facebooktwitterRSS
- Advertisement -
  • Most Commentedmost commented up
  • Most Emailedmost emailed up
  • Popularmost popular up
- Advertisement -
 

« News Home

An experiment in gun safety



Published: Thu, April 25, 2013 @ 12:00 a.m.

An experiment in gun safety

Let’s settle this problem once and for all. All we hear is that guns are killing people. Try this and see what happens. Put a gun on a table and see how long it takes before it kills someone. It will never kill anyone. You see, something has to pull the trigger before it will react. The whole problem is mankind and not the gun.

If you don’t think mankind is messed up take a look at North Korea, China, Russia, Mexico and lastly, and the worst, because we should know better, US. You ask, “Well, what is the problem?” It’s the same problem that has plagued mankind since the beginning of time. We are a world without morals based on the simple fact that most people do not believe in God. We are a world full of false religions and no religion.

That being the case, and it is, we must blame something other than ourselves for our problems. With the killings, we must blame the gun as the culprit. We murder the innocent by abortion and blame freedom of choice. Why, we even kill ourselves with nicotine and alcohol and blame addiction. We are a drug happy nation that we kill by any means to get them and we blame the drug trade.

If you want to change the world, and especially this country, try starting with yourself. I’ll give you a starter. Take the Bible, if you have one, and if you don’t, get one, then go to Matthew, in the New Testament and read the Sermon on the Mount. This is found in chapters 5 through 7. No other book or religion has the teachings found within these chapters, and that is what is wrong with mankind.

Rea Buttermore, Boardman


Comments

1palmer16121(116 comments)posted 1 year, 8 months ago

Rea...I was in your corner until you've gone off topic. Though that aside, you do raise a point. While I'm 100% unwilling to deny people their life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness, we also have to make sure we're safe enough to enjoy those three pillars that are enshrined not only in the Declaration of Independence, but also the Constitution.

Suggest removal:

2KSUgrad(144 comments)posted 1 year, 7 months ago

Rea,
The whole effort around universal firearm background checks is to keep the inanimate gun out of the hands of "messed up" people.
That was the centerpiece of the legislation that was voted on last week.

If you agree with the goal of keeping guns out of the possession of "messed up" people, can you suggest an alternative method?

Suggest removal:

3KSUgrad(144 comments)posted 1 year, 7 months ago

@Hman,
While you are working on isolation of messed up people, can the rest of us work on keeping guns out of their hands?

Suggest removal:

4GailsMom(16 comments)posted 1 year, 7 months ago

To Rea,
AMEN, AMEN !!
Heed the Good Book and learn the lesson well.
Those that employ the weapon against another shall die an eternal death in God's eyes.

Suggest removal:

5Normac1945(23 comments)posted 1 year, 7 months ago

You are correct Rea, it is the gun in the hands of people that are killing people.

Don't let bad people buy guns and you might save one life, you may even save two lives.

Is a background check too unconvenient to save a life?

.

Suggest removal:

6thediffrence(13 comments)posted 1 year, 7 months ago

Guns are designed to kill. The old sad argument the writer uses simply is stupid. Guns kill. Its what they do. Try this for an experiment. Don't have a gun on a table and see if anyone gets shot? Guns are not hammers or cars and cannot be compared to them. Hammers and cars are NOT DESIGNED TO KILL GUNS ARE DESIGNED TO KILL. That is a fact. Austrailia banned a lot f guns and it worked there very well. They still have guns for hunting and personal protection but no assault weapons or high capacity magazines and guess what? NO MASS MURDERS IN OVER 10 Years! Suisides are down almost 50% and all gun deaths are down around 50%. Not bad for a law the gun loby says doesn't work.

Suggest removal:

7SLicemaster19(1 comment)posted 1 year, 7 months ago

@ksugrad - No, you can't. Because it doesn't work, and the fact that you want to waste your time pursuing a process that makes no difference takes away from the work that really needs to be done. Bad people were once good people, and unless you can figure out some way to be able to instantly recognize when that change takes place you are not going to stop bad people from getting guns. No background checks would have stopped Sandy Hook, Aurora CO or Phoenix AZ. No gun control would have stopped the Boston bombing. Only identifying bad people (mental illness, political fervor, ideological zealotry) is going to put a dent in these things. And your standard, run-of-the-mill gun violence will only be stopped by intervention of righteous people, either in advance of or directly at the time of the incident.

Suggest removal:

8HappyBob(285 comments)posted 1 year, 7 months ago

@hman,
Regarding Newtown (post #7):
If Nancy Lanza was a law abiding citizen, she should have known that purchasing a firearm for her prohibited (underage and mentally ill) son was a federal and state crime. One of the recent gun control measures increased the sentencing for that to 10 years. We will never know if that would have caused her to behave differently. Are you suggesting that the sentencing guides for straw purchase violations are OK as they are now?

I'd be interested in your source for the Napolitano statement. Regardless, I think you may be confusing enforcement with prosecution. Prosecutors have always had the prerogative to choose what charges are worthwhile pursuing.
I think that you or I would be unhappy if our prosecutor spent any time trying to prove that a driver in a vehicular homicide case had been littering. The actuality is that some charges are just too petty, too time consuming, and costly to prosecute when there is a more significant crime involved.

Your last sentence that includes the phrase " stopped by intervention of righteous people either in advance...."
Sounds like vigilantism, or "use of our second amendment remedies".

Couple that sentence with the previous one that equates mentally ill, political advocates, and ideologs with bad people and it sounds very close to being suggestive of the righteous should stop these people. How are you proposing that righteous people stop them? Using second amendment remedies?

Lastly,
Your belief that the PROBLEM is with the "rest of us working on keeping guns out of the hands (of "bad guys"), is absurd. Your logic would suggest that "the problem" would be solved if we let the "bad guys" have guns.

Suggest removal:

9HappyBob(285 comments)posted 1 year, 7 months ago

@Hman,
Sorry that last part about intervention was intended to be adressed to Slicemaster.

Suggest removal:

10KSUgrad(144 comments)posted 1 year, 7 months ago

@SLicemaster,
Background checks make it more difficult for criminals and other dangerous individuals to acquire firearms. Not only do background checks prevent prohibited buyers from walking away from a licensed dealer with a gun, and discourage some from even attempting a purchase, they block them from buying at a preferred source – a licensed gun dealer – where the largest selection of new firearms that criminals desire is available. The Brady Law is an important obstacle that helps keep dangerous weapons out of the hands of dangerous people.
Approximately 1.9 million attempts to purchase have been rejected by NICS.

But there are gaps, gaps that should be worked on, beside the obvious gun show and internet loophole.

States have to submit records to the background system, The State of Virginia learned a tragic lesson in that regard.

Seung Hui Cho shot and killed 32 people at Virginia Tech marking the worst mass school shooting in US history. More than a year earlier, a judge had found Cho to be mentally ill—a determination that should have barred him for life from possessing a firearm. But the records documenting his profound mental illness were never submitted to NICS, and Cho was able to pass several background checks before buying the guns he used in the mass shooting.

Suggest removal:

11KSUgrad(144 comments)posted 1 year, 7 months ago

@Slicemaster:
There are gaps, gaps that should be worked on, beside the obvious gun show and internet loophole.

for example: On January 8, 2011, Jared Loughner shot and killed six people and critically wounded 13 others in Tucson, including Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords. Loughner had a troubled past that included a drug-related arrest, an admission of drug use to the U.S. Army and suspension from community college for a pattern of disturbing behavior—these things that should have barred him for life from possessing a firearm. Because his records were submitted to NICS system by Arizona, he passed background checks and bought firearms on two separate occasions, including the Glock 19 he used in his attempt to assassinate Congresswoman Giffords.

Suggest removal:

12KSUgrad(144 comments)posted 1 year, 7 months ago

@Hman,
I understand your frustration, if lawmakers were infallible they might be able to pass the perfect laws the first time.

Let's take the Brady Law and the provision that dangerously mentally ill persons should be prohibited from purchasing firearms. Seems like a good idea...yes?

The 1994 federal law never anticipated that some states would comply with that concept, while others would reject it. Subsequently they find that Ohio accepts the concept and provides records for 27,000 Ohioans, but Indiana only reports 3,000 Indiana residents.

On a per capita basis, the obvious conclusion is that there are 4 times as many dangerously mentally ill in Ohio than Indiana. (on a similar basis there are 230 times as many Ohioians that are dangerously mentally ill as compared with Kentucky)

Common sense tells us that those comparisons aren't valid, however the data (based on records provided) is exactly true.

So the lawmakers propose to change the law so that the states will report these people.

Why should the federal government be involved at all? Because the dangerous person in Ohio can travel to Kentucky to use his gun.

It's not so much a matter of creating "one more law" as it is trying to improve the existing law to accomplish the original intention.

Suggest removal:

13imez_ru2(6 comments)posted 1 year, 7 months ago

This whole " don't infringe on my rights" bull s%^t is just that. Put a gun on a table and see how long it takes to kill someone??. Are you serious with that crap??? There is no reason, ZERO, for people to use this lame argument. Just like the morons who make dumb A$$ comments like ban cars and now pressure cookers and try to say it's the same thing. Simple minded fools!
There is no reason for Joe Blo to have " the right" to own a semi automatic weapon. WTF do you need it for?

Suggest removal:


News
Opinion
Entertainment
Sports
Marketplace
Classifieds
Records
Discussions
Community
Help
Forms
Neighbors

HomeTerms of UsePrivacy StatementAdvertiseStaff DirectoryHelp
© 2014 Vindy.com. All rights reserved. A service of The Vindicator.
107 Vindicator Square. Youngstown, OH 44503

Phone Main: 330.747.1471 • Interactive Advertising: 330.740.2955 • Classified Advertising: 330.746.6565
Sponsored Links: Vindy Wheels | Vindy Jobs | Vindy Homes