Had Enough

[Guest EJTENC]

Living in Canada I would not expect you to fully understand my post. Even so I welcome the discussion. I choose to conceal carry when I go with my wife and child to the movie theater and I guarantee that if I were in the theater at that time the tradegy would have been significantly different.

 

The fact that you think you need to carry a gun to go to the theater makes me sad. It is definitely not the society I would want to live in.

I was brought up with the idea the USA was the country of the free, but it seems you are held hostage by the same thing you are willing to fight for. Guns. I don't understand - as a European- how you can defend hollow point bullets and automatic riffles.

It seems that fear has got the upperhand in the country I grew to love, first by the stories of my grandfather, when he told us about the second world war and later by visiting.

 

Every year I open my house to a veteran from WWII. Either from Canada or the USA. I do this because I wouldn't be alive if they didn't decide to put their lives on the line and liberate us. I spent time with them on our national cemeteries where their brothers are honored and saw the pain in their eyes, as I see the pain in mine, when I look in the mirror thinking of the ones I lost.

 

I am a veteran myself. I fought in former Yugoslavia, and experienced first hand what getting shot at means. I only have to close my eyes and I feel it again. I even lost brothers both during and after the war due to this.

 

I am happy that guns are not for sale that easy in my country. Criminals do have access to guns, and we have the police to concentrate on catching them, without having to worry a troubled kid decides one morning to change from first person shooter to the real deal.

 

I don't understand why people invest so much time and effort in defending things that cause destruction and pain and not try to use that same energy in positive things. Break the circle, ban guns, stop the (unnecessary extra) killings, but most of all stop living in fear.

[kdfw__ 542]

why is avsim allowing political topics?

 

i don't care to read about people's neo-confederate views or mcveigh-isque anti-government paraonia on avsim. there are other sites that cater to such topics and views.

[BimmerCop 332]

Does everyone here click on EVERY SINGLE THREAD POSTED ON AVSIM? I bet not because if it's a topic which doesn't interest you, then you simply skip it and scan for other interesting topics. If you don't want to read anything about politics, simply skip it and go about your business. We are all adults here and if the administrators have allowed this topic to carry on, it's their website, they have the right to.

[Fatback 84]

+1 to what Bimmer said

[Great Ozzie 101]

Does everyone here click on EVERY SINGLE THREAD POSTED ON AVSIM?

 

Apparently the kdfw_ does... and he wants to insult those he does not agree with... and he turns a blind eye to what several mods have posted regarding the "why allowed" (not just in this thread on the very same subject matter).

 

And we're the ignorant crackpots... :rolleyes:

[Fatback 84]

In general though I am positively surprised how civil this discussion had been considering the emotions that generally attend this topic. I bet the mods are surprised too!

[Great Ozzie 101]

In general though I am positively surprised how civil this discussion had been considering the emotions that generally attend this topic.

 

Yeah it is good to have like minded folk (simmers / av enthusiasts) discuss what can be a very volatile subject and with a bit of discipline, demonstrate some respect for opposing views.

 

What bothers me is this outcry from people with very little knowledge about firearms... and because they don't own or see any use for one... suddenly that (banning) needs to become the law of the land.

 

It is an extremely difficult task to address... but I still believe the solution goes back to dealing with the user (the abuser) and not the method of abuse.

[xplanery 250]

why is avsim allowing political topics?

 

Why not? Airliners.net and probably majority of other aviation forums do allow political topics as long as discussion stays civil enough, and so far it has stayed way more civil here than what I've seen in airliners.net for example.

 

 

It is an extremely difficult task to address... but I still believe the solution goes back to dealing with the user (the abuser) and not the method of abuse.

 

I agree, of course the most important thing would be getting all these people with serious mental illnesses into proper treatment and generally try to create a better more caring society, after all in most cases there are some serious family problems / bullying etc behind most mental problems people get. But that's a difficult thing to do.

[simmerhead 885]

Yeah it is good to have like minded folk (simmers / av enthusiasts) discuss what can be a very volatile subject and with a bit of discipline, demonstrate some respect for opposing views.

 

What bothers me is this outcry from people with very little knowledge about firearms... and because they don't own or see any use for one... suddenly that (banning) needs to become the law of the land.

 

It is an extremely difficult task to address... but I still believe the solution goes back to dealing with the user (the abuser) and not the method of abuse.

 

I don't know how increased knowledge about firearms would add anything of value to the discussion? It is as you say an extremely difficult task to address. It would be great if one could deal with the user/abuser, but we all know that only happens efficiently in Utopia.

 

You are faced with the same dilemmas when dealing with legalization of drugs. No matter how well educated and rational a person is, we can all fall into temptation or lose our temper in the heat of the moment.

 

Same can be said about junk food/sugar. I don't think it is the American people's lack of knowledge about nutrition that makes them the fattest people on Earth.

 

Availability and access to guns is a problem, but to what degree is anyone's guess.

[realpilotsimpilot 11]

To those complaining about the thread, let me just say that I have had this exact discussion in an actual hangar at my local airport.

 

As for the discussion itself, I largely just been watching it because as Great Ozzie and Fatback just alluded to, civil discourse in this area tends to be difficult. I'm very liberal but also sensitive to restricting constitutionally protected rights, even ones I don't necessarily like. We have reasonable restrictions on speech (1st amendment), and exceptions to search and seizure (4th amendment), and so on. What's reasonable for guns? Reasonable minds can differ. I try to think of reasonable gun restrictions in the context of reasonable restrictions on other rights and keep them tied together. Someone above said something like "unlimited guns but if you break the law with a gun no pleas". What about that person's constitutional rights for a fair trial (several amendments)? Typically, the rights of defendants are not popular for conservatives, whereas gun rights aren't popular with liberals. If people tried to be more consistent in their interpretations across different parts of the constitution, we might be able to have better discussions across the board.

 

Example of a stupid comment on this topic I saw today: Talking head on Fox saying that having doctors talk to their mentally disturbed patients about guns was a violation of the amendment. Give me a break. If the law is that the mentally ill can't have guns, and we agree that is a reasonable restriction, then there has to be a way to ensure that provision can be enforced. But, by and large this discussion has been fairly measured, and as an American I've actually enjoyed the measured input from non-Americans as well. Typically when these debates get out of hand on the web, the Americans blow up at each other and the non-Americans chime in that Americans are all knuckle-dragging violence prone neanderthals with small male parts. Maybe it's because I live in DC and am surrounded by hyper-political talk all the time, that at some level I'm fine to agree to disagree, especially when someone feels strongly about something. A lost skill, IMHO.

[Dave Morgan 68]

Restricting the possession of firearms is not the same as a ban... take a look at the UK's gun law. There's nothing to stop us owning and using firearms here, though I'm not so sure about those which fire several rounds for one squeeze. All we need is to belong to a registered gun club and to possess a licence and secure storage for the gun in question. The proliferation of firearms has not occurred here, and that makes tracing the weapon used to kill or wound another person rather easier.

 

We don't have... no guns (I put the 3 stops in to keep you from reading that statement as bad grammar). Gamekeepers, sportsmen, farmers, club members are all legally permitted to possess firearms. Generally, we know that if we lose a firearm, and it's subsequently used in a violent crime, we are likely to suffer severe penalties. However, we don't regard that as an infringement of our liberty: it's a responsibility that we are happy to undertake.

 

The combination of registration, and relative ease of tracing are the two strongest deterrents to armed crime in the UK. We have few guns, they are safely locked away, those that are criminally available are relatively few; we can walk along a street without fear. Or the need to arm ourselves. In rural areas we still debate the need to arm our police. Around my home patch they carry nothing more offensive than a big stick. Something as simple as visiting a large airport has sinister undertones for us hicks when we are confronted by the sight an armed police officer. Every time one of them discharges a weapon in a public place, whether it wounded or killed a suspect, or innocent, an inquiry is held. That may be a little over-the-top, not to mention expensive, but it works. If a member of the public did the same, the investigation would be considerably more thorough and far-reaching. That also works well. I don't think you can put a price on a child's life.

 

I'll finish by saying I find this thread very frightening, especially if it's an indication of the prevailing sentiment in the States. I think both sides of the argument, in the States, really need to get together and consider a small arms non-proliferation treaty. Those of you my age or older surely remember the fear underlying life during the height of the cold war. You seem to be suffering unwittingly the same problems with your liberty to carry small arms-- increasing their prevalence and availability in an attempt at safeguarding yourselves against their illegal use.

 

Regards,

D

[n4gix 4,947]

There is no reason not to expand background checks to cover mental health or at least have mental health questions on the basic ATF form. Besides the "have you been committed" question. It is also time to reevaluate our mental health care system and its interaction with law enforcement.

I find it truly ironic that a person who may have been convicted fifty years ago of "check conversion over $1000," which is a felony in some states, is forever barred from gun ownership...

 

...yet even those with long histories of mental illness have no such prohibition... :blink:

[razorhog703 15]

The founding fathers ensured that private citizens had the same kind of weaponry as the King's soldiers in their time. I think there's still a compelling interest in the same sort of parity--a people that wants to remain free should not think it wise to endow their government with weapons while allowing their government to deny the same to themselves. I think it was Thomas Jefferson that said "those who turn their swords into plowshares will soon find themselves plowing for those who do not."

 

Wise words. 100%

[IFR7700 228]

Why is the country even discussing this trivial matter? Because it distracts the population from the fact that the world's economy is close to complete collapse, and the end result will be world wide poverty as never seen before. To end this, the world must engage in mass war for economic stimulation. It happens throughout history.

 

But none of that is important when we can argue about three extra bullets in a clip. We're doomed by an illiterate voting populous and corrupt politicians.

[XPX64man 130]

If civil order breaks down to the point where police are overwhelmed, as it did in Los Angeles during the 1992 riots, and as it did in New Orleans following Hurricane Katrina, the only weapons standing between you and an armed lawless mob is what you had the foresight to acquire before the incident. Store owners in LA openly brandished AR-15 and AK-47 rifles to defend their businesses from rioting looters who were killing people in the streets, and neighbors banded together to protect themselves in New Orleans in the same way. Try facing down 50 rampaging criminals with a bolt-action .308 deer rifle.

 

The history of insurgency in the last century shows that an armed populace with the will to fight cannot be easily controlled, even with modern advanced weaponry. Look at what has happened in VietNam, Somalia, and Afghanistan as examples. The idea that an armed population is simply rolled over and beaten with modern weaponry isn't supported by any recent attempt, including our own 12-year experience in Afghanistan. So don't sell the value of an armed populace short.

 

I'm sure there is that unique circumstance, where it would be advantageous to have an M1 Abrams Tank parked in your back yard, but that instance would be so highly unlikely to occur, and the risk of that tank getting into the wrong hands, and causing havoc to society, would so outweigh any benefits, that it would fall under the classification of total insanity for it to be parked there and available. The same holds true with military type assault weapons.

 

Also, the point that I'm making with the cannons and muskets is that even during the Revolutionary War, lawmakers referred to an armed "Organized Militia" (like Jeff said, our National Guard) to have larger and more leathal weapons. Not the general disorganized public.

We do not live in an anarchy. We change and regulate our government through elections, peaceful demonstrations and petitions. Not by the threat of having mass killing weapons in our homes.

No one is trying to take the ability to own guns away from American citizens. No one is trying to violate the 2nd Amendment rights to own fire arms.

Military assault weapons are designed to win wars, when used by trained armies. They have no place in the home of individual citizens and were not designed for that purpose.

How anyone could think that not being able to own a military assault weapon, violates their 2nd Amendment rights, is beyond my imagination and pushes the envelope of insanity.

Just wanting to have one for personal use, is reason enough not to have one.