Thread: The Guardian Plan

Originally Posted by boilermaker

Did anyone else read this article? I find it relevant about why I'm generally opposed to the number of guns circulating in our country.

Vijay Prashad: Deaths of children that don

The part that sticks out in my reading was this:
When a singular mass killing occurs in mainly affluent suburbs, it shocks the nation — and rightly so. But it might be a shock to some to know that this year alone 117 children died from handgun violence in Chicago. These deaths do not get discussed, let alone memorialized in the national conversation of tragedy.

117!!! Children. In Chicago. From guns. Sick and twisted. And nearly all "accidental". I don't want to discuss the kids in the drone strikes (maybe another debate....) But relevant to this debate, I don't know how one defends gun ownership/use in our country.

You can always find stories of children accidentally shot from handguns in the home.

This scares the bejeebees out of me, too. Which is why I ask every parent where a child of mine goes if they own guns and if yes, where and how they store them. From:
HealthyChildren.org - Handguns in the Home

Even if you don't have guns in your own home, that won't eliminate your child's risks. Half of the homes in the United States contain firearms, and more than a third of all accidental shootings of children take place in the homes of their friends, neighbors, or relatives. A Center to Prevent Handgun Violence survey estimated that about 135,000 students carried handguns to school each day, and another 270,000 brought handguns to school at least once; that figure may be even higher today.

Audra, I obviously know that with a gun in the house there is a higher risk of them being accidentally killed with one. But the guns in our house serve a purpose. I know that's hard for someone who has no interest in guns to understand..but in general people make those types of decisions ALL the time and its not unique to gun ownership.

The choice to do or use anything non-essential, will increase the risk of tragedy happening from that nonessential activity or action. That's simple logic and can be applied to all things in life.


ETA: Obviously i'm in the middle on this issue, not to one side or the other. But it really gets to me when people start getting on the topic of accidents. I know accidents can happen! Same like i know an accident can happen as i drive my kid to their basketball game, or if i were to take them skiing, or fly them to a vacation destination.

Originally Posted by Rivergallery

1- Saying the 2nd amendment was written so that we could form a militia not to protect hunting rights or personal protection isn't rhetoric, it is simply reading it.
2- Again you have no idea what I am teaching my children, nor do I have any idea what you are teaching yours.
3- Do you know how long it would realistically take the Police to reach your home in case of emergency? While I was in the city a few months ago I had the need to call 911, I was put on hold for 5 min before I gave up.
4- I never once said people SHOULD stockpile, I said we should have the right to if we want. I don't see law abiding citizens with CC permits shooting up children.
5- No, I said bad things CAN happen. IE dictators take over easier if the populous is disarmed first.
6- I like hippy popcorn too .

Originally Posted by Rivergallery

I do think mental health should be made easier to access for sure.

This is one of the things I just can't figure out. Reagan was shot by an insane gun man. Yet, Reagan cut federal funding for mental health services. IRL, I know several people who really shouldn't own a gun due to various mental illnesses but that is their right. The 2nd amendment also doesn't say "except for mentally ill or blind people."

Originally Posted by Rivergallery

--- And a policeman is going to get to my house quicker than I can get to my gun?

What about other emergencies? Are you also an EMT? Realistically, if it was a medical emergency it could end up much worse. IME, we've needed to call 911 more often for fires and medical emergencies than to report a crime/threat to us.

Originally Posted by boilermaker

117!!! Children. In Chicago. From guns. Sick and twisted. And nearly all "accidental". I don't want to discuss the kids in the drone strikes (maybe another debate....) But relevant to this debate, I don't know how one defends gun ownership/use in our country.

Chicago has the strictest gun laws in the nation. We can see how well it works to create more gun laws.

Originally Posted by ethanwinfield

This is one of the things I just can't figure out. Reagan was shot by an insane gun man. Yet, Reagan cut federal funding for mental health services. IRL, I know several people who really shouldn't own a gun due to various mental illnesses but that is their right. The 2nd amendment also doesn't say "except for mentally ill or blind people."


What about other emergencies? Are you also an EMT? Realistically, if it was a medical emergency it could end up much worse. IME, we've needed to call 911 more often for fires and medical emergencies than to report a crime/threat to us.

1- Cutting federal funding... depends if federal funding helps the situation.. And just because Reagan did something doesn't mean I nor all Republicans or all of any group agree with it. .
2- About other emergencies. What does it matter if I am EMT not sure what you are implying... I will answer though EMT and FIRE are much closer, we have rural volunteers that are trained. My neighbor is one. They would get here way before the police. About 10-15min max, is there time frame. We have had to have them called before.. our other neighbor has had lots of medical issues. The actual first responder to her husband's passing was my neighbor that was an EMT Firefighter/nurse ... took about 2 min max from the phone call till the time she arrived.

Originally Posted by boilermaker

Did anyone else read this article? I find it relevant about why I'm generally opposed to the number of guns circulating in our country.

Vijay Prashad: Deaths of children that don

The part that sticks out in my reading was this:
When a singular mass killing occurs in mainly affluent suburbs, it shocks the nation ? and rightly so. But it might be a shock to some to know that this year alone 117 children died from handgun violence in Chicago. These deaths do not get discussed, let alone memorialized in the national conversation of tragedy.

117!!! Children. In Chicago. From guns. Sick and twisted. And nearly all "accidental". I don't want to discuss the kids in the drone strikes (maybe another debate....) But relevant to this debate, I don't know how one defends gun ownership/use in our country.

You can always find stories of children accidentally shot from handguns in the home.

This scares the bejeebees out of me, too. Which is why I ask every parent where a child of mine goes if they own guns and if yes, where and how they store them. From:
HealthyChildren.org - Handguns in the Home

Even if you don't have guns in your own home, that won't eliminate your child's risks. Half of the homes in the United States contain firearms, and more than a third of all accidental shootings of children take place in the homes of their friends, neighbors, or relatives. A Center to Prevent Handgun Violence survey estimated that about 135,000 students carried handguns to school each day, and another 270,000 brought handguns to school at least once; that figure may be even higher today.

How many of those guns were legal?
You do realize a lot of these could be gang related also? As in gangmebers owning guns...?

Originally Posted by Rivergallery

How many of those guns were legal?
You do realize a lot of these could be gang related also? As in gangmebers owning guns...?

1. They all started out legal.

2. Why does that matter? Being a gang memeber in and of itself is not a crime; protected by that other amendment. Also, they have the legal right to own guns until they lose that right via the 5th amendment.

What's your point though? Gang memebers aren't responsible gun owners? Gang members shouldn't be protected by the 2nd amendment?

Originally Posted by Rivergallery

1- Cutting federal funding... depends if federal funding helps the situation.. And just because Reagan did something doesn't mean I nor all Republicans or all of any group agree with it. .

If you don't think federal funding helps, why would you disagree with the cuts? I just find it odd that the victim of gun violence, by a person who is insane, would cut funding that would allow others to get help.

He also cut state funding. About 15,000 were released while he was governor.

List of school shootings in the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Just to open some eyes. This is a complete listing.

Banning assault rifles is going to do nothing. Since the ban in 1993 there have been 70 school shootings.

Originally Posted by KimPossible

Audra, I obviously know that with a gun in the house there is a higher risk of them being accidentally killed with one. But the guns in our house serve a purpose. I know that's hard for someone who has no interest in guns to understand..but in general people make those types of decisions ALL the time and its not unique to gun ownership.

The choice to do or use anything non-essential, will increase the risk of tragedy happening from that nonessential activity or action. That's simple logic and can be applied to all things in life.


ETA: Obviously i'm in the middle on this issue, not to one side or the other. But it really gets to me when people start getting on the topic of accidents. I know accidents can happen! Same like i know an accident can happen as i drive my kid to their basketball game, or if i were to take them skiing, or fly them to a vacation destination.

Agreed. These stats were from hand guns. Do people use hand guns to hunt? Honest question, since I'm not a hunter. Pretty much all of my family members hunt, but they all use shot guns, but not hand guns or assault rifles, so I'm truly asking an honest question.

I feel like the fact that Chicago has banned hand guns doesn't really matter bc they are so prevalent everywhere else. If we banned them in the entire country, it would surely be more effective than a ban that only enforced in certain cities.

I think of hunters differently than I think of people who "stockpile" weapons or CC. Hunters don't keep loaded weapons readily available "in case" of an emergency (never mind that they more often create the emergency themselves.)

My point with the 117 kids killed by handguns is that they are everywhere. EVERYWHERE. And it has an impact. That's all. I just am having trouble seeing the upside of magazine clips that hold 100 rounds, concealed handguns, and assault rifles.

Originally Posted by boilermaker

Agreed. These stats were from hand guns. Do people use hand guns to hunt? Honest question, since I'm not a hunter. Pretty much all of my family members hunt, but they all use shot guns, but not hand guns or assault rifles, so I'm truly asking an honest question.

I feel like the fact that Chicago has banned hand guns doesn't really matter bc they are so prevalent everywhere else. If we banned them in the entire country, it would surely be more effective than a ban that only enforced in certain cities.

I think of hunters differently than I think of people who "stockpile" weapons or CC. Hunters don't keep loaded weapons readily available "in case" of an emergency (never mind that they more often create the emergency themselves.)

My point with the 117 kids killed by handguns is that they are everywhere. EVERYWHERE. And it has an impact. That's all. I just am having trouble seeing the upside of magazine clips that hold 100 rounds, concealed handguns, and assault rifles.

Banning all guns in the US would not rid the US of guns unless you banned buying things off the internet and/or better closed up the Mexican boarder. If someone really wants a gun, they can get one.