Arming ourselves: a dad’s perspective

Joshua OShaughnessy thb Arming ourselves: a dads perspective

by Joshua O’Shaughnessy

I think that arming ourselves for protection is our only hope of curbing violence… what chance do the rest of us have when our hands are empty and bullets are flying

I have always backed the 2nd amendment, as it has always made sense for me to do so. However, I have never owned a gun. I have held firm to the belief that if I feel the need to arm myself against random violence, that it is time to move to another location.

In light of this week’s tragedies, it has become quite clear that this violence can happen anywhere, as it was at our doorstep on Tuesday in a mall in our very own city. There is no place that is safe anymore.

Now, I’m NOT just gonna march out and purchase a gun in light of these events, but I have been awakened to the fact that it is better to HAVE a gun and not NEED it than to NEED a gun and not HAVE it.

Just as we, as a country have forgotten to hold our society accountable by reducing sentences in heinous acts, thus resulting in a nationwide lack of respect for authority and the judicial process, we might be able to benefit from the taking up in arms in an effort to protect ourselves. At the very least, as was the time when we used to reprimand our youth for acting out and misbehaving, we instilled a healthy sense of fear for wrongdoing.

We can benefit as a society by holding firm to our values and demanding a change in the policies of our judicial system. Until then, I think that arming ourselves for protection is our only hope of curbing violence. It may seem to be ironic, in ways, to resort to purchasing tools of violence to curb violence, but what chance do the rest of us have when our hands are empty and bullets are flying?

How much it pains me to realize that this is my truth. I have no capacity for taking human life, and yet I live in fear that my loved ones can be taken from me without notice by the hands of someone else. This week marked a tipping point in America. I remain hopeful that this will somehow lead to a change for our society as a whole.

Joshua is a Portland area dad.

Joshua OShaughnessy Arming ourselves: a dads perspective

tt twitter big4 Arming ourselves: a dads perspective tt facebook big4 Arming ourselves: a dads perspective tt linkedin big4 Arming ourselves: a dads perspective tt reddit big4 Arming ourselves: a dads perspective

Posted by at 05:00 | Posted in 2nd Amendment | 78 Comments |Email This Post Email This Post |Print This Post Print This Post
  • Willy

    Sorry but I disagree. EVERYONE should not be armed.

    First of all, my heartfelt deepest sympathies go out to the families of both the Oregon and Connecticut shootings. In Oregon, one of the victims was an employee of Kaiser Permanente, the company that I work for, and although I didn’t know her, it brings this tragedy just that much closer. And to the children and families in Connecticut, Kris and I were at the edge of tears for you. Just an unbelievable and horrible tragedy.

    I AM A GUN OWNER. In fact I own many, but I was trained in the proper use, respect, safety, and handling of a weapon. I am ranked an “Expert” within the NRA, and at the time when I quit shooting competitively I was on my way to achieving the highest ranking “Distinguished Expert”. However, I have never shot at anything that even closely resembled a human being or other living creature. I would never point a weapon or anything that resembled a weapon at another person. That’s part of the proper training that I am referring to. and I would never own an assault rifle that is intended for only one purpose and which was developed for the use of the military.

    We will never eliminate guns from our society, nor do I believe would it be the right thing to do. But I also don’t believe that we should allow everyone to own a gun and go back to the lawlessness of the Wild West! We need to begin having conversations about gun controls and proper gun ownership rights and quit polarizing and politicizing the topic. We need real and effective controls, motivations, and punishments for those who own guns. For those who choose to use guns in the commission of a crime, those people should be eliminated from society F O R E V E R!

    We should properly arm society to defend themselves agains the stupid idiot punks who find a way to attain weapons and do tremendous harm and damage to society. But those armed should be much more highly trained, certified, and held accountable for their actions to ensure theat they only use their weapon for the purpose of defending themselves or other from being killed by another human being.

    We need to bring sense and compassion to the discussion without the all or nothing expectation that we’ll ever eliminate guns on one hand, or allow everyone to arm themselves on the other. The victims of Oregon, Connecticut, Virginia, Oklahoma, and other incidents deserve our respect, dedication, and relentless efforts to find a way to get this under control and stop these senseless killings from happening again.

    Forget the shooters and always remember the victims!

  • Bob Clark

    Not sure what the answer is. But I like Americans having the right to bear arms. Makes for a more self reliant people, capable of resisting government-gone-bad ;and single episode mass killers. Areas of gun bans actually have just as much chance of such mass killing episodes as those without gun bans. In some cases, gun bans make us more vulnerable than otherwise. This data from the author of Freaknomics (I think it is).

    • DavidAppell

      This isn’t the 18th century, and you haven’t built your cabin in a clearing you hacked from the wilderness. If government truly “goes bad,” whatever that absurd notion is supposed to be, it can, in today’s highly technology age, quickly overwhelm the citizenry by cutting off their electricity and water. Not to mention its huge arsenal of weapons that make assault rifles look like cap guns.

      This kind of absurd “government-gone-bad” paranoia harms the country and gives ammunition to wingnuts and extremists.

      • David from Mill City

        And that “high powered” weaponry is doing oh so well in Afghanistan.

        • DavidAppell

          This is a pointless diversion (not to mention cruel). Perhaps you’ve noticed that we aren’t in Afghanistan?

        • valley person

          So now you are the Taliban?

    • DavidAppell

      What kind of a person puts their paranoid fantasies about “government-gone-bad” over the ability of society to protect its children?

      • David from Mill City

        It is not paranoia if they are out to get you. I spent most of the evening reading postings on left leaning blog sites, and there are an unsettling number of calls for a total confiscation of all guns and to use the military to do it.

        There are other approaches that are more likely to prevent all mass killings of children and adults. Gun control at best may limit some mass gun killings. It is important to note that guns are not required to commit mass killings. In the United States, the largest mass killers used gasoline, fertilizer, and a box cutter airplane combination. And the jerk in Newtown only killed four more people then the woman in Reno killed with her Chrysler Imperial. World wide I believe the machete was the weapon of choice in the largest mass killings, tens of thousands dead.

        • DavidAppell

          And you could equally read lots of right-wing sites that are equally extreme and absurd, in terms of arming teachers, the entire country, making it illegal not to own a gun, etc etc etc.

          Responsible people, as portrayed in responsible media, aren’t looking to ban all guns. And they certainly aren’t using every tragedy in the world as an excuse to do nothing about gun violence. There will always be tragedies in the world, all of them terrible, and that’s not an excuse to prevent what’s preventable — especially the mass slaughter of schoolchildren or people going to see a movie.

    • Rupert in Springfield

      Most mass shootings occur in gun ban areas. Not all, most. Virtually anyone can name a mass shooting that occurred in one. Ask someone to name one that didn’t, and you will see an iPhone and a google search in three seconds. So much for the gun ban argument. Next?

      • DavidAppell

        Your argument is that because we can’t stop all gun violence, we shouldn’t try to stop any of it. No one lives that way with respect to any problem, and neither should the country.

        More guns means more shootings.

        • David from Mill City

          No, his point is that it appears that you are more likely to be the victim a mass shooting if you are in a designated “Gun Free Zone” then if you are not.

          • valley person

            People who want to kill a lot of people go to places where there are a lot of people. Whether a place is nominally “gun free” or not is hardly important. There have been very few instances on any armed civilican successfully intervening in any mass shooting anywhere.

          • David from Mill City

            It has been reported that Aurora shooter specifically selected a gun tree movie theater and drove a distance to get there.

            A gun free zone does not protect anyone from a mass killer, it just assures the killer that he is safe from anyone else with a gun. And by promoting “gun safe zones” you are telling mass killers where the soft targets are. A gun free zone with adequate security measures is another thing entirely different but I have not heard of any of those.

            “Gun Free Zones” do not provide any protection, they just provide a false illusion of it.

          • David from Mill City

            That is “gun free” not “gun tree” Sorry my finger missed the correct key.

          • DavidAppell

            Who reported that, based on what? The case hasn’t come to court yet, and no journalist has interviewed the suspect.

  • ardbeg

    Hey, I agree with much of what ‘Willy’ said, and law abiding, trained citizens have no fear of the gov taking our guns (no matter what the NRA says). I am and have always been in favor of strict gun control laws. I’m willing to pass any criteria, regulation the gov sets. I , like most reasonable americans, want guns out of the bat@#$% crazy peoples hands and people who give access to BS crazy people to get guns should go away for a long time. First of all stop all person to person sales. I can’t sell my car to someone else without having to file paperwork of the transfer, how is it I can sell a gun to anyone I want? Stupid, stupid stupid!

    • Rupert in Springfield

      Have you ever actually lived under strict gun control? Im not talking hop skip and jump stuff like concealed carry in Oregon. Actual strict gun control. Ever been there? If so where?

      • valley person

        Is there a point to your question?

      • ardbeg

        Not sure the point to your question but yes, England (18 m0nths)

        • Rupert in Springfield

          OK, So you obtained a firearm in England?

          • ardbeg

            No, WHAT IS YOU POINT!!!!!

          • Rupert in Springfield

            My point is exactly what you have demonstrated in your answer here. You claimed you would pass any criterea the government sets. That law abiding citizens have no reason to fear the government taking their guns.

            You have proven that true on two counts.

            First of all, you did not endure any criterea the government set, because you did not endure those set by England and procure a gun.

            Second, you have little knowledge of gun control because you claimed government does not confiscate guns, which is precisely what happened in England, and has happened here in some places (NYC, to name one).

            The bottom line is this, anyone who says they would gladly submit to any rigor the government sets in the name of gun control has little familiarity with the process. Much as you, since you didnt submit to it in England.

            I do. I submitted to it in NYC. It is not about checking your qualifications, it is about denying you the ability to have a gun, and if you do, it is often about confiscation.

            You think you could get a carry permit? Nope. Think you could have a handgun? I sure hope you are willing to pay a whole lot of money each and every year for the privilege that once was a right. You think you will be able to get a rifle? Good luck on that one, because if you do, on a whim they can come and confiscate it any time.

            Thank you, you have demonstrated my point.Those who think gun control is about anything other than denying them guns likely have never been through the rigors of it.

            We now return you to your regularly scheduled programming.

          • DavidAppell

            Of course gun control is about denying people guns, especially high powered assault weapons for which they have no legitimate need and which have become too often abused.

            If 20 dead children aren’t enough for you, then give us a number.

          • David from Mill City

            What high-powered military assault rifle? There was not one used in Newtown. An evil-looking medium powered semi-automatic rifle was. And given the tens of millions of semi-automatic rifles in the United States and the less then 400 homicides attributed to rifles they are not often abused.

            In Oregon there is no legitimate need for a car that go over 70 mph, do you want to ban those too. Or how about banning red cars because Ferraris are red and can go faster then the speed limits.

          • DavidAppell

            NY Times: “Adam Lanza used a Bushmaster semiautomatic rifle, a model of the popular AR-15 style guns that can fire multiple rounds rapidly and at high velocity.”
            http://www.nytimes.com/2012/12/17/us/lanza-used-a-popular-ar-15-style-rifle-in-newtown.html

            Your question about cars is absurd, intended only to divert. We aren’t talking about cars, we’re talking about guns. We aren’t looking to solve all problems in the world, we are looking to solve the problem of mass shootings and gun violence in America.

          • ardbeg

            Then why not do what many other countries (all with lower gun related homicide rates) have done. Surprisingly, many countries have something similar to our second amendment. All of their guns are stored at a secure site and not stored in their homes, that still allows for a ‘well regulated militia’ without the associated gun violance.

          • valley person

            Lanza was able to discharge hundreds of rounds in a confined space in a short amount of time. The rounds were designed to kill people. And the gun he used was designed to fire a lot of rounds quickly.

            With cars, we have speed limits, we have air bag requirements, we have licensing requirements, and we have insurance requirements. With these and other measures we have successfully reduced the amount of car related carnage.

          • David from Mill City

            As a point of fact the .223 Remington cartridge was originally developed to hunt coyotes and other varmints and not people. And the rifle in question was not designed specifically to fire bullets quickly, it was designed to look like a military gun to meet a market demand for guns that look like unobtainable military rifles. The rate of fire is a product of the gun action used, an gun action that has been in production in one form or another since the 1880s. The difference in the rate of fire of a Bushmaster rifle and a 1898 broom handle Mauser pistol is effectively non-existent.

            As to your other point, cars are not guns. Gun ownership is constitutionally protected car ownership is not. There is also political aspect to gun ownership that is not found with cars. And safety is a major consideration in gun design. But just as we do not fault Detroit for improper or illegal use of their product, gun makers should not be faulted for the improper use of their’s.

            I hear many people calling for some sort of test to be administered before being able to purchase a gun. On its face that sounds like a reasonable proposal, but there is a problem. The United States has a history of using tests like that to deprive individuals of their ability to practice other important constitutional rights. Why should think that will not be the case now, especially when proposed by individuals opposed to the practice of that right at all.

          • DavidAppell

            Who cares what the cartridge was made for? No one not in the military has a need for guns that rapidly spray out bullets in high numbers.

            The second amendment was intended to ensure “a well regulated militia.” The activist Supreme Court stepped far beyond that by ruling it protects an individual’s right to possess a firearm unconnected to service in a militia, just one of the disastrous and absurd rulings from these extremists. It’s time to repeal the 2nd Amendment and enact truly sensible and meaningful gun regulations — unless 20 dead children aren’t enough for you.

          • David from Mill City

            After reading your posts it has become clear to me that you are not interested in solving the problem. You just want to do something. It does not need to be effective. It does not matter who’s rights are trampled. It does not even have to have the potential to prevent future horrific events. You just want something to be done. OK I can understand that.

            I on the other hand want to see effective action taken, action that has a real chance of reducing the possibility of repeat occurrences. I realize that doing that will take time, it will cost money, a lot of money. It will not be fast or easy. It will require real work. It will require changes in wages, health care, drug laws, school construction, public security, law enforcement methods, education and the way mental health issues are handled. It will require that restrictions be placed on how these horrific events are reported by the Media and how violence is portrayed on TV and in movies and video games. It will require changes that are yet to be identified in areas we have not yet realized are important. And it will require changes in our nations gun laws, though probably not all the ones you want. It will require that we diligently study the problem and its many causes with open minds, that we take the time and effort to gather as much data and facts that we can, data and facts that will support a careful and complete deliberation, discussion and knowledgeable debate as all proposals are evaluated and that we are sure that the benefits from a proposed action out weigh the cost in lost civil liberties and money.

            But above all it will require political and moral capital to get it done, political and moral capital that currently exists because of the unfortunate and horrific death of a group of innocent children, the same capital you want to squander getting a piece of ineffective and divisive legislation adopted.

            But what pains me most is that having squandered this dearly bought political capital to get an ineffective law passed, that yet another group of innocents must die so the political and moral capital will again be available to make taking meaningful and effective actions possible.

          • Damascusdean

            So you are willing to change every aspect of society to help make school kids safer, except for one, which is restricting the easy availablity of high capacity firearms that have no purpose other than to kill as many people as possible as quickly as possible?

            Thanks but no thanks.

          • David from Mill City

            That’s absolutely correct. Because I know that what you are proposing is not do able. There are currently an estimated 300 million guns in the United States. Several million of which are the “evil looking semi-automatic assault rifles “that people are ranting about. Of the rest, a very high proportion are pistols and more conventionally looking rifles that also have semi-automatic actions capable of being fired very rapidly, many of which have removable magazines. Then there are the lever action rifles, which any one who has seen the opening of TV’s The Rifleman knows also can be fired very fast as can most surplus military bolt action rifles including those that are over a hundred years old. Pump Action rifles and shotguns also are capable of rapid fire as are bolt action hunting rifles with removable magazines. With the use of speed loaders, a double action revolver is also easily capable of rapid fire over an extended period of time and in the hands of a practiced individual a single action revolver with a break action is also capable of rapid fire. My estimate is that easily 200 million of the 300 million guns out there right now are easily capable of rapid fire. Those guns are not going away, a gun with minimal care has a working life span of well over a hundred years, Automatic fire arms have been regulated for well over 50 years and functional unregistered weapons are still being found in attics and basements. Short of tossing out the 4th amendment and risking the start of a Civil War it is not possible to get those guns of the street.

            As to the much talked about “Assault Weapons Ban” it does not ban weapons based on capability, it bans them based on looks. It does this because all semi-automatic fire arms have similar capabilities including many popular hunting rifles and shotguns, many of which are based on 100 year old designs. Banning those guns is not politically do able. Since the criteria in the Assault weapons are cosmetic and not functional it is relatively easy for a manufacturers to make a few cosmetic changes and go back to selling guns that are functionally the same as their pre-ban guns. The last time that process only took months, as those designs are already exist it will take less time. Prior history shows that the “Assault Weapons Ban” did not appreciably change the availability of this “type” of rifle. And it can be argued that it had the effect of increasing the number on the street, because of pre-ban panic buying. So if the goal is restricting the availability “rapid fire firearms” the Assault Weapons Ban” does not do it. In a word, it is ineffective.

            And besides it only ineffectively addresses the implements used in some mass killings. The largest mass killings in the United States did not involve guns. I want to see all types of mass killings reduced. You do that by dealing with the perpetrators of these acts not trying control or regulate the implements they use. The list of potential implements of is much to expansive and the items much too useful for society to be effectively controlled.

            As I said in my posting, I want to see effective action taken, action that has a real chance of reducing the possibility of repeat occurrences. Banning a group of guns based on looks just does not get us there.

          • valley person

            Other nations have taken effective action that includes restricting what guns are available. A buy back program can reduce the number out there. Austrailia has shown the way on this one.

          • David from Mill City

            The United States is not other countries. For our entire history, all adult American Citizens have had the right to own and carry weapons. In most European nations that was not the case. Most regard it as a privilege to be granted at the whim of the current ruler or government. A privilege not granted to the common man for most of those nations existence. There are an estimated 300 million guns in private hands in the United States more then any other nation. These and many other factors make the United States different from other nations. So the fact that an action was possible and effective in another country is not evidence it will work here. This not to say that good ideas from other countries should not be tried for the good ones should. I am just saying that basing your expectation of success on the fact the idea worked in another country is to invite disappointment, consider health care reform.

            As to the buy back idea, do you realize that currently an “Assault Rifle” chambered for a center-fire cartridge costs from about $1,000 dollars to close to $5,000 depending who made it, how it is set up and the type of paint job it has? So depending on how the weapons to be bought back are described, (i.e. just evil looking Assault Rifles or all Semi-Automatics) you are talking about a low of around 2 to 5 billion dollars to a high that might reach the trillions of dollars.

          • DavidAppell

            False — I want to stop the slaughter of innocent people. If that means you can’t possess a high-powered military weapon, too bad for you. Seek help for your irrational paranoia — schoolchildren should not have to die because you are paranoid.

          • ardbeg

            All that just to imply I’m a no-nothing because I confined my statement to OUR government and didn’t give a country by country, government by government, state by state breakdown of gun laws? You will go to great lengths to make your self feel superior and anyone with a differing view is according to you has “little knowledge”. Your what we used to call “a legend in his own mind”. Next time I will be sure to include 3rd grade knowledge for just you. TOOL! My OPINION is I have no fear of OUR government coming to MY house and taking my handguns, hunting rifles or shotguns.

      • DavidAppell

        In the decade after Australia banned semiautomatic and automatic rifles and shotguns, the firearm homicide rate fell by 59 percent, and the firearm suicide rate fell by 65 percent.

        http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2012/08/02/did-gun-control-work-in-australia/

        • Rupert in Springfield

          Australia also is an island (ok continent) and doesn’t have an Attorney general selling guns to known criminals. Criminals will always have guns in the US. If they dont they can just call Eric “Body Bag” Holder.

          PS – If you start to yammer on how this was I Bush program I will so go off on you. Just call it good “yep, ATF selling guns to known criminals was a bad thing, they killed hundreds of people, that was bad”

          • DavidAppell

            It doesn’t matter one iota that Australia is an isolated continent — it’s a large, complex society in an interconnected world, who did something about insane gun violence. And it has made a difference.

            It is not a given that criminals will always have assault weapons, especially if their sale and resale is outlawed and the laws are enforced. And even if they did, some of the problem is *noncriminals* getting powerful weapons, like has been the case in most of the recent mass shootings. We need to reduce the number of guns, period, because more guns means more shootings:
            http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/research/hicrc/firearms-research/guns-and-death/index.html

            To argue that we can’t solve any of the problem because we can’t solve all of the problem is irrational — another form of denialism.

          • Rupert in Springfield

            >It doesn’t matter one iota that Australia is an isolated continent

            You think smuggling to an isolated continent is as easy as the US? That is so inane I cant believe even you would argue it.

            >It is not a given that criminals will always have assault weapons

            Of course it is. We just sat through a summer of you guys defending Eric Holder for selling thousands of military style semi autos to known criminals and being okie dokie with those same guns killing hundreds of people.

            Now you are telling us you want to stop it?

            Well that sure is a load of crap.

            > We need to reduce the number of guns, period, because more guns means more shootings:

            Well, if that were true, then areas where gun ownership was virtually universal, such as where I live, Marcola, would be murder capitals and Detroit, Chicago and DC would be crime free.

            That would also mean that with increasing guns, such as we have, we would see increasing shooting, which we don’t have.

            OK – So another BS argument is down.

            >To argue that we can’t solve any of the problem because we can’t solve all of the problem is irrational

            And to claim someone is making that point when they are not is called trying to change the subject.

            >another form of denialism.

            Which is not a word, and you are crazy, and I can’t believe with word usage such as yours you are still trying to make a living as a writer.

            The correct phrase would be “which is another way of denying the problem”.

            For the love of God, if you can’t make a good argument, at least try and write with some facility if you are trying to make a living out of it. People like me are getting tired of supporting you when you can’t even make a cursory effort at basic writing form.

          • DavidAppell

            Who is smuggling guns into the U.S.? The vast majority of guns here are made here.

          • DavidAppell

            Marcola is in Lane County. Didn’t Kip Kinkel do his work there?

          • DavidAppell

            denialism, noun: derivative of denialist
            (Oxford English Dictionary, http://oxforddictionaries.com/definition/american_english/denialist)

          • DavidAppell

            “Our review of the academic literature found that a broad array of evidence indicates that gun availability is a risk factor for homicide, both in the United States and across high-income countries. Case-control studies, ecological time-series and cross-sectional studies indicate that in homes, cities, states and regions in the US, where there are more guns, both men and women are at higher risk for homicide, particularly firearm homicide.

            “Hepburn, Lisa; Hemenway, David. Firearm availability and homicide: A review of the literature. Aggression and Violent Behavior: A Review Journal. 2004; 9:417-40.”

            — Harvard Injury Control Research Center
            http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/research/hicrc/firearms-research/guns-and-death/index.html

          • David from Mill City

            One of the problems with the whole gun control discussion is a total lack of unbiased data. Almost every study has been funded and/or conducted by either pro or anti gun control groups in an effort to get data to support their point of view.

          • DavidAppell

            Certainly not all studies. A CDC study found similar results: “…regardless of storage practice, type of gun, or number of firearms in the home, having a gun in the home was associated with an increased risk of firearm homicide and firearm suicide in the home.”
            – Guns in the Home and Risk of a Violent Death in the Home: Findings from a National Study, L.L. Dahlberg et al, Am. J. Epidemiol. (2004) 160 (10): 929-936.
            http://aje.oxfordjournals.org/content/160/10/929.full

          • David from Mill City

            The CDC normally spends its efforts dealing with and studying diseases and their spread. This study seems to be such an atypical undertaking on their part that I question the motivation behind having them do the study and thus the study it self.

            One of the problems with public debates like gun control and climate change is that there are few if any truly disinterested parties taking part in the debate. Everyone participating in these debates is doing so because they are interested in the subject of the debate. After all isn’t why you posted your comment here, because you care about the subject? The more polarizing the debate, the more suspect the data produced from either side is. How the question being investigated is asked greatly influences the data gathered, the methodological methods used and the final result.

            Additionally there is a lack of raw data. For example there is no accurate data on how often an unfired gun has deterred or prevented crime, Partly because these events are not reported, and also because in many cases no one is aware at the time that they happened. A case in point, I know of a case were prior to entering a building to investigate an open door police officer racked the action of his pump shotgun. The building was searched and no one was found. Sometime later as part of an unrelated investigation a criminal revealed , in passing to that officer, that he had been in that building and until he heard the shotgun being racked that he was prepared to attack the officer upon entry, instead he hid. Without that chance conversation know one would know that a crime had been deterred that night. Through antidotal data points such as this, we know that at least some of these type of events have happened and we can infer that there likely more such events but we can not determine a number with any degree of accuracy. Yet to make an accurate determination of the effectiveness of guns in preventing crime and thus make a reasonable cost benefit analysis possible those events need to be included. This would require a subjective evaluation to be made. An evaluation that will affect the final result and also open the study to attack.

          • DavidAppell

            The CDC studies risks to human health. If a disease were killing 10,000 Americans per year and injuring several times that many, you can bet the CDC (and lots of others) would be studying it, trying to find its causes and impacts — it’s the reason they exist at all. Same thing here — it would be irresponsible for them not to study gun violence.

            Unless you expect studies to be done by dogs and cats, or aliens from another planet, there are never going to be any completely “disinterested parties.” One of the glories of the scientific method is the systematic and rigorous analysis of the universe. When communicated via open peer review, it has shown a remarkable ability to uncover the facts of the world and its underlying realities. The same principles apply here — you just don’t like the conclusion.

          • ardbeg

            What’s your HO for Holder? Can you say FIXATED!

          • ardbeg

            Yea Dupert, kinda like ole Ollie or Bush Senior trading guns for coke and putting MN on the Cia payroll. Oh wait! You only care if it’s a Democrat in office when it happens. As long as it a Grand old Party guy you don’t say $%^#! Let me return you to your “Normal programming” TOOL!

    • David from Mill City

      Yet, Ban guns, all guns, confiscate them all is what I am hearing from the hysteric masses. Permitting the use of the instant background system by non-dealers would be great idea, though I understand that was opposed by law enforcement. Banning person to person sales is not.

      • DavidAppell

        I certainly am NOT hearing people call for a ban on “all guns.” I am hearing for a ban on assault weapons, a ban on background check loopholes, and for ways to keep guns out of the hands of the mentally ill.

      • valley person

        I don’t know where you are hearing these arguments for banning all guns. What I hear is banning certain types of guns, reducing magazine and clip capacity, better licensing, better background checks, and maybe an insurance requirement.

        • ardbeg

          All of which constitute “reasonable” gun controls. And all of which will be opposed by paranoid right-wingers.

  • Tyschev

    Have any of you guys paid attention to the level of inappropriate weapon use by our militarized police force? It might be the gun or billy club or the taser but having such a high level of mistakes from such an equipped force worries me that we put our security in the wrong hands. Wouldn’t you think that they should be the highly trained capable folks of who you try to describe as “responsible” gun owners? Doesn’t this put a little fear in you that the government might not be the best group to decide who can and who can’t own a weapon? If enough laws are enacted then a traffic ticket might be enough to label you “incapable” and become within government right to disarm us all. I can’t think of any level of police presence that would take away my feeling that I am the one responsible for my own security.

  • Rupert in Springfield

    Today is the first school day after the shootings. On this day many people are debating whether or not people should carry firearms, specifically teachers. Most school zones are “gun free” zones. What we all realize now is that doesn’t work. Should teachers with carry permits be allowed to carry at school. No matter what the resolution of that question, I submit on this day more than a few teachers are right now.

  • valley person

    If you want to increase the risk of you or your family being killed by a gun, then buy one and keep it in the home. If you want to further increase the risk, buy several. And if you want to increase the risk of school shootings, let teachers bring guns into schools.

    • David from Mill City

      The study behind that statement was debunked years ago. The sample size was too small and over 50% of the subjects were illegal drug dealers who owned guns for their protection from other drug dealers, raising the question as whether it was the drug dealing and not the presence of the gun that “caused” the death.

      As an aside, one of the problems with the whole gun control discussion is a total lack of unbiased data. Almost every study has been funded and/or conducted by either pro or anti gun control groups in an effort to get data to support their point of view.

      • DavidAppell

        The Kellerman study was repeated several years later in response to such criticisms. The results were still disturbing: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arthur_Kellermann#1993

      • valley person

        The majority of gun deaths are suicides. The most effective way of killing oneself is with a gun. Put more guns in homes or anywhere and at minimum, you will increase the number of effective suicides. i.e. more gun deaths.

  • DavidAppell

    “Arming ourselves” is *exactly* how this massacre happened — someone (Nancy Lanza) had, for some reason, armed herself with high-powered assault weapons, and someone else go ahold of them and killed 20 small children and many others.

    More weapons mean more shootings.

    • valley person

      That is a hard concept for these folks to absorb isn’t it?

  • 3H

    We rank 15th in the world for homicides committed by guns per capita. Our per capita rate for gun deaths is the highest, and by a lot, in the developed world. Given the number of households that possess firearms, and the constant drumbeat of “more guns will make us safer” from some quarters, wouldn’t you expect those statistics to be reversed? I have seen no correlation, even a weak one, that might lead an observer to conclude that guns make us more secure.

  • ardbeg

    Why is it America can’t have a reasonable debate about common sense gun laws? What organization promotes “stand your ground (stupid, stupid, fupid which stands for f-ing stupid). Easier access to semi’s? An unregulated gun-show type sales? and doing away with waiting periods? That’s right-your good friends at ALEC/GOP/Nutbags who keep loosing election but keep trying anyways.

    • David from Mill City

      A stand you ground provision is needed for a Self-defense statute to work. For if an attempt to retreat is required before you can lawfully practice self defense, then effectively you do not have a right of self defense. The problem is that long after the event from the safety of a court room a prosecutor can almost always “prove” you could have retreated and even it turns out you won, you are broke from the legal expenses. As a practical rule when possible you should run rather then fight, but sometimes that is not an option and if that is the case you should not be judged by a Monday morning quarter back who was not there. One last point, chasing someone is not standing your ground.

      • ardbeg

        I disagree and I think the SYG laws are bad and will lobby against it coming to Oregon! I’m more aligned with Oregon. Other states have different criteria for the use of deadly force. Oregon’s goes something like this. Reasonable fear of sever bodily harm or death to you or others. Example: So your in a confrontation with someone who just might kick your butt, you can’t pull a gun in Oregon to avoid a black eye or broken nose. But- that same confrontation is with a guy with 75 lbs and 20 years on you and is trained in martial arts. Now you can. Or it’s with a group of guys and one has a baseball bat. Now you can. The bottom line is “Reasonable fear of sever bodily injury or death”. The guy who shot the kid over loud music? Fry him! Zimmerman-he just might go free. Nothing says you can’t confront someone who you suspect is up to no good, and if after that confrontation he can convince a jury he was in fear for his life, he will go free.

  • Cartel Me Boys

    Have we lost our heads? Nick Berg and Daniel Pearl did and it wasn’t accomplished by firearm technology.“`Cutting to fact, MAD SOCIOPATHS are responsible for heinous deeds played out with tools ranging from sharp instruments to explosive issues vested in suicidal attempts at schools, malls, subways, plazas, embassies, etc. wherever humans gather.“`Meanwhile, the cry for more gun control seems oxymoronic when a fast and furious AG seethes to have gun problems of his own to deal with. Benghazi that, and Hillary’s silence, too, folks

    • DavidAppell

      Powerful guns make it a lot easier for the deranged (and others) to kill people, rapidly and in large numbers. It amps up the risk factor, significantly, and controlling guns is about reducing their attendant risk.

      • Cartel Me Boys

        IMO, you are part of the sociological problem with your pathos of progress, Mr. Appellant! Stop kissing up to the shrinks working us over with scatologistics.

      • David from Mill City

        Actually powerful firearms are much harder to shoot fast, Generally speaking it is harder to shoot multiple targets accurately with a high powered weapon than a medium to low powered gun. Having said that I will also point out the Bushmaster is not a ballistically powerful weapon and .223 Remington is classed as a medium powered cartridge.

        • DavidAppell

          The evidence — which includes an entire classroom of dead first graders, some of whom were shot up to 11 times — suggests that powerful firearms can be shot plenty fast enough.

          • David from Mill City

            Let me try again, a Bushmaster is not a powerful fire arm, it fires a medium power cartridge. In most states the cartridge it is chambered for is not allowed to be used in deer hunting because it is not powerful enough. It is also not a Military Assault Rifle and has almost no practical military use in a modern army.

            Every time you call it a powerful gun or an Assault Rifle, you show your lack of knowledge about firearms and thus weaken the effectiveness of your argument. In another posting here on this topic, you, apparently because of your lack of knowledge about firearms effectively called for the banning of most firearms made since about 1865. I doubt you realized you did it or that such a ban is what you really seek but to someone knowledgeable about firearms that is what you were asking for. If you wish your arguments to be taken seriously by gun enthusiasts, advocates and owners you need learn about guns.,

            Remember to effectively regulate something, you first need to understand it.

          • valley person

            It is powerful and effective enough to discharge hundreds of rounds within a few minutes, killing 26 people. We don’t need weapons with this capacity in general circulation.

          • David from Mill City

            Let me try one more time, ALL semi-automatic rifles, shotguns and pistols can fire a large number of bullets in a short period of time, not just “Assault Rifles”. My guess is that there are easily more then a 100 million Semi-Automatic firearms in the United States at this time. Guns using a semi-automatic action have been available in the United States for over 100 years though it is in the last 50 that they have become common. So the guns you are objecting to are already here in very large numbers

            In as much as past anti-“assault weapons” legislation introduced by Senator Feinstien in the past mirrored the previous “Assault Weapons Ban” it is a very good possibility that her current proposal will not prohibit the sale of all Semi-Automatic weapons. It just bans weapons because of how they look “evil” not what they are capable of. So that legislation will not stop the sale of guns with the capability of being fired in a manner you are objecting to.

          • DavidAppell

            It’s not just the guns, its the attitude about guns. A large group of people think they need them for their personal safety. Those people are often the anti-government types, convinced the government is about to deny their basic rights, take their money, and throw them in concentration camps. I don’t have those feelings and don’t know where others get them, but I think certain groups create and exploit those fears for their own purposes — the NRA, elite Republicans, conservative talk show hosts, certain other media. That is what’s really ruining the country — the gun violence is, in some way, a side effect of it.

          • DavidAppell

            It’s really this simple: the needs of 1st graders come before your paranoia. Get it??

Stay Tuned...

Stay up to date with the latest political news and commentary from Oregon Catalyst through daily email updates:

Prefer another subscription option? Subscribe to our RSS Feed, become a fan on Facebook, or follow us on Twitter.

Twitter Facebook

No Thanks (close this box)