Naz Ranger
- 3 comments
- 0 likes given
- 5 likes received
Bio not provided
TruthSeeker – I am impressed and commend you for taking on everyone on this forum. I too am concerned and disturbed by senseless gun violence. The key word here is “senseless”, meaning not having any sense. Not having any sense would imply mental impairment – temporary impairment or chronic impairment. I may be inviting ire from many when I make the following comments but here we go.
The majority of senseless gun violence in urban areas are committed by perpetrators who would be identified as criminals who have little regard for the law. This is a socio-economic situation where day-to-day living is pared down to the haves and have-nots. The have-nots feel that they only have one way to get something they value, be it another person, personal status or an object and that is, to take it from the haves. The quickest way to do that is by use of a firearm. Urban gun violence is not glamorous because the media in general, intentional or not, puts a lesser value on life in urban areas.
In suburban or rural areas, senseless gun violence is usually committed by perpetrators who are chronically, mentally impaired or would plead temporary insanity. These perpetrators have a known and observed history of mental illness or at the very least, have exhibited strange or abnormal behavior that has been reported to authorities. There are no red flags, law enforcement hands are tied until a crime is committed and privacy laws prohibit the exposure of medical or mental health issues. That is, until a violent act occurs and all this history goes public. The media swarms all over these events and practically publishes a biography of the victims, their families and their short-circuited potential.
So on one side we have criminals with guns and on the other side we have the mentally impaired with guns. Somewhere in the middle, we have law abiding citizens who quietly and lawfully exercise their 2nd Amendment right of owning a firearm for hunting, sport shooting or personal defense. The firearm stays locked down or in cabinets until they are taken out for hunting or out to the range and in some cases, are positioned for home defense.
A Glock is a Glock is a Glock. What makes a Glock hazardous are the demographics. So why don’t we focus on who’s hand the firearm finds itself, rather than the firearm itself? We already have thousands of laws but they are not enforced or are difficult to enforce. Adding yet another law will do nothing to stem gun violence. In fact, new laws may cloud existing laws and put the burden on law enforcement to interpret and uphold.
Oh and yes, there is sensible gun violence when it occurs as an act of defending one’s life or family or to stop a bad guy from doing harm.
@barrett @the Truth Seeker and everyone else on this discussion thread...facts and figures are impressive and speak to trends, probabilities and percentages. Embedded between those facts and figures are a host of uniquely individual variables that lead to that specific statistic. What is being missed and the bottom line for this whole discussion is the challenge to the 2nd Amendment. Owning firearms is a personal choice and responsibility. The 2nd Amendment gives Americans that choice. It is part of the Bill of Rights which was intended to protect citizens from tyranny by the government and other unreasonable conditions forced upon citizens by that which is outside our personal realm. This wisdom, carved out over 200 years ago is not something to be taken lightly. Once the Bill of Rights is challenged, we are indeed on a very slippery slope.
Did anyone else notice what he said? "...it's harder with an assault weapon to hit something than it is a shotgun, Ok?" Then why not ban shotguns because it's obviously a lot easier to hit something with it than with an assault weapon...what???? There is a lot of room for discussion on that point alone.