In a rare display of reason, Asher Slade (the MGTOW with whom I have had a number of strong disagreements) asked some questions. His post is below:
You can feel free to post what your arguments and positions actually are and how you would while still respecting our consitution you would try to solve the mass shooting issue.Remember all free people have a right to self defense. Mine are clear more gun ownership not less next to no gun free zones protect schools with either willingly armed teachers or security staff . Make fewer soft targets and watch how much the issue self corects. Mentally unwell person tries to shoot a place up a gun owner around them or security put the threat down as fast and as safe as posible . Bad people exist we do not want to create more victims by making it so only criminals will have guns . I think political figures who advocate gun control should have their tax payer funded security removed . They can either pay private while still holding their moral anti gun postion or they can get trained and arm themselves while still trying to be a anti gun right advocate
I dare say I have substantially described my positions before, but for Asher’s benefit (and for any new followers) I will run through them again.
My view is that guns are deadly weapons, and should be treated appropriately. In an ideal world, there would be absolutely no need for them (and many countries around the world have demonstrated this, more on that in a moment). The reality is that guns are deeply engrained on US society, part of the cultural landscape, and enshrined in the Constitution. They are obviously not going anywhere, but the presence of guns leads to numerous mass shootings, which we can all agree are tragic events that are virtually unique to the USA.
The Constitution is the bedrock of US governance. It’s importance cannot be overstated, though I suspect the term ‘constitutional’ has come to be conflated with ‘good’, a risky approach. To treat the Constitution as being almost Biblical in terms of its inerrancy is a dangerous precedent. However, like guns themselves, the Constitution is not going anywhere. It is the lens through which everything else must be filtered, when it comes to US governance.
The right to life was part of the original Declaration of Independence, yet was not a part of the original Constitution. Does this mean that the right to life is secondary (indeed, unconstitutional RE bad), especially in comparison to the 2nd Amendment’s declaration of the right to bear arms? If the Constitution is the highest document of the land, exceeding all others, yet does not enshrine a right to life, what sort of precedent does this set? What sort of moral or political authority places the right to deadly weapons ahead of the right to life?
This is not to say that people should not have the right to defend themselves, and certainly in the 18th Century, the risk to person and property would have been considerable. The newly-formed USA would not have had a defined military, and hence the need for a well-regulated militia. I don’t believe the writers of the Constitution envisioned an unregulated mess of heavily-armed militias that were capable of threatening the very government they were establishing, and I don’t believe they imagined powerful weapons in the hands of poorly or untrained civilians. Despite some claims I have read, I also don’t believe they could have imagined the types of firearms that are easily available to the average American today.
Whilst it may be deemed unconstitutional to look at how other countries have tackled gun violence, it is also a statistical reality that many other developed, first-world nations do not suffer the same rates of gun crime as the USA, and are also safer in general terms. As of 2020, the USA’s overall homicide rate per 100,000 people was 6.4. In Australia, the murder rate for the same year was 0.9, and in Germany it was 0.8. In Switzerland it was 0.5. In Japan it was 0.3. When you look here, you’ll see that in the USA, guns make up a significant percentage of murders.
Guns won’t be the only factor. I have pointed this out, time and time again, and I hope that this time, Asher takes note of this. Whilst Japan has some incredibly strict gun laws, it’s worth noting that guns are widely available in both Germany and Switzerland; they are subject to different forms of gun control, to both each other and the USA.
Would those solutions work in the USA? That’s impossible to say. There does not seem to be much political will to try anything. Doing nothing is certainly and obviously not working.
As far as mental health issues go, the maligning of people with mental health problems is, in my view, deeply unfair. It is also deeply ironic. Asher has in the past opposed mental health checks, and would certainly oppose any sort of federal funding/involvement in them. How would he propose to try and prevent people with mental health issues from buying guns, and what criteria would he deem acceptable for defining a mental health issue?
Can gun violence be reduced, with guns remaining available? Absolutely. Switzerland, Germany, and also the Czech Republic are all examples of this. People in these countries will have mental health issues too, yet they do not go on killing sprees. Food for thought.
36 thoughts on “Some Questions – and some Answers”
Nice not answering the task at hand I expected as much you berating America for us not wanting to give up our property. You do know that at the time of the Consitution was written and even today you can legally own cannons . So to say that the founders did not understand what they were writing into our founding document as part of the bill of rights is disrespectful. Now this bill of rights does not grant us our rights as free people it dose how ever make clear that no laws abrifing these rights shall be allowed. Now I will say you might bring up the living document theroy . Now that might actually account for some of the current issues of society. Yes I discredit any mental health check as a means of removing a person’s right to protect them self. Now yes mental health issues are complex and a fucking hard thing to tackle. Not all with mental illness should be bared from gun ownership in my opinion and the opinion of most states last I checked . Unless you are currently insituitionalized or have been deemed mentally ill by your state you should have all the same rights the rest of the citizens . Now if you are a proven felon and have not had your rights restored by your governor then legally you do not get to vote hold certain jobs and you do not get to own a gun . Both are not great but exceptable. Anything further ie trying to punish people for crimes they have yet to commit by baring them from exercising their right to Bear arms. Is not only wrong on my opinion people advocating it are evil . See all gun control advocates .
Dear Sir, The guns your constitution allowed were single shot muskets that had to be reloaded after every shot. The writers of the Constitution did not nor could not envision rifles (machine guns/assault weapons) that could fire 15 bullets or more per second. If they had been able to envision such weapons they would never have put them in the hands of private citizens.
Which leads me to the fact there is no need today for a militia made up of private citizens. Again, when the Constitution was written, the United States of America did not have the largest standing army in the world. The army is now the protectorate of the people. They are professional soldiers whose very job it is to protect American citizens. What need is there for a “well-armed militia” when private citizens no longer need to band together to protect your nation from threats, whether they come from inside or outside your nation.
You seem to be demanding to live in the nation that existed at the time of the writing of your Constitution, which is absurd. You are living in a modern world, a supposedly civilized world. You cannot be a modern citizen when you are trying to live in a past that does not exist, nor never will again. It is time to grow up and become a member of the real world.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Okay I would tell you that at the time of the Consitution while yes they mostly had single shot weapons they did have others that could fire a fair bit faster the were just rare or complicated to make. But muskets of the time were military weapons same were cannons and private citizens could own a ship outfitted with cannons and they could dock it at the city port . I would say a ship with cannons is far more dangerous than the average citizen armed with a few guns in the modem era . I am sadden you lot have such a negative out look on gun ownership. The 3 or so million defensive uses of guns on average must mean you wish those people did not have a means to defend themselves. You are free to have that opinion . If you think the Second Amendment only applies to muskets. okay fine, the First amendment only applies to to things hand written on partchment or done via ,18th century printing press.
I’m not living in the past, and in fact I live by a totally different set of rules than you. Where I live rifles are used for target shooting or hunting. We don’t have hundreds of thousands of people dying every year because of gun violence. If you had read carefully you would have realized that, I left you hints.
But no matter, you say there are 3 million defensive reasons for owning a gun. Wow! Really! I can’t think of even one good one. 3 million! Incredible! I have lived for over 70 years, and never once did I need a gun to defend myself. Never once did I even think about needing one! I guess we live in different worlds if you have 3 million reasons to defend yourself with a gun.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Raw I do not need 3 millions reasons you pro confiscation fool. What I said was the stat that about 3 million defensive uses of gun on average by people who other wise may have been harmed by violent criminals . The only reasons I “need” for having guns is because 1 I want them.2 Also I have the right to defend my life with leathal force of leathal force is presented against me.
Manners Asher. Plus, I am still waiting for you to verify your claim about defensive gun use.
I am being polite as I can Ben when a person wants to call me mentally ill for having guns or being around them . Tell him to not imply insults either I am walking a fine line of telling you people what I truly think and none of it would be considered polite by people like you . So I am filtering my words for the most part like I am talking to a group of children who have no concept of danger or that just because you are not a fan of a thing does not mean that you can pressure a sitting hostile government should take and or heavily restrict the things you do not like from people who you also do not like. You can choose for yourself to never buy a gun and take steps to never be near them at least to your knowledge not be near them . Other people have the right and freedom to choose to own collect carry and shoot firearms and be friends with like minded people . Most legal gun owners are not going around shooting people up for no reason given the number of guns and gun owners in America you would expect higher rates of mass shooting of guns are the sole problem. Mass shooters and violent criminals share at least 1 trait a gross lack of respect for human life. I will say another group of people who have a gross lack of respect for human life but but I know you people think its healthcare when they do it so here we are. I have been told by other Gun owners that this kind of conversation is pointless because I will not change your mind not matter how I try to explain this or rationalize why owning a gun is not a bad thing . You will never change my mind on allowing a further government control on my life . I will never submit to your manditory mental health check idea to be allowed to keep my property . I have passed more background checks than I care to have had to for purchasing items I had to submit a massive form and very deep background check to get a FFL that allows me to buy/ sell and trade firearms with other collectors above a certain number per year . I also have paid the tax stamp fee for owning pre 1986 automatic weapons .
I will grant that I should not permit name-calling in your direction, any more than I would tolerate from you. I hope *you* will consider that my own approach to you has been moderate, despite the on-going existence of posts on your site *titled* with lines like ‘Beeny the cunt’.
You suggest I have no concept of danger. On the contrary Asher, I am a father, so I filter the world through a lens that tells me there is a lot of danger in it, though also a world that has the potential to be a better one for my daughter. I also live in a part of the world that, for all its flaws, happens to be substantially safer than the USA. That is a fact. Guns are not the only factor, but they’re certain *a* factor. The prospect of a mass shooting at my daughter’s school is incredibly low compared to what a US school-child might face. Schoolkids here are not having to go through shooter drills, or being asked to learn how to patch a bullet wound, which is what some within the GOP are currently proposing.
I appreciate that many gun owners are responsible people. I have said to others that better education about the dangers of guns is among the steps sorely needed in the USA. I personally have never argued for a total ban of guns in the USA, because I recognise the futility of such a suggestion. However, the solution to gun violence is not more guns, not in a country where 30% of the population owns at least one gun, and where there are more guns than people.
Ben you say 30 %of the population owning guns is to many okay I say that number is likely higher yet still not to high . I’d love to live in a country where responsible gun ownership is nearly 100% .
Back in the day way before I was born and pretty much think before my mother was born they used to have shooting clubs and firearms training electives in highschool. Imagine that guns allowed in the school kids being taught the safe way to use them how to respect them
What a amazing time that must have been before a lot of the social decay we see today . Was not perfect minorites got poorer treatment so did women on average but wow . I think education on guns how to safly use them would help a ton .
I can not get past my bias against to mental health system being filled with bad people of a particular mind set . So I will not say mental health check being manditory for purchase is a good thing .
They have mental health questions on A 4473 even think they cross check to see if you were committed with I’m a time frame . And it states if you lie on the form you are commiting purjury . They ask about substance use ie weed and other illegal drugs.
Ben gun owners are tired of having to watch more and more of our right to Bear arms be infringed by incroments . So many like me are not willing to further compromise on the matter .
Yeah we do need a solution but the ones you say would work from other countries will not be adopted here .
If a GOP member actually suggested kids learn how to treat a gun shot wound shame on that person . I’d like to know who and when it was said to call that bs out myself.
Kids sadly may need to have shooter drills until funding for school security is passed . As sick as all of that makes me . It’s a reality we live with . Even if we do not like it. I do not like that companies felt the need to make backpacks that can hold a trauma plate in them incase of a mass shooter . I am not cold to the facts kids should not have worry about getting shot at schools . Hell people at concerts or a malls should not have to worry about it either. I am not willing to further let infringments on my life and rights by a government I have long since gave up hope on being for and by the people . Armed citizens to me is a good thing long as they are not harming others unless it is to stop a person shooting at them or other innocent people . I do not trust a government with a monopoly on guns and violence . You may trust that system . I can not walk that path. I do not like the members of BLM and Antifa can go into gun stores and purchase a weapon . But if I advocate they should have their 2a rights taken before they do anything violent I would be a hypocrite. As I do not want that same standard applied to me .
In my opinion a legal gun owner is a better person and has a higher moral standard then a non gun owner. Yes that is a bias because all the people I know in the gun community around me are great people . Hell I will call out times when a friend is drinking while carrying . Or if they show lack of trigger discipline . Do not treat guns as if they are toys. Treat all guns as if they are loaded even if you know they are not. Never point a gun at someone or something you do not intend to destroy . Keep your finger off the trigger until ready to fire. Keep the barrel of you gun pointed down range or at the ground unless shoot down range.
Ben real question do you worry about your little girl getting attacked by a knife ? Do you worry that a certain group of people will abduct her for very unsavory reasons ?. I know second or third hand about the knife and rape gang attacks in the UK in the bigger cities . I will say with all honesty as much as I do not like you . I hope no harm befalls her in such manners same goes for you or your wife . My past of making the threat I did was wrong . It came from a very angry place . I may make posts titled things calling you names cause I do not view you in positive manner you are for many things I am very much not in favor for . We both want to solve a problem you think your way is best I think mine is better and am so glad you do not have any say on the laws that govern my life or freedom .
I guess then, with all of what you have just said, that I have nothing further to add to my own arguments, and we are clearly not going to be in agreement. That’s normal; indeed, that’s life, so fair enough.
To answer your question: I do not fear for my daughter in the sense of a violent attack. The possibility can never be ruled out, and a parent will never stop worrying/imagining scenarios to worry about, but whilst the UK does have a knife crime problem, and a very serious one, it is not nearly as serious as the gun violence problem in the USA.
I appreciate your apology for the threats of the past, and I accept it.
Now the truth comes out, you don’t need defensive weapons, you just want to have them. The problem is, every defensive weapon is an offensive weapon, as I intimated above.
I have to ask, though, why you need to defend yourself with lethal force? This is a big problem with police forces in the USA today, they feel they have to use lethal force! if you need to shoot someone, shoot them in the kneecap, or the shoulder. There is no need to kill anyone! Lethal force is the choice of a desperate man. Since you like carrying a weapon around, why are you desperate?
Your arguments make no sense.
Oh raw I know you never shot at a moving target before so let me break it down, All you know how to do is shoot your mouth off about things you have no real clue on . Shooting a moving person in the leg or the shoulder is far more difficult than they make it appear in movies. So if you have to resort to drawing you weapon at an aggressor you aim center mass and stop the threat as quickly as possible . It is the most humane thing to do if leathal force is presented to me ie they have a weapon guess what I will respond in kind . Or if it’s a group trying to break into my home you best believe . I am grabbing my shotgun and aiming center mass .
Yeah we have a police problem in the States so tell me why I should leave it up to them to be the ones with guns. They on average are corupt asshats who claim to just be following orders anytime they do some bad shit . The good cops they do exist never tend to last long they get corrupted by the thin blue line bs or they get fired for not wanting to do the evil shit their higher ups order of them
I am not on the ACAB trip yet but far far to many police officers are under trained and usually mentally ill equiped to deal with some of the people they get called to deal with . I said what I said . Government and the agents they employ are so corrupt why should I disarm myself at their behest?
If they want my property well I will load up throw on the music and we will have a party because I’d rather die on my feet vs living on my knees like you people make the choice to do.
No one here is living on their knees, nor do we live in fear of someone invading our property. I’m not saying such things do not happen, but in a country of 30 million they do not happen every day, or even every week.
I know a lot of Americans through the internet, and none of them fear being invaded, nor do they own guns. It is your thinking that is warped, you expect the worst of people. I expect the best and that is what I usually get. But even when I don’t, I have no desire to shoot anyone. It just isn’t in me. I pity you that you feel you need to defend yourself, probably with lethal force. That is such a sad commentary on the society yoh ,ive in.
Ok Raw form you prospective you are not loving on your knees . But allowing a government to own the monopoly on violence and the tool they can use to enact such and the ability to lock you in a cage for saying mean words . You do live on your knees you have no right to defend yourselves or your property from the theft by others .
You adnegate your responsibility to protect yourself your property and the people you love to the hands of paid government thugs .
Instead of taking the steps to help lessen a impact such bad people may have on you , your property and the people you claim to love . If you are unwilling or unable to stand up for people you claim you love sorry to me you are a bad person .
First, there have to be bad people trying to take away what is mine. Like I said, 70 plus years, and no one has tried yet!
And before that, I have to believe anything can be mine. When YOU die, you can’t take it with you, so obviously it is not yours in the first place — you just think it is.
Next, you have to ignore the fact if someone really wants what you got, they are going to get it, one way or another. Live by the gun — die by the gun.
Why do people want to take what does not “belong” to them? Because someone has more than them, and flaunts it in their face. I take it you have no idea how to share with people less fortunate than you, so by doing so you put a target on your back. Yes, you put the target on your own back! It’s okay if you disagree with me on that, I already know you do. That’s your privilege. The think is, having privilege, you put yourself higher than others, because you think you deserve more than they do, for whatever excuse you tell yourself. But really, you’re no better than anyone else, asher! In fact, being a gun-salivator, you’re provably worse than the majority of people. You live in fear! Fear eats at you, makes you do crazy things. Get rid of fear and you can become yourself, the person you were born to be. Live in fear, you’re nobody, pretending to be somebody. But you’ll never be somebody, because you hide behind a gun. The gun does not make the man. The man who lives without a gun is the special one!
wow, Asher is an idiot. Per this nitwit, We have to change society to accomodate him and his lust for guns. It’s not his fault, we have too many “soft” targets.
No, dear, we have too many selfish failures like you, who need a replacement for your genitalia.
LikeLiked by 2 people
I wrote a response to his comment, which I will say is actually quite reasonable by his standards, but alas, WordPress ate it. I’ll have to look at it again another time.
Excellent response!!! And I fully agree about the genitalia replacement!
I’m trying to give him the benefit of the doubt, we shall see what happens.
LikeLiked by 1 person
The other half of my comment .
Also at the time of writing Well regulated ment in proper working order . The right to Bear arms is a individual right not right of a milita hence the statement the right of the people shall not be infringed . People who are citizens of America are the largest milita . So gain I task you with a real solution to the issue not some bull that places like the UK or lesser nations force on their subjects . You are having to work with in our laws not the laws of other places . I gave you my opinion of how to lessen the impact of mass shootings . Would it work in practice likely yes . Is there the will to enact my ideas not really as to many of the establishment love the political football of gun rights and will fund raise on both sides of the issue it’s a big money issue for them to not solve it. They love the tribal divide of urban vs rual . Your urban types see nothing wrong with relying on police to maybe show up in 10mins after a attack has started . People like me who long since left the cities see fit to handle a home invasion or property trespassing ourselves because the Sheriff’s office is both far away and under staffed . I lament my former support of police as
a whole . Do good cops still exist sure but they are in short supply and don’t tend to last long without quiting or being corrupted by the system . . Every mass shooting is a tragedy I found out I knew a victim personally from Allen Tx . After making some calls I am so angry I could vomit knowing that . No punishment is harsh enough no hole is deep enough to throw the people in who commit mass shootings .
Firstly, two things Asher. I addressed your questions/queries, and I would urge you to read my post again, instead of falsely claiming that I want people to give up their property. I assume you are implying I want to confiscate all guns. I will mention, yet again, that is not my argument, and has not been my argument. I urge you to heed that, instead of setting up a strawman to attack. Secondly, some friendly advice, paragraphs are your friend. Your walls of text certainly contain some worthwhile food for thought, but people will often not bother to read a large block of text, and some people struggle to read anything presented in that manner. Please take that as the gentle suggestion that it is intended to be.
I would also like to express my sympathies concerning your friend. I dare say we are in agreement that there is no punishment good enough for those who carry out atrocities like this.
I’d say there’s nothing disrespectful about pointing out the writers of the Constitution could not have conceived of any and every development in weaponry from 1787 onwards. They could not have imagined the considerable changes in urbanisation, demographics, and indeed overall society, which have also had an impact on the effect of guns. The Founding Fathers intended the Constitution to be a living document, and in many respects it has been amended on numerous occasions.
Regarding mental health issues, here is where you create a contradiction. You have blamed mental health issues for mass shootings. However you argue against any form of checks, and I gather you would certainly not approve of any form of government-funded medical assistance/checks for people with mental health problems? How do you propose that states check these things, if you don’t support robust checks? What good is it to wait for a problem to reach boiling point (such as to the stage where someone is institutionalised, or has carried out a violent attack), if mechanisms can be put into place to deal with it beforehand?
Consider that people with mental health problems exist all over the world. Consider that people with mental health problems exist in countries with a lot of guns, such as Germany. Consider that Germany doesn’t have anything remotely like the US problem with gun violence. Instead of railing against demonstrably proven solutions to gun violence elsewhere, ask yourself if a solution to gun violence is even possible under your strict interpretation of the Constitution.
‘Well-regulated’ means precisely that. It does not mean ‘unregulated’. If you consider it to be ‘proper working order’, then you need to define what proper working order means. Is it currently working? Is it ‘well-regulated’?
You talk of real solutions, and there are plenty, but since you do not appear interested in considering how ‘lesser nations’ (which are safer, have better healthcare, better education etc, though it’s the safety that’s the main focus here) have ensured gun violence is very, very low, it would be more appropriate for you to answer why proven solutions from elsewhere cannot possibly apply to the USA. I imagine your answer to the problem of gun violence would be ‘more guns’, as you have said before. Can you offer any evidence, from anywhere, that suggests more guns equates to more safety and a better society? After all, you believe more guns would work, so presumably you can offer tangible insight as to how?
LikeLiked by 2 people
Ben you may claim you are not in favor of confiscatrions I will call into light the practical implcations of forcing all current gun owner being forced into so call mental health checks to be allow to excersise their right to self defense ie 2 a rights. So say 1/3 or so of the people are deemed by the bias ass system they are not fit for having that right . How do you think that will be enforced , CONFISCATION. Do you think people like you who advocate such would respect due process or a appeal system . Because I do not have faith in that going well. I am sure you liked how Austrila froced its citzens into a manditory buy back or put it correctly a extrotion and confiscation. I say more guns equal a more polite society because if everybody is armed I personally know people with guns and a carry permit actually commit far less crime than the average non gun owning citzen. I am more restrianed in my actions while I am carrying vs when I am not because I know my action may come at leathal cost to me or the person I am having issue with.
Not every situation would necessarily require a confiscation, and what is the alternative, if the need does arise? You yourself admitted that you’d support doing so, if someone were institutionalised, or convicted of a crime. Do you or do you not blame the mentally ill for mass shootings? What steps would you propose that could prevent them from carrying out these shootings? I’ll repeat my question from before: What good is it to wait for a problem to reach boiling point (such as to the stage where someone is institutionalised, or has carried out a violent attack), if mechanisms can be put into place to deal with it beforehand?
Can you please drop the hyperbolic statements like ‘you liked extortion/confiscation’ etc. I am pretty sure you are aware that putting words in my mouth does not impress me, and it certainly won’t make me take your arguments seriously.
In the USA, there are more guns than people. There are more guns in circulation in the USA than any other country on earth, and the only countries that are worse for gun violence than the USA are failed states and drastically impoverished nations. On the basis of that, what evidence do you have to support your claim that more guns would actually work to reduce crime? Personal anecdotes won’t cut it – what facts can you present? What sources can you link to and quote?
Ben I request you post my comments here I am staying as level headed as I can now knowing that I knew a victim personally that was shot in Allen Tx . Thoughts and prayers are not enough but for the victims know you are loved and we wish none of this happened to you or any victim of any past or future mass shooting . It’s fucking gross the will power does not exist to try real solutions that could at least lessen the impact of evil people who wish to do harm .
In my 72 years, I have seen enough, even had a gun pointed at me twice in my life, to believe that guns do NOT belong in the hands of civilians. Full Stop. The need to ‘defend’ yourself? Against what? If nobody had guns, you wouldn’t be in danger. If you really want to “man up”, then learn to fight with your fists in case you need to defend yourself. I’d like to see every gun in the nation … nay, in the world … destroyed. No need to respond, Asher … I’m done.
LikeLiked by 3 people
As far as I can tell from your writings, sir, the only solution you are offering is more guns, to basically arm every citizen of the USA. That is an impossible situation, because most sane people have no wish to be within 100 miles of a weapon, let alone a loaded weapon. “There is no guarantee that you can keep control of a gun that you are carrying.” Nor can you guarantee that the person grabbing the gun will not use it on you. Your gun –your death –your responsibility!
LikeLiked by 1 person
Reblogged this on Filosofa's Word and commented:
If you are a political writer, no matter which side of the political divide you stand on, sooner or later you will pick up a few haters … people who not only vehemently disagree with every word you write, but also feel a need to make it personal, to get in your face, to be rude and disrespectful. I’ve had a few, and with one exception they all gave up when I stopped posting their comments. One even threatened to find me and kill me. Our friend Ben Berwick has a long-time hater-follower who goes by the name of Asher Slade, and ol’ Asher, even in light of the latest surge in mass shootings, believes the answer is more guns … in the hands of more people everywhere. I found Ben’s response to him to be both well-written and far less toxic than I probably would have been! Oh, and as you read Ben’s response, keep in mind that Ben lives in the UK, not the United States, and it seems to me that he understands both our Constitution and our current gun situation better than most U.S. citizens do! Thanks, Ben!
LikeLiked by 1 person
Ben you seem to advocate people being punished by striping of their right before they do anything deeming it nessicary to do so. Just owning guns or wanting to own and carry 1 is not a sign of mental illness . In my opinion it actually responsible . We here in America have this crazy thing called due process and presumption of innocence.Criminals will always have weapons of some sort . I choose not to make myself a easy target . Hence I practice with my carry pistol shotgun and the rifle most weekends. As for me shooting is stress relief . @raw you seem to think it crazy to be around guns guess it a matter of knowledge and being taught how to use and to have respect for them as well as some fear. I grew up knowing how to shoot a 22 pistol mostly for killing rattle snakes on my uncle’s farm later I was taught to use larger weapons for hunting and clearing out larger animals that caused destruction ie ferral hogs and coyotes . If you live in the city your whole life and never wish to take your own safety in your hands then yes never own or lesr now to use a gun that is your choice. But I will say you would be surprised at the number of guns you are near on a daily basis if you live in America . Most of the time they remain concealed. As they should be unless needed for defense from a bad person. @Jill you falsely frame owning a gun and carrying it is no manly 1 women have no say in what is manly . 2 yeah I know how to fight with out a gun too but why would I handicap myself in a unfair fight . I a sorry Jill that you had a gun pointed at you 2 times never fun . You have every right to not want to be around people with guns . But you don’t have the right to demand all give up their rights .
[QUOTE]Ben you seem to advocate people being punished by striping of their right before they do anything deeming it nessicary to do so. Just owning guns or wanting to own and carry 1 is not a sign of mental illness . In my opinion it actually responsible . We here in America have this crazy thing called due process and presumption of innocence.[/QUOTE]
Asher, I did not claim having a gun is a sign of mental illness, so with all due respect, that is yet another strawman argument you have made. We could debate what’s responsible until the cows come home, but I yet again heed you to address the arguments I make, not the ones you imagine I make.
As I have said, you yourself are arguing that people who carry out mass shootings have mental health problems. Leaving aside for a moment whether that’s fair on people with mental health issues, and leaving aside how people with mental health issues exist all over the world and do not go on killing sprees, you are advocating for a system that does nothing to even try and prevent the problem. Surely you agree that kids being gunned down in shops and schools is something worth trying to prevent? If you consider the root of this problem to be mental health or ‘bad people’, and since you have already acknowledged that people who’ve been institutionalised or convicted of a serious crime should be denied guns, why are you so against measures designed to prevent a tragedy, rather than reactive measures?
Let’s say someone has schizophrenia, however they have never had a diagnosis. They want to buy a gun. In scenario A, they pass the current form of background check, get themselves a gun, then turn it upon random strangers as they walk down the street. It later turns out they have schizophrenia, following psych evaluations.
In scenario B, part of the background check process is a thorough mental health evaluation, and this identifies that they have schizophrenia. Now they have an opportunity to seek help for their condition, but the authorities deem it unwise to grant them a gun. Five years down the line, after medication/counselling/whatever additional help is required, they demonstrate they are fit to own a gun if they still want one, get a gun, and nothing happens.
Criminals will always have weapons of some sort . I choose not to make myself a easy target . Hence I practice with my carry pistol shotgun and the rifle most weekends. As for me shooting is stress relief .
Yes, criminals will often have weapons, but consider this – in countries like France, the UK, Japan, Germany etc, criminals are less likely to be armed. The bottom line is, in the USA you have no idea who might be carrying what. The police have no idea who might be carrying. If there’s an active shooter situation at a mall, and there is a ‘good guy’ with a gun, shooting at ‘the bad guy’, and the police show up, what do you think they will see? What do you think they’ll do? They will have seconds to determine who is and isn’t a threat, and they might simply drop both shooters.
You have claimed that there are millions of defensive gun uses. I am still waiting for you to verify your claims about defensive gun use. You believe an armed society is a polite society. There are already more guns in the USA than people. Around 30 percent of Americans own at least one gun (nearly a third of the country). The US murder rate in 2020 was 7.8 per 100,000 people, and 80% (or 6.24 per 100,000 people) of those murders involved guns. Germany’s total murder rate in 2020 was 0.93, or 14.9% of the guns-only USA murder rate. As of 2021, the UK murder rate was 1.1, or 17.6% of the USA’s guns-only murder rate. Indeed, you could combine the UK and Germany’s total murder rates, and they’d be lower than the USA’s gun-only murder rate. That is not a compelling look for your idea that guns make things safer.
As far as your responses to Rawgod and Jill, I will not speak for them, I am however certain that they will provide some good food for thought for you to consider, if you are willing to do so.
Ben no you did not make the claim Raw elided to by saying no sane person wants to be around guns let alone a loaded one I combine the coments I was responding to. So what other rights do you think people must pass a extensive and invasive mental health check filled bias evaluators to be allowed to excersise. ? Sorry I am not a person who thinks punishment or denying of rights should be done until a proven reason to do so exists. As for why I say most if not all mass shooters are mentally ill 1 the meds they later find that the person was given or treatment they were in perviously . 2 I think you have to be massively unstable mentally to think killing others like that is a good idea.” According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, almost every major study on defensive gun use has found that Americans use their firearms defensively between 500,000 and 3 million times each year. There’s good reason to believe that most defensive gun uses are never reported to law enforcement, much less picked up by local or national media outlets.” Now I am no fan of the CDC after the last few years of them defecto trying to force people to get medical procedures who do not want them . You seem to think the only solution is to make America enact law like other nations have. Reason that it likely not Work American culture and society are vastly different and Americans do not tend to want further government control over them.
Asher, I will once again advise you to organise your posts into paragraphs. I appreciate the effort you are making, but your posts are proving difficult to follow as walls of text.
You suggest that mental health evaluators are biased. The onus would on you to prove this. The onus would also be on you to provide links/sources regarding mass shooters being mentally ill. On many occasions, if they *are* mentally ill, this has not been identified, and your contradictory approach would both A: blame mass shootings on the mentally ill and B: make it difficult to identify whether someone has a mental illness that could lead them to pose a risk to others.
Moreover, this is also an unfair stigma on people with mental health problems. As I have repeatedly pointed out (and am still waiting for you to address), people with mental health issues exist all over the world, yet do not go on killing sprees. To ignore the elephant in the room is foolish. It is incredibly easy to purchase multiple firearms (the Las Vegas shooter legally purchased many guns prior to his attack) when compared to elsewhere. You may not like how other countries have approached the problem of gun crime, but to deny its effectiveness is to deny evidence, logic, and your own eyes.
Even if we take your claim of defensive gun use at face value, does this change the truth, namely that 80% of US murders involve guns, or that the US murder rate with guns alone is higher than the total rates of several other countries combined? More guns won’t bring violence down – and the US states with the highest murder rates are, not in-coincidentally – the ones with the weakest gun regulations.
Meanwhile, the USA has one of the highest percentages of gun ownership in the world as it is (as mentioned in my previous post), which seems to defeat the suggestion that there aren’t enough guns to enforce a polite, civilised society. https://edition.cnn.com/2022/06/02/us/gun-ownership-numbers-us-cec/index.html
Then there is another fact – most Americans actually support stronger gun control measures. https://news.uchicago.edu/story/poll-most-americans-see-gun-violence-major-problem-want-stricter-gun-laws
With that in mind, can you say for certain that solutions proven to work elsewhere should forever be ruled out?
I would say that yes in all in my opinion honesty solitons done in other countries should be mostly be ruleex out in America . Why do not want to make it harder for law abiding people to purchase a gun but you know criminals will still have them . Out guns like they did alcohol in the 1920s thanks to proto feminist types in the temperance movement.
You will just be giving criminals a huge cash cow . For smuggling into the States . Would you say the solutions like removing gun free zones allowing willing teachers and or veterans to have guns on the school campus to protect our kids are a bad idea? If so why would you leave the children unprotected while do nothing wastes like politicians get free to them around the clock protection
With all that being said Asher, I fear we are at an impasse. Criminals obviously exist in countries like the UK, Canada, Australia etc, yet they are not able to carry out the sort of violence that sadly plagues the USA. Pretty much the entirety of the UK, Japan, Australia etc is a gun-free zone, and our schools are considerably safer, our shopping centres are much safer, and our streets are generally safer.
However, to consider the problem through US gun laws and culture, I’ll admit that I don’t have an answer. The thought of the situation being so bad that armed security becomes required at schools horrifies me, but without a substantial shift in attitudes towards guns, what’s going to stop the bloodshed?
LikeLiked by 1 person
As an outsider to America, the whole “gun lust” thing is just odd. You want protection? Get a dog. Even my Chihuahua and Pomeranian were able to scare off people trying to break in. If someone wants to kill you/harm you, they will. You could have literally a gazillion guns, they will still do it. You can’t live in fear your entire life. That’s not Freedom. We could be hit by a bus tomorrow.
Did you hear in Texas, Republicans actually voted to raise the age? Well some did.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Reblogged this on https:/BOOKS.ESLARN-NET.DE.