‘People-killing guns’ no different than other kinds
Original letter to the Editor below...
((People-killing guns make people into killers
I am a non-NRA-loving, life-long gun nut. I know that people-killing guns like M-16s, AK-47s and their semiautomatic clones and high-capacity, large caliber pistols (Glocks, et al.) are good for only one thing that sporting guns can’t do better: killing people.
The only sure way to keep people killing guns out of the hands of apocalyptic fantasizers and actors-out is to not make people-killing guns and to reduce the inventory already in circulation. Nothing else will work. Anything less is window dressing.
Needed for home defense? No, you can use your pheasant shotgun for that. Besides, how’d that work out for Nancy Lanza, the shooter’s mother?
People-killing guns do make people into killers. So reject “guns don’t kill people, people do.” n James M. Runsvold, Caldwell))
The evil people-killing guns, as he stated it, are no different than any other firearm or other object that is used to harm someone. It requires that a person make the choice to cause that harm.
Bob's using the ol' NRA standby: People Kill People, not guns. A savvy argument, right? Okay, then, let's take guns out of the equation. People kill people without guns. Still savvy? You bet. However, I would like to point out that with a gun, killing becomes a long distance affair and a much much more efficient and effective means of destruction. Take the gun out of the equation and you have two people trying to kill each other up close and personal...now that's tough business. Who hasn't seen a show like Braveheart and thought...jeesh...that's brutal. I'd hate to have those boys after me with those clubs and swords. Well, that's the difference. Put an AK47 in Mel Gibson's hands and the British Army would have crumbled from the fear of that long-distance attack. That's the difference between killing with a gun and without it. It take guts to stand in front of someone face-to-face and try to kill 'em. Oh, it can be done, but fewer people try it than those who are armed to the teeth with Glocks and Berettas and M16s. Any coward can stand 50 yards from someone and shoot, but it takes a certain amount of courage to face 'em mano-y-mano.
It is a sad comment on our society that, rather thinking for themselves, people parrot the opinions that are spoon fed to them by the news media. Unfortunately you cannot legislate away crazy.
Here he is parroting back all the stuff he's heard on Fox News. Can't legislate away crazy? What kind of argument is that. How about, you can't legislate morals? Does that mean we shouldn't have 'em? Of course you can legislate crazy. We did it for centuries. When someone was a danger to h/herself, they put them in an asylum for the criminally insane until they were either cured or died from old age. Our good ol' pal Ronnie Reagan changed all that when he said that people on meds could go back out in society cause we couldn't afford to have 'em in society. Those are some of the folks you see along the Green Belt talking to themselves and having problems ingratiating back into society [ooops I forgot to take my meds].
How can any reasonable person not be horrified by what happened in Connecticut? But to allow these tragic situations to be used to further erode our constitutional right is also tragic.
Oh boy, Bob's another one of those. Wave the flag. Scream Constitutional Rights! Oh puleeeze! I don't think Tommy Jefferson and Benny Franklin were thinking assault weapons when they were talking about the right to bear arms. And they were talking about a WELL ARMED AND REGULATED MILITIA, not a few nut-balls running around in camo with AK's. Militia indicates a trained body of people, not one or two insane folks with semi's. Every time I hear someone quoting the 2nd Amendment to me when it comes to gun control I shudder with shame for them. They obviously have never ever read the Constitution.
As passed by the Congress:
As ratified by the States and authenticated by Thomas Jefferson, Secretary of State:A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
If you are going to quote the Constitution to me, Bob, get it right. Quote it correctly, or shut the hell up.
Would it not make more sense to blame the person, not the object that is used? But then that would require that we be judgmental, and that just isn’t popular in today’s world.
Lookee here, Bob. All us hunters love our rifles. But we don't necessarily use AKs and M16s to hunt deer. Okay, the person was crazy, fine and dandy. But he was a crazy with a gun. Sometimes we forget that. We blame the victims. The guy was nuts [victim]...where the hell and who the hell gave him the gun [victim], he's to blame and the person who gave him the gun are to blame...NOT THE GUN [non-victim but claimed to be one]. Oh come on, get real. Take the gun out of the guy's hand and let's see how many little kids he could kill with his bare hands before some teacher/principal/counselor would intervene and stop the nut-ball. I don't think the number would be 28 and be primarily little children.
Bob here thinks that what the government will do is come along and take away ALL our guns including my two thirty-thirty's. Get over it, Bob. That's not what anyone is saying. They are saying get rid of 30 round clips and semi auto weapons.
A man much wiser than I once said “Those who will trade liberty for perceived security will soon have neither.” n Bob Gaddis, Nampa
Bob, a much wiser man said: "Thou Shalt Not Kill." Oh, and Bob, nobody said "Those who will trade liberty for perceived security will soon have neither." What you quoted was a misquote. God, I wish you would read! Here's the real quote: "Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety." It behooves one to start to break down this statement. What is 'essential liberty?' Definition: absolutely necessary; indispensable. What about a ban on semi autos are they essential to our liberty? What makes them indispensable to our liberty? And, Bob, we are not talking about 'temporary safety.' We are talking about banning an assault weapon that has nothing to do with our liberty and everything to do with long-term safety, and...not temporary safety; indispensable safety. We will still have armed guards/military/police to insure our safety, I'm not sure I would want a bunch of sidewalk Sunday pot-shooters protecting me and my property from madness and mayhem with their AKs and M16s...who would protect me from them?
All in all, my wife's cousin gets a C- in understanding the problem and an F in logic.