Nissan XTerra Forum banner

New York Senate Passes Gun Control Measures

11K views 44 replies 18 participants last post by  robcarync 
#1 ·
This evening the New York senate by a vote of 43-18 passed gun control legislation that basically does the following.

Ban on all magazines over 7 rounds, no more new "assault weapons", all present assault weapons have to be registered and can only be at your home or a "registered range" (no such thing), all ammo has to be bought in person with a background check, all pistol permits have to be renewed.
A brief news story here. http://online.wsj.com/article/APac54f3a0b0244dc4b9de764b46ae5f73.html

Unfortunately this is what the nation may soon be looking at. Join the NRA or the SAF, to do your part to try and prevent this nation wide. If you're not a contributing member to one if not both of these groups you're part of the problem.
 
#27 ·
What burns me is that folks who themselves and their families are protected by a security force (armed with automatic weapons) that I help pay for is restricting the means in which I can protect myself and my family.
 
#28 ·
I hate that when anyone suggests that "Gun Free Zones" should be eliminated....they (libs) freak out. "But the movies will then become like the OK Corral!" What they don't understand is that...nothing will change. Is the grocery store like the OK Corral? Is the sidewalk an OK Corral? There are people with CCW ALL AROUND and 99.999% of the time...NO ONE KNOWS IT!
This is maybe a horrible example to use, but it's just like a PFA doesn't keep some ass hat who's so determined to come beat the person who the PFA is suppose to protect
 
#29 · (Edited)
RJ...that is a good example...it just adds another charge to the rap sheet. Now a school shooter gets charged with multiple counts of murder...and violating a gun free zone. Someone planning on killing multiple people won't be upset about violating another law.

M3C...No flaming needed. It is totally possible to have a debate and discussion regarding these topics. There are a few points to be made though:

1) No one disputes that America has a) a lot of guns and b) a lot of violence
2) The question is what causes b?
3) It also depends on which debate people want to have. Do we want to talk hand guns or "assault weapons" or overall violence?

Thoughts with regards to the discussion:

Over the last 30 or so years, the gun supply has steadily increased. During that same period, gun violence has fluctuated. Currently, we are at historic lows of gun violence, and historic highs of gun supply.

Does removing guns remove violence? Or are they replaced with other tools to commit crimes?

Are we trying to reduce common gun violence, mass shootings, or all of the above? Mass shootings and common street violence have different root causes. There are multiple issues to address.

"Assault rifles" are the current scape goat. VERY few crimes are committed with assault rifles (though the ones that are, are bad, as are all gun crimes). As a portion of overall gun violence, handguns are used far more often. One of my biggest gripes with how things are represented in the media: the horrific mass killings are used for the attention, and assault rifles are shown all over TV as a giant scary thing. They scare people that do not understand the entire picture. AR 15 "assault rifles" use a standard round from other hunting rifles. They are cosmetically designed to resemble a military rifle, but they are just as powerful as a less scary looking hunting rifle. I have had people make comments about how shocked they were that it was so easy to get a military grade rifle. An AR 15 is a Jeep Wrangler...or a Hummer H2...a watered down version of the military version. If they have never shot a gun, or have no knowledge of the factual situation, they are left making assumption based on what the media suggests: US has an epidemic of mass shootings with military weapons. Mass shootings are TERRIBLE, but as far as overall gun violence, they are not a large portion.

Potentially, an argument can be made regarding carrying capacity, however I honestly don't think a magazine limit will serve any benefit. USA had an AWB for 10 years, and kids from Colorado still managed to find illegal weapons to shoot their school. The VT massacre was done with a semi automatic hand gun. 17 round capacity I believe. ~half as much as an AR 15, but more deaths. Less bullets means killers will do more planning (VT shooter chained and pad locked doors shut so people could not escape, for instance)

The vast majority of gun homicides are single victims. Most of them are young, most of them are involved with gang activity, or other criminal acts. Most of them live in poverty. Most of them commit crime as a means to try to get by. However, there is not much coverage of THIS segment of gun crime...it doesn't generate the headlines. it is the classic bait and switch.

Now, I am not purely ANTI gun control, but I do think there needs to be a better understanding of WHY these acts are committed. If the WHY is not addressed, people will still find a way.
 
#30 ·
For the sake of providing some non-biased data,

Granted, it's an opinion piece but the statistics are impossible to ignore.

Flame on. :coolsun:
I find it incredibly easy to ignore since they cited no sources whatsoever for the source of these statistics. I can make pretty charts as well that support my position and conclusions, especially when I don't have to cite the sources of the data for scrutiny.
 
#31 ·
Very good points Rob. And I believe the actual statistic of "assault rifles" used in homicides is around 3%. Meaning for every 100 murders by way of a firearm, 3 are done with a weapon classified as an "assault rifle".

There are so many variables in this debate, it is near impossible to get a clear cut root cause. Media influence, single parent homes, environment, mental illness, poverty, gang activity, and the list could go on. While some of the most heinous killings and mass shootings seem to have a common variable of mental illness, what brought it to that point where committing mass murder was justified in their minds? Bullying? Unemployed and unable to make ends meet (blaming employer or former employer)? Lack of acceptance by peers?

Something has to be done goes without saying but gun control is merely attacking the tail of the snake.
 
#32 ·
@M3CA.CA, I'd like to see some sources on those charts, I mean no dis-respect but it is extremely easy to manipulate numbers and charts to make them say what the person wants. No sources? I mean thats gotta be a red flag.

To me having a firearm is like having car insurance or carrying a spare tire.
WHy have car insurance?

In case you get in a wreck, right? Now you don't leave home planning on being in a crash but it could happen.
And all of carry spare tires on our trucks right? We don't leave home planning to have a flat but Just in case we do we have that spare tire.

Same goes for guns, now granted im not old enough for a concealed carry permit but, will have mine when I hit 21. You don't leave home planning to use that gun but its peace of mind to protect yourself.

Not to mention do some research on the 2nd amendment. Better yet check out federalist paper #46, in which it is stated that the 2nd amendment gives citizens the right to possess firearms, to protect themselves if the government gets out of hand.

These knee jerk reactions are goign to get everybody in trouble.

Just gonna end my rant quietly now with Ben Franklin's Quote:
"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
 
#33 ·
Just gonna end my rant quietly now with Ben Franklin's Quote:
"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."


”The philosophy of gun control: Teenagers are roaring through town at 90MPH, where the speed limit is 25. Your solution is to lower the speed limit to 20.”
~Sam Cohen (inventor of the neutron bomb)

"Good people do not need laws to tell them to act responsibly, while bad people will find a way around the laws.”
~Plato

"You won’t get gun control by disarming law-abiding citizens. There’s only one way to get real gun control: Disarm the thugs and the criminals, lock them up and if you don’t actually throw away the key, at least lose it for a long time… It’s a nasty truth, but those who seek to inflict harm are not fazed by gun controllers. I happen to know this from personal experience.”
~Ronald Reagan

"If someone has a gun and is trying to kill you, it would be reasonable to shoot back with your own gun.”
~The Dalai Lama

".”How a politician stands on the Second Amendment tells you how he or she views you as an individual… as a trustworthy and productive citizen, or as part of an unruly crowd that needs to be lorded over, controlled, supervised, and taken care of.”
~ Dr. Suzanna Gratia Hupp
 
#34 · (Edited)
If I am interpreting that chart correctly, it seems that some of the data points suggest that you CAN have a HIGH gun ownership rate, while maintaining a LOW crime rate.

For instance, Germany, Canada, Sweden, and Switzerland all have a HIGH ownership rate with a LOWER hand gun homicide rate.

Germany, Canada, and Sweden all have about the same ownership rate, but have different crime rates.

Israel is the only country with a higher crime rate than ownership rate. They, despite lower numbers of guns, are still seeing high violence.

This seems to me that there is not a clear and direct relationship between gun ownership and crime rate.

Matter of fact....looking at the last chart:



This doesn't really tell the whole picture either.

For instance, GB and Canada both have low gun homicide rates, but a relatively large homicide rate. This doesn't tell us anything about gun ownership's impact on murders. This just tells us that there are murders here, but they don't use guns.

Switzerland on the other hand...nearly all of their murders are committed with handguns, despite their low crime rate. This relationship is the same as the US. Here we have a high gun ownership, low crime rate country with the same relationship as a high gun rate, high crime. Guns don't appear to have an impact on crime rates, rather crime rates have an impact on how guns are used. This means that in order to have a society with high gun ownership and low crime rate, we must first determine the root cause of violent crime, REGARDLESS of weapon used. It is not sufficient to eliminate guns...and have the same levels of violent criminals using other means.

You can't just look at the charts and see US at the top and say OMG we have to do something! Looking at each country...and the data points...and the difference between the curves...and the ratios compared to other countries...it seems to be no real relationship between them.
 
#35 · (Edited)
Let us take a look at the same data from M3, but set up as an X/Y axis scatter plot. We are testing the relationship between variables...does the X variable determine the Y variable? For this data, we are looking at whether the number of guns causes a high homicide rate, a high gun homicide rate, etc. Looking strictly at numbers, and not separating by country, we can see the relationships:

I plotted the data to check the relationship of Guns vs. Gun Deaths, Guns vs Homicide Rate, and lastly, Homicide Rate vs. Gun Deaths. I added a polynomial trend line, and displayed the R squared value...R squared value is a number in statistics that shows how well the data is correlated. An R squared value of 1.00 = the x value reliably predicts the y value.

It should be noted that we are considering the US in relation to OTHER countries...thus the US data point should not be included in the trend line. however, I left it in which also weights the trend line upwards...incorrectly weighting in favor of the "Guns Causing" violence theory. However, I will leave it in there just to see what it does...

So:

Question 1: Does high gun ownership lead to gun deaths?

Data suggests not really. R squared of 0.46. It can be seen that without the US data point, the trend line would nearly be horizontal. One would think that more guns would lead to more gun deaths, but that doesn't appear to be a universally applicable assertion. Removing the US from the trend line shows an R squared value of 0.001...statistically NO correlation for the US to be compared to.

Question 2: Does high gun ownership lead to a higher overall homicide rate?

Data suggests no. R squared of 0.25. No statistically significant relationship between this data. This really appears to suggest that the rate of gun ownership has little to no impact on overall homicide rates. Removing the US from the data, the R squared value becomes 0.09. ALSO, the trend line becomes negative! Other than the US, in the rest of the world, there is a LOWER overall HOMICIDE rate as GUN INCREASE.

Question 3: Does a high overall homicide rate lead to more hand gun deaths?

Data suggests yes. R squared value of 0.85. This would suggest that countries with high gun homicide rates are NOT caused by the number of guns, but as a result of a larger overall trend of homicide rates. Removing the US from the data, the R squared becomes 0.57...not highly correlated, but when compared to 0.09 and 0.001....0.57 is a much larger influence.


Once again, this is the SAME data used in an ANTI GUN opinion blog. This is just simple statistical technique to analyze the actual RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN FACTORS. These statistically agree with my previous conclusions...but now I gave you UNBIASED statistics
 

Attachments

#36 · (Edited)
Added the chart of Gun Deaths vs. Homicide Rate with the US removed

Removing the US from the data for the trend line allows US to be compared to the TRENDS of the rest of the world.


I think the charts with the US removed without a doubt confirms what I thought...Since it is the same data and everything, I wonder if blogger would mind posting these charts up for his fans to see?


Holy 3 posts in a row batman LOL sorry for carrying on a thread by myself....I get curious with stats

Also, let this be a heads up...there are statistics and polls ANYONE can cite to SUPPORT ANYTHING. The same data presented in the original form emotionally looked bad...gun rates high, murder rates high, crime rates high. But the data does not show the relationships between the factors it shows. The casual observer won't take such an analytical approach to a chart...they see it and make a judgement based on how it looks to them.

ALSO...note that my original assumption was that eliminating guns may eliminate gun violence, but criminals will find another way...this data contradicts that initial thought. I was wrong...eliminating guns, has no impact on gun violence. Counter intuitive, but this data suggests that...
 

Attachments

#37 ·
@robcarync
no bro, carry on lol

I helped my girlfriend write an anti-gun control paper for her comp class. It was suppose to be an arguementive essay. So in it I included "myths?proganda used by the Brady Campaign" and then presented points that dis-spelled their arguements. The professor hated it, she chewed out and told her she didnt know what she was talking about, told her she needed to learn what the Brady campaign is, and wanted her to submit a clean copy where the NRA was put in the paper and the Brady Campaign removed. Well just for good measure I helped put even more dirt on the Brady Campaign in the paper and she re-submitted it. The professor refused to give the paper back afterwords, knocked points off for tone (no place on the ruberic for tone though), and wrote a lenghty note basically chewing her out again. She messed up and wrote the paper was well organized and grammatical correct in the note. My gf then took the the note and stuff to the department chair. and within like a hour or so the professor called and personal apologized for grading the paper on a very biasis basis and bumped her up to an A.
 
#38 ·
#39 ·
The other concern I have with the charts is how the X axis is "manipulated" to make it look more dramatic (anyone who's taken statics knows there's many ways to manipulate the data intentionally or accidentally).

Plotting both graphs, but using a Per million for the Handgun deaths, and using per 100 for handgun ownership.. if you were to plot them on the *same scale*, the number of hand gun deaths would appear as a very small bump. Same with the second chart.. using homicide rate per 100,000 vs handgun deaths per million, the plot for handguns would be 1/10 the height they are now (making them the same height adds more of a "omg!" to it).

It's the same reason starting a chart at 0 on the X axis or picking a number right below your data range can drastically change the appearance of the chart with using the *same data*, giving two different impacts. If you want to enhance the difference between two different data sets that are fairly close, using an x axis that starts just below your data and a ends right above will make it look more spread out and "severe" than something that starts at 0 and makes the two plot lines fairly close together.

Just food for thought
 
#40 ·
1) I am not afraid of being attacked, even though I currently own zero firewarms. However, it does happen. There is a potential need for more than 7 bullets (though extremely rare). However, the biggest part that I disagree with is that there is no way to enforce this limit on people that want to commit crimes. These type of limits are reactionary, and don't address the root cause. What is the difference between the millions of people with 30 round magazines that NEVER commit a crime, and the very FEW that do? Focus needs to be on an organized and factual root cause analysis/design of experiments to identify risk factors, and how to determine who should pass a background check and who shouldn't. I am more for consistent restrictions on WHO can get things...not as much on WHAT.

I, as a non 'clinging to guns and religion' type of person, would gladly give up the right to a 30 round magazine if I, honest to God, thought it would actually have a measurable effect on gun violence.

2) I don't see how that makes bullying seem nice. Many people are bullied and don't shoot people. Many people take bullying or negative aspects of their life and use it for motivation to do positive things. Everyone is still responsible for their own actions, regardless of external factors.

I don't see myself being a problem, or anything that I have said. It all seems logical to me. If you have a logical dissenting opinion, I am always more than willing to listen/read...however stating that I have a problem for having a (presumably) different opinion is not appreciated.
You are correct, it was a bit of a blanket statement that didn't do much. Maybe you specifically aren't afraid, but in general, the American population is full of fear. From what the media and your government pump out, there is always a new threat from somewhere. Terrorists, gangs, the guy next door etc.

Reading through some of the replies here and seeing this discussion pop up all over the place, there are plenty of people who feel the need to protect themselves from threats with fire arms. They can all claim that they aren't afraid, but if they weren't afraid of something, would they need to carry a gun?

Don't get me wrong, I'm not anti gun, and I think it's far too late for any type of gun control in the USA. There are way too many guns out there now to have any hope of restricting a certain type or a size of magazine etc.

I don't have any solutions to offer, and I haven't really seen any suggestions that might make a difference. But just to toss it out there, and since I know it might get a rise out of a fair amount of you who seem to view things on the republican side of the debate, The whole suggestion of mental health screening. It makes perfect sense that you should have to go through a screening process for mental illness before getting a gun. But what is needed for this to work? Better access to mental health professionals throughout one's lifetime, which probably requires some sort of universal healthcare...

As far as the bullying thing goes, you are correct that some people use it as motivation. I use it as motivation. But that does not mean it wasn't harmful. After years of being the victim of bullying through elementary school, I have suffered depression, suicidal thoughts, and even now, many years removed from it, I do not trust very many people, I am awkward or uncomfortable in most social situations. And many other things that are difficult to get over.

I understand that you likely do not know what it feels like to be the victim of constant bullying, or you would not have made such a glossed over comment about it. But try and remember that it is a very serious thing and glossing over it only ignores what is one of the most common threads linking most mass shootings together, which has sparked this latest gun control debate.
 
#41 ·
This is really good to see. I am glad we can be civilized and restrained enough to DEBATE both viewpoints on gun control without it turning into some mud flinging, insult laden, circus. Yes, obviously, I am pro-gun but I applaud the others here for sharing their view in a respectful manner and my fellow pro-gunners for showing the same. I wish some of the people I have encountered would have the same intelligence to realize, the louder they yell and the more expletives they use, does not make them more correct in their argument. In an issue like this, I really don't think there IS a correct answer but I do know more gun restrictions are not the answer.

I agree in part with what KBCL mentioned referring to the bullying. I was fortunate and only subjected to the bullying pretty much any normal kid with a half way normal childhood would experience but I can still remember the few students throughout the years who were tormented day in and day out. The amount of acceptance and "normalcy" (if there is such a thing) obviously seems unattainable to a select few and their minds somehow rationalize a heinous act as being their only option.

The mind will not allow a "wrong decision". It isn't possible. No one single human being can voluntarily decide to do something wrong. There is ALWAYS a justifying motive. ALWAYS. Even right down to the most trivial choice to make. Running a red light? Justified by the thoughts that "I'm late, I have to" or "I'm not going to get caught this time", etc. Renting a crappy movie. Justified by the thought that "maybe it isn't as bad as others say" or "I want to see how bad it really is". Anything that can be viewed as being a wrong decision is ALWAYS justified in that person's mind with a purpose of learning, experiencing, teaching, or the only chance of survival.

With horrific acts such as shootings, in EVERY recent case, the perpetrator was one who's social life was that of torment, abuse, and most importantly, a lack of acceptance by their peers. They have a mindset that nobody cares, nobody even knows they exist, or ultimately, revenge is their only solution to redeem themselves. With the de-evolution of media outlets (my opinion), the spotlight is trending towards shining the brightest spotlight on the darkest of days. These select few see this and look at their life and the theory from research and studies believe that they feel "nobody knows who I am, nobody notices me, nobody cares, wait until I do this and I will be forever known". They know that if they commit suicide to end their misery, they will become just another number in somebody's statistics chart but if they commit a mass murder or other violent act that grabs headlines, they literally get immortalized. Acceptance and notoriety, even for something horrific, is still a type of fame they seek and feel justified for doing.

In my opinion, if we truly want to stop these horrific acts, we HAVE to make available the proper health care for these people. Treatments DO WORK if they are recognized and treated in time. Unfortunately, treatments and therapy are all too expensive for most, even with insurance in some states or people do not recognize the signs of mental illness in their child, spouses, siblings.

On a lighter note, I finally put my psychology major to use for once. :D
 
#42 ·
#43 · (Edited)
You are correct, it was a bit of a blanket statement that didn't do much. Maybe you specifically aren't afraid, but in general, the American population is full of fear. From what the media and your government pump out, there is always a new threat from somewhere. Terrorists, gangs, the guy next door etc.

Reading through some of the replies here and seeing this discussion pop up all over the place, there are plenty of people who feel the need to protect themselves from threats with fire arms. They can all claim that they aren't afraid, but if they weren't afraid of something, would they need to carry a gun?
1) Fear or being prepared? I personally have a CCW license, but don't carry. Hell, I don't even own my weapon anymore, partially because I live in areas that are relatively safe, that I don't fear. As people already mentioned, its a seat belt. It's an air bag. It's there just in case, but we hope to never use it.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not anti gun, and I think it's far too late for any type of gun control in the USA. There are way too many guns out there now to have any hope of restricting a certain type or a size of magazine etc.
Agreed.

I don't have any solutions to offer, and I haven't really seen any suggestions that might make a difference. But just to toss it out there, and since I know it might get a rise out of a fair amount of you who seem to view things on the republican side of the debate, The whole suggestion of mental health screening. It makes perfect sense that you should have to go through a screening process for mental illness before getting a gun. But what is needed for this to work? Better access to mental health professionals throughout one's lifetime, which probably requires some sort of universal healthcare...
You don't necessarily need a single payer/universal health care system to have people screened for a back ground check...I had to have physicals and health checks when attempting to accept an Air Force ROTC scholarship for undergrad. I made appointment with a regular doctor from the approved list from the DoD, had the appropriate forms faxed over, showed up for physicals and health checks, had forms filled out, notarized, faxed back. Matter of fact, these health background checks worked out so well, my scholarship was taken away because a doctor when I was 12 years old wrote down "asthma like symptoms" on his appointment notes. Healthcare is an entirely new debate though...point is...the existing health care infrastructure can be used to process health and wellness checks for government use (gun permits, ROTC scholarship, etc)

As far as the bullying thing goes, you are correct that some people use it as motivation. I use it as motivation. But that does not mean it wasn't harmful. After years of being the victim of bullying through elementary school, I have suffered depression, suicidal thoughts, and even now, many years removed from it, I do not trust very many people, I am awkward or uncomfortable in most social situations. And many other things that are difficult to get over.

I understand that you likely do not know what it feels like to be the victim of constant bullying, or you would not have made such a glossed over comment about it. But try and remember that it is a very serious thing and glossing over it only ignores what is one of the most common threads linking most mass shootings together, which has sparked this latest gun control debate.
I agree that bullying is very harmful. My only point was that, in my opinion, the only person ultimately responsible for a shooting is the person who pulls the trigger. Bullying people makes you an @ss hole, but in my mind, doesn't make you responsible for a subsequent shooting.

It is the same concept as the number of guns causing murders counter argument: there are million of gun owners out there that never commit a crime...there are millions of kids being bullied that never shoot up a school...the bullies and the guns aren't the root problem here...what was the difference that made this one gun owner or this one bullied kid snap? The actions of an individual rest on the individual...in my mind, I am not ready to blame these crimes on inanimate objects or a punk kid at school (not saying you are....just clarifying my original post)

I'm not trying to down play bullying by any means
 
#44 ·
1) Fear or being prepared? I personally have a CCW license, but don't carry. Hell, I don't even own my weapon anymore, partially because I live in areas that are relatively safe, that I don't fear. As people already mentioned, its a seat belt. It's an air bag. It's there just in case, but we hope to never use it.
This just proves my point. You even used the word fear.

I agree that bullying is very harmful. My only point was that, in my opinion, the only person ultimately responsible for a shooting is the person who pulls the trigger. Bullying people makes you an @ss hole, but in my mind, doesn't make you responsible for a subsequent shooting.

It is the same concept as the number of guns causing murders counter argument: there are million of gun owners out there that never commit a crime...there are millions of kids being bullied that never shoot up a school...the bullies and the guns aren't the root problem here...what was the difference that made this one gun owner or this one bullied kid snap? The actions of an individual rest on the individual...in my mind, I am not ready to blame these crimes on inanimate objects or a punk kid at school (not saying you are....just clarifying my original post)
Yes the actions of an individual rest on the individual, but I don't think you understand the anger, hate, and self-loathing that bullying can instill in someone. Add bullying to someone that might already be on the edge of mental illness...When you understand how repeated bullying makes you feel, it's easy to see why some people snap.
The elimination of bullying and better programs in place to detect and treat mental illness would probably go a long way in stopping a lot of tragedies.
 
#45 · (Edited)
This just proves my point. You even used the word fear.



Yes the actions of an individual rest on the individual, but I don't think you understand the anger, hate, and self-loathing that bullying can instill in someone. Add bullying to someone that might already be on the edge of mental illness...When you understand how repeated bullying makes you feel, it's easy to see why some people snap.
The elimination of bullying and better programs in place to detect and treat mental illness would probably go a long way in stopping a lot of tragedies.
We can nit pick over whether it is fear or not...I said I do not fear where I live. Perhaps I misspoke and implied no longer needing my weapon was OK out of no longer having fear...the fact that I live in a relatively safe place IS a factor in deciding to own a firearm or not; this is independent of fear.

I was NEVER fearful of where I was...I mentioned this to your point implying that gun owners fear something. I didn't fear when I had a firearm, I don't now. As mentioned, living in a safe area (always have, living in a safe area is not new to me) was one of many reasons for no longer owning one. Part of it was schedule (not enough time to consistently practice with it), being a student (can't carry on campus, where I was most of the time), money (was in the process of moving to Iowa, ammo was expensive, range fees went up), and not wanting to to deal with checking a firearm on an airplane while moving to Iowa, not wanting to go through the process of learning new state laws regarding firearms, etc

At the end of the day, I NEVER was in fear no matter where I was living at the time. My firearm was essentially a range gun because I enjoyed shooting at paper targets...but it was nice to have, knowing I understood how to use it if I needed to. I call this preparation, not fear.

On the hypothetical side of things, if I had lived in a very bad area, or was moving to a bad area, I would have considered keeping it...not out of fear, but when doing a cost/benefit analysis...a higher risk to bodily harm means protection is worth a higher cost. Acknowleding a higher risk does not mean fear. Would you wear a seat belt on a race track? On a highway? While offroading? While moving a car out of the driveway? While in a parking lot briefly? Same point...I will feel comfortable in certain low risk situations without a seat belt (parking, driveway, etc)...but offroading, or on a highway, you have a lot higher risk...all of a sudden the potential risk outweighs the annoyance of buckling up. That is not fear. It is logic driven decision making.

You are right...I do not know of this anger and hate. I was not bullied, and I was not a bully myself. I surely understand the concept of the bullied snapping and doing this...but the fact remains that, of these tragedies, statistically, they are an anomoly. There are still a LOT more mentally ill people that never commit a crime, there are a LOT more bullied kids that never commit a crime...there are a LOT more gun owners that never commit a crime...even combining the three, I would venture to say that there are a lot more kids that are mentally ill, are bullied, who live in a house with guns, and never commit these crimes.

I am not down playing the harm bullying does...simply stating that some people are exposed to the same risk factors...some kill people, some don't. It is, in fact, the human element.
 
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top