So...It's not the gun's fault, but what do we do?

The #1 community for Gun Owners in Indiana

Member Benefits:

  • Fewer Ads!
  • Discuss all aspects of firearm ownership
  • Discuss anti-gun legislation
  • Buy, sell, and trade in the classified section
  • Chat with Local gun shops, ranges, trainers & other businesses
  • Discover free outdoor shooting areas
  • View up to date on firearm-related events
  • Share photos & video with other members
  • ...and so much more!
  • HoughMade

    Grandmaster
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Oct 24, 2012
    35,572
    149
    Valparaiso
    No, guns don't cause violence. That's clear. However, every time someone uses a gun to do violence, the gun control advocates have a new billboard for their position. We can argue, all day long, about the fact that it's the person, not the gun, but the political battle is won or lost in between the pro-gun crowd and the hard-core antis. Every time a gun is used to kill in mass, it seems easier for the antis to make their claims to the center, and harder for the gun rights side to explain their side.

    So, what do we do? Is advocating less gun free zones and more guns enough? On a certain level, it makes sense. That level being logic. However, decisions about laws are not always, if ever, made with dispassionate logic.

    My question is this: how do we actually make a difference to help prevent these situations? Can it be done? How do we gather the center to our side with positivity rather than just saying the other side is wrong? We all know what we don't want- more gun control laws. What do we want that will influence non-gun people?
     

    Kirk Freeman

    Grandmaster
    Rating - 100%
    8   0   0
    Mar 9, 2008
    47,947
    113
    Lafayette, Indiana
    Abolish the gun free zones legislatively. GFZs were imposed on us by politicians seeking to create these slaughter pens in order to advance their cause and by the unknowning as it sounded "reasonable". Well, we can now agree that it is not reasonable to subject the helpless to a madman. Politicians caused this, they can stop this.

    Enhance civil liability for owners of gun free zones whether private or public.
     

    the1kidd03

    Grandmaster
    Rating - 100%
    5   0   0
    Jul 19, 2011
    6,717
    48
    somewhere
    The gun supposedly used yesterday was illegal in that location. The anti-gunners' argument obviously collapses on itself. Of course, they will focus on just yet another violent encounter and refrain from mentioning that fact.

    We have facts on our side nearly every time. The opposition simply chooses to ignore the facts that don't fit with their agenda. Stick with the facts.
     
    Rating - 100%
    6   0   0
    Jan 21, 2013
    4,905
    63
    Lawrence County
    In a free society, there will be access to dangerous things. Therefore there will always be people who - for whatever reason - go off the deep end and use these dangerous things to wreak havoc. We have highway deaths in part because we are free to move about for no reason (for instance).

    In my opinion, good meaning people hear a flawed argument and lend their support out of ignorance and lack of experience. In order to make a difference, one must get involved and teach hunter education, firearms training, etc. and volunteer to take people shooting and give them the experience they need to make an informed decision. I have never - NEVER - taught someone to shoot and they simply did not care for it. Of course it's dangerous. So is driving a car and starting a bonfire. You'll never win an argument with an anti-gunner or an anti-hunter. BUT, if you take someone hunting or teach someone to shoot, that person has a better than good chance to make an informed decision and less likely to fight logic.
     

    Kirk Freeman

    Grandmaster
    Rating - 100%
    8   0   0
    Mar 9, 2008
    47,947
    113
    Lafayette, Indiana
    The gun supposedly used yesterday was illegal in that location. The anti-gunners' argument obviously collapses on itself. Of course, they will focus on just yet another violent encounter and refrain from mentioning that fact.

    Illegal? I thought it was an M4/M16A2 from a shack?
     
    Rating - 100%
    6   0   0
    Jan 21, 2013
    4,905
    63
    Lawrence County
    The shotgun he brought on base with him was legally purchased in Virginia, but illegally possessed in a gun free zone. And of course his acquisition of the Glock and M4 platform rifle via murder was also illegal...as was his further possession of those arms. So...I guess...technically the two illegally seized arms were "legal weapons", just illegally taken and possessed.
     

    the1kidd03

    Grandmaster
    Rating - 100%
    5   0   0
    Jul 19, 2011
    6,717
    48
    somewhere
    Illegal? I thought it was an M4/M16A2 from a shack?
    I'm probably wrong then. I haven't had time to follow it all that closely, honestly.

    Regardless, the anti-gunners argument will be "this is why we shouldn't have these types of weapons." Whereas the facts in either direction smother this idea because either A: it was stolen or B: it was otherwse illegal to posess by civilians. They have NO credible arguing point in this instance what so ever.
     

    VERT

    Grandmaster
    Rating - 100%
    23   0   0
    Jan 4, 2009
    9,797
    113
    Seymour
    Yes it was a gun free zone. We will all agree that GFZs will never work. The news is now reporting the murder bought a shotgun in Virginia. Look for our politicians to use this as an excuse to show we need more federal oversight to keep guns bought in dangerous States from entering safe places like DC. It is not a problem with DC law, blame it on the neighbors.
     

    the1kidd03

    Grandmaster
    Rating - 100%
    5   0   0
    Jul 19, 2011
    6,717
    48
    somewhere
    The shotgun he brought on base with him was legally purchased in Virginia, but illegally possessed in a gun free zone. And of course his acquisition of the Glock and M4 platform rifle via murder was also illegal...as was his further possession of those arms. So...I guess...technically the two illegally seized arms were "legal weapons", just illegally taken and possessed.
    Exactly. More ammo against the anti argument. Criminals don't follow laws. They break them in order to obtain the weapons they want.
     

    netsecurity

    Shooter
    Rating - 100%
    22   0   0
    Oct 14, 2011
    4,201
    48
    Hancock County
    We do need to abolish gun free zones. That is by far the biggest issue IMO, because what good is a 2A right to defend your life, if it doesn't apply when you go to work (where we spend most of our lives)?

    But there is a major secondary issue that gun advocates loath to face, and that is mental illness. We have to accept some sort of enhancement to the background check or some sort of healthcare/batfe communication. It is a DIFFICULT subject because the determination can be subjective, so someone has to grow large enough nuts to make a black and white list of things that SPECIFICALLY disqualify one for gun ownership. Not only do they need to not be able to buy guns, but they need to revoke existing gun ownership for such people, which basically means that their house needs searched. Tough stuff to deal with.
     

    the1kidd03

    Grandmaster
    Rating - 100%
    5   0   0
    Jul 19, 2011
    6,717
    48
    somewhere
    We do need to abolish gun free zones. That is by far the biggest issue IMO, because what good is a 2A right to defend your life, if it doesn't apply when you go to work (where we spend most of our lives)?

    But there is a major secondary issue that gun advocates loath to face, and that is mental illness. We have to accept some sort of enhancement to the background check or some sort of healthcare/batfe communication. It is a DIFFICULT subject because the determination can be subjective, so someone has to grow large enough nuts to make a black and white list of things that SPECIFICALLY disqualify one for gun ownership. Not only do they need to not be able to buy guns, but they need to revoke existing gun ownership for such people, which basically means that their house needs searched. Tough stuff to deal with.
    I don't think gun owners loath the idea of enhanced psychiatric standards. Perhaps it's because I study it (psychology) a great deal, but I think they need to dive into the psychology aspect of all this more. Not so much for the purposes of saying who can or cannot own guns, but to help identify things that can help avoid these situations in the future. That does not inherently mean it requires making decisions on gun ownership limitations. Even so, it should be required that whatever condition the person has, has a demonstrated history of willingness to "snap" or otherwise disregard the law and act dangerously. It should not be a matter of perception and interpretation of one's personal beliefs because as free citizens, they have the right to those beliefs. That doesn't mean they have the intent to do others harm.
     

    HoughMade

    Grandmaster
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Oct 24, 2012
    35,572
    149
    Valparaiso
    Yes it was a gun free zone. We will all agree that GFZs will never work. The news is now reporting the murder bought a shotgun in Virginia. Look for our politicians to use this as an excuse to show we need more federal oversight to keep guns bought in dangerous States from entering safe places like DC. It is not a problem with DC law, blame it on the neighbors.

    I think your prediction is right. We in Indiana have been blamed for Chicago's problems for years....which doesn't explain why Indiana itself is not a shooting gallery.

    The problem with pointing out that criminals will obtain guns and its "too late" to prevent criminals from getting guns because there are already so many guns is that it assumes that guns are the problem. From my perspective, we need to educate on freedom.

    As mentioned above, a free society will always have risk and Americans have traditionally been willing to incur that risk for the return of liberty.

    However, I was listening to Dennis Prager on Adam Carolla's podcast the other day, and he made a great point. He stated that America has been unusual in world history. Most of the world yearns for security and to be taken care of. Traditionally, Americans have yearned for freedom and the liberty to make their own way. Unfortunately, as with many other things, the world is creeping in. More and more Americans are turning from freedom to a desire for security. In this realm, it means that people are less interested in having the means to protect themselves, and more interested in others taking care of them. I fear this is the case.

    In my mind, we can't jump into educating people on gun freedom without laying a base of calling people to self-sufficiency and rejecting the idea of dependence on the state. If we can bridge that gulf and encourage people to pursue freedom rather than security, the transition to believing in gun rights is a rather short one.
     

    the1kidd03

    Grandmaster
    Rating - 100%
    5   0   0
    Jul 19, 2011
    6,717
    48
    somewhere
    I think your prediction is right. We in Indiana have been blamed for Chicago's problems for years....which doesn't explain why Indiana itself is not a shooting gallery.

    The problem with pointing out that criminals will obtain guns and its "too late" to prevent criminals from getting guns because there are already so many guns is that it assumes that guns are the problem. From my perspective, we need to educate on freedom.

    As mentioned above, a free society will always have risk and Americans have traditionally been willing to incur that risk for the return of liberty.

    However, I was listening to Dennis Prager on Adam Carolla's podcast the other day, and he made a great point. He stated that America has been unusual in world history. Most of the world yearns for security and to be taken care of. Traditionally, Americans have yearned for freedom and the liberty to make their own way. Unfortunately, as with many other things, the world is creeping in. More and more Americans are turning from freedom to a desire for security. In this realm, it means that people are less interested in having the means to protect themselves, and more interested in others taking care of them. I fear this is the case.

    In my mind, we can't jump into educating people on gun freedom without laying a base of calling people to self-sufficiency and rejecting the idea of dependence on the state. If we can bridge that gulf and encourage people to pursue freedom rather than security, the transition to believing in gun rights is a rather short one.
    We (the USA) by design are perpetuating this deterioration of American values of independence. We allow and invite those from all over the world to come here for the "opportunity," who come with their foreign values and perspectives, yet we don't enforce an education and understanding of the fundamental American principle of individual liberty. This is indeed a problem.

    The citizenship process was an attempt to accomplish this education, but we see how that's gone.
     

    SmokinSigs357

    Expert
    Rating - 100%
    8   0   0
    The issue of mental health always comes to the top but gets beaten down repeatedly by the anti movement. New revelations are coming forth that this guy had some mental issues as of late.

    In all honesty, the mental health issue really needs to come to the forefront of this argument and be addressed. Mass killers always have one thing in common...
     

    giovani

    Expert
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Feb 8, 2012
    1,303
    38
    My position is some people in a society are violent and that will always be a constant.

    There will always be violent crime as long as there are more than 2 of us ( for those of you that belive the Bible look at Cain and able)

    As a comparative there has been a constant battle in this country for automobile safety almost since the time that the first auto was built , are we totaly devoid of auto accidents today because of all the politicians, enginers, insurance co's best efforts?

    From what I see the events of yesterday and similar are proof that we as a people need to be armed because the powers that be can't stop incidents like this from happening.
     
    Last edited:

    BehindBlueI's

    Grandmaster
    Rating - 100%
    29   0   0
    Oct 3, 2012
    25,888
    113
    The issue of mental health always comes to the top but gets beaten down repeatedly by the anti movement.

    ...and gets beat down harder by the pro-gun side. Read the threads here on INGO. Someone's delusional? What part of SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED DON'T YOU UNDERSTAND?? THERE'S NO VICTIM (yet) SO ITS NOT THE GOVERNMENT'S BUSINESS!! SLIPPERY SLOPE, THEY'LL JUST DECLARE US ALL MENTALLY INCOMPETENT.
     

    Fargo

    Grandmaster
    Rating - 100%
    13   0   0
    Mar 11, 2009
    7,575
    63
    In a state of acute Pork-i-docis
    In this case, I would simply shout from the rooftops:

    "The gov't claims it can legislate away mentally disturbed people with weapons in the general populace when at the same time it can't even figure out that its own employee is mentally disturbed with weapons until he kills a bunch of people."

    I really think it needs to be pointed out that despite the best of intentions, gov't by its very nature is pretty much wholly incapable of legislating away these problems. GFZ's, Brady checks, mag cap limits etc are all failures because they are asking the law to support a load it cannot possibly bear.

    You can't legislate away the evil that lurks in the heart of man and pretending you can simply leads to tyranny.

    The only (highly imperfect) solution I see is to get some sort of functioning mental health treatment back in this country. Most states, including Indiana, tired of funding MH institutions and pushed everyone into the criminal system. The criminal system is hopelessly incapable of helping the mentally ill but it is where they all currently end up. This wouldn't stop the problem, but might lessen it a bit.




    Best,

    Joe
     

    LarryC

    Master
    Rating - 100%
    1   0   0
    Jun 18, 2012
    2,418
    63
    Frankfort
    ...and gets beat down harder by the pro-gun side. Read the threads here on INGO. Someone's delusional? What part of SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED DON'T YOU UNDERSTAND?? THERE'S NO VICTIM (yet) SO ITS NOT THE GOVERNMENT'S BUSINESS!! SLIPPERY SLOPE, THEY'LL JUST DECLARE US ALL MENTALLY INCOMPETENT.

    You are absolutely correct - example of a couple of things that are already done. Domestic battery - when I was a young lad it was not uncommon for a husband and wife -especially those who married young - to get into an argument that escalated into one or the other (or both) slapping each other in the face! Now I'm not talking about a knock down drag out fight with intent to harm, but a slap. In that era (1950's) in my small town the nearest police officer was about 35 miles away - and was never called to settle the fight. Usually one of the partners went back to their parents for the night and things settled down - next day the couple was lovey dovey. Almost all these marriages (and spouses) calmed down and lasted for 50 years. Today if a LEO sees a red mark on either or both "domestic partners" (married or not), they are not only arrested - but lose their gun rights.

    Many other "crimes" that were at worst misdemeanors, have in the last 60 years became felonies - again resulting in the persons gun rights being revoked for life unless they have the money and take the effort to hire a lawyer and have the felonies reduced or expunged. This has resulted in a significant portion of our population that are not a threat to anyone - many living highly productive lives - not having the rights to protect themselves and their family. The mental health issue is another HUGH opportunity for the anti's to use to eliminate the ownership of firearms for people that possibly go to a mental health clinic to help their marriage, be treated for depression (even if it is caused by a hormonal unbalance etc.).

    Tis a very slippery slope indeed you tread when for any reason you allow the anti's another wedge to eliminate the right of a person to own firearms.


    In the case of the shooter in this instance, it was announced that he had recently called at least 2 hospitals asking for help with mental health issues and was apparently turned down for some reason. Per the reports I have heard - there was nothing in his background that really raised a red flag.

    Is there any realistic answer to eliminating gun violence - nope - any more than any realistic answer to eliminate rapes, beating deaths, Knifing deaths - and or vehicular homicides (which amount to far more "innocent" victims than gun violence) or many other "crimes". It is unfortunately inherent in the human species that some will always feel they deserve what you have or feel it is "right" to take a persons life for an perceived insult, to feel they have the ability to force you to do as they believe and seek power (Hitler - Saddam etc.).

    Those who seek security by eliminating private gun ownership have "ideals" similar to the Quakers religion. It didn't really work for them, unless others did their fighting for them. As long as there are Evil people in this world, crimes and violence will exist. Short of eliminating ALL Freedoms - the only answer is to accept that and have the means to defend ourselves.
     

    cobber

    Parrot Daddy
    Site Supporter
    Rating - 100%
    43   0   0
    Sep 14, 2011
    10,220
    149
    Somewhere over the rainbow
    We (the USA) by design are perpetuating this deterioration of American values of independence. [this, yes] We allow and invite those from all over the world to come here for the "opportunity," who come with their foreign values and perspectives, yet we don't enforce an education and understanding of the fundamental American principle of individual liberty. This is indeed a problem.

    The citizenship process was an attempt to accomplish this education, but we see how that's gone.

    I would guess that most foreigners who come to the US legally are looking for precisely the freedoms so many native-born are willing to surrender. And in what way is the "citizenship process...gone"? It is difficult to become a naturalized citizen. Certainly more difficult than being born within the territorial limits of the US.

    As Shakespeare put it:

    The fault, dear Brutus, is not in our stars, But in ourselves, that we are underlings.

    Americans have no one to blame but themselves for this decline.


    With respect to the "What is to be done?" matter, there will always be mentally-ill persons among us, whether we disarm or not. This is not even a matter of liberty, but simply human nature. And those who are dangerous will always find instrumentalities to harm others. Doesn't matter if it is a free or slave society. So curtailing liberty will in no way make us more secure. It will only affect the choice of weapon for those who would do ill. It might affect death tolls, or not. Even this is speculative at best, no matter how many Feinsteins and Schumers argue otherwise.
     
    Last edited:
    Top Bottom