun violence or fund community mental health services

 

Do you understand that answering this question may require thought and even work on your part, that what is wanted is an answer that contains information not just to parse or regurgitate someone else's post??

 

Are you able to understand the difference between actually adding something to a discussion and just stirring other people's words as you usually do?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
FDR

Who is it that is working only for gun control, and not suggesting that we research causes of gun violence or fund community mental health services

 

Do you understand that answering this question may require thought and even work on your part, that what is wanted is an answer that contains information not just to parse or regurgitate someone else's post??

 

Are you able to understand the difference between actually adding something to a discussion and just stirring other people's words as you usually do?

 

If that were the case no legislation would have been introduced at this point. All angles would have been looked into and it would be found that banning guns doesn't accomplish a damned thing except to disarm the citizens. No thought has been put into the issue and knee jerk bans is all you got.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sensible

If that were the case no legislation would have been introduced at this point. All angles would have been looked into and it would be found that banning guns doesn't accomplish a damned thing except to disarm the citizens. No thought has been put into the issue and knee jerk bans is all you got.

No one is disarmed by reasonable limits. Banning 100 round at a time capability isn't "knee jerk".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...