The politicians won’t tell you, or support, the simplest remedy to gun violence.
A separate very harsh punishment, for anyone committing a crime, or murder while armed with an assault style or automatic weapon.
This would negate the need to take everyone’s right to bear arms away, and still reduce the amount of murders by firearms. But locking up evil people, doesn’t generate votes, like the hatred for an inanimate object.
Which leads us to the mental health, or behavioral aspect. Many states have laws, automatic harsh sentencing for the commission of a crime while using a firearm. However, the same parts of our society that want to do away with an inanimate object, feel sorry for the offenders. They claim the sentencing is too harsh. Apparently they care more about someone’s discomfort and feelings, than the lives that were lost.
Ever wonder why There are knives and machete attacks in China? Because they took away firearms. Didn’t solve a lot.
Nine students were killed at a middle school in Shaanxi province in April 2018 by a 28-year-old man who was later sentenced to death. June 2020, 37 students injured in a knife attack at an elementary school, in China.
Read this article by CNN one of the biggest anti-firearm proponents (if you dare). We need actual sentencing for crimes, not more control of inanimate objects.
But only if.. They enforce it.
Once again, for all our supposedly educated politicians. “It’s not the object, but the person wielding it.” At the rate we are going, in the unending pursuit of votes, we will all need to learn to knife fight, or take up baseball, or wielding a hammer to defend ourselves, from those that would do us harm.
What will be next, “Sharp object, blunt instrument free zones?”
Comments always welcome.
I am aware that this is an emotional issue for Americans, Ron. We have a very different perspective here of course, though it could be argued that we live in a far less dangerous country. I will leave you to argue about it amongst yourselves, as I have made my own thoughts very clear in the past.
(For what it’s worth, I very much doubt Biden or Harris will take anyone’s guns away.)
Best wishes, Pete.
I respect your opinion, Pete. It’s already started. He made a statement two days ago, that an assault weapons ban and magazine capacity ban will be done. I don’t care for, nor own any type of rifle, but I do want more or equal capacity in my handgun to any attacker. We can only wait and see how far it goes. Thanks for the comment, Pete.
Ron, this old (2012) post of mine might interest you. My own brief flirtation with guns in
England.
https://beetleypete.com/2012/08/28/the-right-to-bear-arms/
Forget that comment, I have just seen that you have already read it! Should have checked that before sending it again.
It never hurts to reread a post on a current subject. I felt your dilemma in the post. If you’re not comfortable with weapons, then it is best to give them a distance. Here in the US, we are as used to them, as bicycles. Most young men are taught about them, and the dangers of such power in the hands of an individual. I hate hunting. Never have cared for the destruction of anything living, just for sport. Those who are able to stare into the eyes of an innocent creature, and take its life for whatever pleasure they get, are just one step away from what you described as crossing the line, when the mind gets weak.
I truly enjoyed reading that post again, Pete. It would serve well for many here in the US, to read it.
Thanks for those kind words, Ron. 🙂
I am at a loss to know why the right to bear arms, which I believe was legislated in the 1700’s, is still considered valid. Has the US not progressed since that time? Are you not paying taxes to support law enforcement agencies at the local level; the state level; the national level, and probably other levels as well?
It is well known that the NRA has a business interest in maintaining the belief that personal fire arms are necessary, and it is common knowledge that the US has a huge military manufacturing sector which, in the absence a war every now and then, depends on whatever market it can get into.
I just shake my head every time an emotional situation is resolved by pulling a gun. Of course there are many arguments proposed to support the need to carry a gun, but I have get to hear one that has a researched factual basis to it.
I’ve never supported the NRA since around 1990. When they fought to allow citizens to be allowed to purchase armor piercing ammunition, I took the NRA ring I had, and flung it into the Alabama River.
No argument, should ever be resolved with any weapon. Especially a gun. People that use one, should be given very harsh punishment, something the US system is sadly lacking in now days.
I have a gun, because I love life, and I love my family. I have a fire extinguisher in three rooms, because I never want a fire, and not be able to try to survive. I’ve not had a fire in my 69 years, but I will feel foolish, if not prepared. The US is a sad place now days. The city I used to police in, has a higher violent crime rate per 1,000 people, than Chicago. If only by one percentage point.
It’s hard to make a point to others, so I seldom try. But if you have ever been the victim of crime or violence, or worked in the police field, you come away with a better understanding.
Thanks for the comment, Colin. We should all respect one anothers opinions and only change our minds, if we find the right reason too.
Take care. Stay safe. 🙂
What are we gonna do when they take away our kitchen knives???
Oh, no! Heaven forbid, not my Gensu knives!!
There has to be an easier way to get along than just pulling out a gun – I’m not talking about self-defense here. Yesterday in Detroit the police handed out free gun locks, no questions asked as to whether they were legally registered firearms or not, but they have a new program called “Project Child Safe” because three kids recently got hold of their parents handguns and accidentally shot themselves, one fatally.
Great program, Linda. Gun locks serve a great purpose to protect kids. Education goes a long way, as well. Such a horrible tragedy when those who own guns, don’t safeguard them from young ones.
It’s the culture of some groups, to settle spats with a gun. A real responsible gun owner, will avoid confrontation. There is too much entanglement and liability if you have to use a gun to defend yourself, so for the most part, responsible gun owners shy away from loud crowds, or individual people where trouble will even start. Those that don’t are most likely the same people, that can’t obtain a firearm legally in the first place.
In The US, it has become the wild west in some areas, where gangs or career criminals go. Worse, is that those types are now moving out into polite society where victims are easier, having given up their regular haunts for better targets in the nicer areas of society.
They are afraid of getting shot in their own areas, because most of the hoodlums carry illegally. They’d rather try for victims in the areas where people who dislike guns go. It makes for a resistance free environment for them.
Prayers to the families touched by such a senseless event. The little ones were victims of careless adults.
Here’s a Canadian’s 2 cents. And I admit that here we’re far from perfect. But first of all, back in the 18th century, the ‘arms’ referred to in the 2nd Amendment were muskets, were they not? With a single ‘bullet.’ I mean, they were not designed to kill a whole big bunch of people at a time, such as the weapon used by the Las Vegas shooter, for example, right? The legislators way back then could not have foreseen such automatic and semi-automatic weapons that are in the hands of too many people right now.
Also, the law says a “well-armed militia.” It doesn’t say “every single citizen in the country should be well-armed.” The idea was to prevent tyranny of the federal government over the states, the way I understand it.
You wrote “Ever wonder why There are knives and machete attacks in China? Because they took away firearms. Didn’t solve a lot.
Nine students were killed at a middle school in Shaanxi province in April 2018 by a 28-year-old man who was later sentenced to death. June 2020, 37 students injured in a knife attack at an elementary school, in China.”
Me again. But there were far fewer such attacks, killing far fewer people in total, than the school shootings (and church, Walmart, McDonald’s shootings, etc.) in the US. Same can be said of Scotland, and Australia – almost no killings there featuring guns, because guess what, virtually no guns anymore.
So I believe that taking them away is a deterrent. And I like your idea of severe punishment for assault-gun-related murders, too.
Thoughtful post, Ron!
Totally agree with you Ellie. It is naive to think that taking guns away will stop violent aggressive behaviour, but it sure as hell makes it more difficult! I also think that if it was illegal to carry firearms … then the job of law enforcement becomes “cleaner”. i.e. you have a gun on you ….. you are charged and convicted accordingly. There is no room for debate. Any country that has laws against carrying firearms still has its criminal element. That will never change, but statistics per population will show that there are distinct benefits in taking firearms off the market. Sadly, and as I believe I noted in earlier comments, making firearms is big business …. and our political system (and others) is not immune to some “persuasion”.
You hit the nail on the head, Colin. Weapons are big business, we provide the world. We are also very strong egomaniacs. Hence, to “open carry” idiots we have. And, money talks here in the US. Our congress doesn’t represent the people, but the largest corporate donors. Sad, but true.
Sigh. It would be so wonderful if gun-makers would re-purpose their factories to make something beneficial to our world, instead of destructive!
I’ve seen that comparison to the musket of olden days. If you ever had to defend yourself (heaven surely forbid) from a tyrannical government, or an invading force. You really must have equal firepower, a musket simply wouldn’t do. Times and weapons change.
I agree with the “well-armed militia.” reference in the constitution. In that day and time, a “well-armed militia.” was composed of citizenry, along with the Continental army of the government. The forefathers after having just overthrown a tyrannical force that was governing everyone, that citizens who may be called at any time in the future, should have the right to defend themselves and possess the means to do it. Should it be another foreign or domestic threat.
I agree, taking them away should be a good deterrent. In those countries mentioned, there have been reports of crime increases, from those who still get and use guns (the criminal, or mentally ill).
What we need in the US, is more help for those with mental problems, stricter consequences for gun crimes.
We have no consequences here in the US. No more capital punishment, you can get more prison time for posting anti-political memes than some rapists. Then you only serve 1/3 of the time. There is no real justice system here, hence no consequence for horrible actions. Yes, guns make it easier to kill more people at once, but in this climate of the US, if you ban guns, then only criminals will possess them. It’s a no win situation.
Thanks for the in dept comment, Ellie. Discussion is always good.
If we ban guns, and only criminals (presumably the only ones with black-market connections) will have them, that would be good! They’d only shoot each other (eg rivals) or the odd ‘collateral damage’ in a robbery. But they would NOT go into a school or fairground and slaughter or wound scores of people. We have got to ban those weapons or at least keep them out of the hands of sickos. I think we are of a similar mindset, Ron.