Trumplestiltskin

The 2nd isn't a right worth having imo. But that's a separate issue.

I think a general sense of fear and paranoia works to the gun lobby's advantage. The do, after all, exist for the purpose of selling guns. They are not going to come out in support of background checks or anything else that would reduce gun sales to anyone. The whole idea that we need guns more guns to defend the guns we already have locked in the safe is their bread and butter.

They have one line. "More guns". Whether it makes sense or not doesn't matter. That's all they got.

Oh sure. I just think it's interesting that there are gun enthusiasts with different opinions who don't want to be associated with those views, even to the extent that they are prepared to get rid of their own guns. Yet as we've seen in this thread - few if any of this man's peers on here appear willing to entertain his opinion, even if they happen to disagree with it. Instead he's got be characterised as some sort of traitor.

Ben Carson is only capitalizing on the suffering of others, to try and hide his political ineptitude, and lack of understanding for basic American law.

Those opinions are prevalent though - like birtherism, that Benghazi nonsense or the president being in league with Al Qaeda..

I believe that a lot of people have stereotyped views of the holocaust and genuinely think that a complex series of events can be reduced down to "Germans killed the Jews, because the Jews had no guns and couldn't fight back". The Jews in fact did fight back.

Its because we are always being targeted afterwards.

There are millions of us that go about our daily lives and follow the laws. Then suddenly, you have a group of people demanding that we give up certain things for the interest of safety. Then they label these things as common sense even if they don't fully understand what they want legislated.

I don't doubt it, but you can always predict the opinions of the NRA and many gun enthusiasts in the aftermath of these shootings. It's never about the families, it's always about the need to buy more guns and for more people to carry them.

I don't doubt that very many gun enthusiasts are law abiding, i just wish the debate over these incidents was actually honest. Whether or not you agree or disagree with the guy in the OP, isn't it a bit crass for people to be promoting guns as a solution but never part of the problem?

To be sure, but abortion always makes for a good red herring when it comes to gun violence in America.

I just wish sometimes these things weren't so boringly predictable.

using other people's tragedies to advance his own dubious agenda. (your words)

you brought up the subject ...... Hillary is using a tragedy to further her own agenda

The subject is the OP article, which doesn't mention Hillary or any politician other than Ben Carson for his comments on gun control and the holocaust and Obamas response to the Umpqua shootings.

You want to quote me against other mainstream political figures? Fine, you can do it in a thread about Hillarys views on gun control. ie not in this thread.

To follow the parent analogy, as a responsible parent, I wouldn't give my children up for adoption because other parents were abusing their children. I would support laws that keep children safer. I would support laws that punish child abusers. I wouldn't hold on to some delusional notion that making laws tougher for child abusers would somehow make the government come and take my kids away.

A responsible gun owner giving up their gun misses the bigger picture IMO. It's a purely symbolic and unnecessary gesture. There are too many guns in the hands of criminals because there are too many guns period. As long as we continue with this cultural idiosyncratic belief that guns need to be freely and easily obtainable by everyone, the delusion will continue.

I think that's the point though isn't it. Whenever these incidents happen you hear the same arguments from the gun lobby and from gun enthusiasts. It's a deeply dishonest argument that suggests that the lives of innocent people are worth the price of admission to the gun club. They see no connection between the two. There is a connection.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_aM-QtXEaVk

using other people's tragedies to advance his own dubious agenda.

Off topic and irrelevant. The thread isn't about Hillary or partisan politics.

So the reason you posted this thread isn't important? Guess similarly the reason one man destroyed his gun isn't important either. Who cares about the little guy in the big scheme of things.

That's one opinion I guess.

Personally, I think it's important for people to take a stand on issues that are important to them. After all, it's not as though anyone doing that has ever achieved anything important or symbolic.

And on a topic such as gun crime where people seem keen and willing to bury their heads in the sand and offer nothing in the way of a human response over families being devastated, especially on the level that it seems to happen in the US, I think it's refreshing for a gun enthusiast to be honest and say that they don't want to be associated with views that condone inaction or which make them complicit.

Do you never wonder why you don't hear many gun enthusiasts here say anything much about the victims of these mass shootings? Instead it's always hysterical rubbish about freedom and how everyone who doesn't have a gun should buy one and everyone who has one should be able to carry out wherever they want.

Seems strange to me, but there you go.

I mean just the other day a presidential candidate made some pretty appalling remakes about gun ownership and the holocaust, this sums up the mentality entirely - using other people's tragedies to advance his own dubious agenda.

Controversial. I wonder what it means.

There are a lot of people who have had an abortion and also have actual children. And yes, abortion can be a responsible option for many due to a wide range of very personal reasons.

Totally agree.

I guess it depends if you think the man has a point that is worth making, or one that you are prepared to engage with. Or should he be derided because people don't like his opinion or his decision?

What do you think? Agree? Disagree?

I have no doubt that's what people will say.

Sure, if semantics is your basis for exploring complex moral issues.

Good luck with that

It's not a logical inconsistency.

I completely agree with this:

My gun is being used to argue against common-sense laws and policies that could reduce gun violence in America, arguments I find unconscionable. Thats what being a responsible gun owner means today Im responsible. Ive been uneasy about that for a while now, and ashamed to admit its taken two more mass shootings for me to do anything about it.

You view a view a peaceful person with a pistol as a bigger problem than a violent person with social issues . He wanted to be famous for killing a lot of people . The more the better in his words. If no a gun to et the deed done well perhaps a pressure cooker . I am sure a lot of folks got rid if their instrument of possible destruction after that Boston bombing . For a while they pulled them off store shelves.

No. Like the guy in the article I view a society awash with firearms and the disturbing ease with which these seem to be acquired by the mad and the bad as being a problem. More than that, I think it creates a culture in which people feel it is OK to solve their problems with extreme violence.

It was also the Umpqua shooter's free choice to go on a kill crazy rampage. I'd say one of those choices is easier to agree with than the other...

Yes the first thing that any good parent is concerned about after their child is murdered in yet another random act of gun violence should be' how much will it effect my right to own a gun?'

Somehow I just don't think so though.

They are two entirely different arguments.

I think it's quite selfish imo. It's dressed up like it's some meaningful expression of freedom, but there's almost no concern being shown for the families. Instead the focus is always about blame - on everyone and everything, just not the availability of guns or the culture that lead to this crime being committed.

If it's not the governments fault, it's the fault of the university. If it's not the fault of the university, it's the fault of the other students for not fighting back. Anything so long as the holy gun isn't implicated in not only this event, but a series of similar events that are pretty much unique to the United States.

How many more people will die before people realise that the freedom to life is perhaps more important than the freedom to take it.

Oh and please feel free to object abortion here with that last post - as a side tangent is what this thread desperately needs.

Discuss... ?

This American father is redefining what it means to be a 'responsible gun owner'

Following the deaths of nine people at the Umpqua Community College in Oregon last week, debate over gun ownership has raged again in the US.

While Barack Obama gave an impassioned speech calling on his country to wake up to the problem it faces, and the father of the shooter called for an overhaul to the country's laws, the pro-gun lobby has been just as ferocious in its support for the right to bear arms.

Gun sales across the country have increased since the shooting and Republican presidential candidate Ben Carson made some pretty unsavoury remarks about the Holocaust as a defence for the Second Amendment.

The argument from that side of the debate goes that more guns in the hands of "responsible gun owners" are the best way to stop those who want to cause harm.

But one man, who says he has owned a gun since the age of 12 has won plaudits for turning the definition of "responsible gun owner" on its head.

Steve Elliot, who works for a copywriting and PR agency in California, explained in his post (which has now been shared more than 35,000 times) that while he has lost members of his own family to gun violence, it took the Oregon shooting for him to finally take action.

There are too many guns to do anything about it, the gun lobby says. Regulations are a slippery slope that only limit the rights of responsible gun owners, they say.

My gun is being used to argue against common-sense laws and policies that could reduce gun violence in America, arguments I find unconscionable. Thats what being a responsible gun owner means today Im responsible.

Elliot explains in his post, which is accompanied by a photo of his 9mm Ruger, that he has decided to destroy his firearm - that, ultimately, is what a responsible gun owner should do, he explains.

None of us individually can stop gun violence in America, but as a responsible gun owner, I will no longer be used as a justification for doing nothing about it. Today I did what I could. Today there is #ONELESSGUN.

Read Elliot's post in full below:

I am a responsible gun owner.

I bought my first gun when I was 12. It was a Browning 12-gauge shotgun, and I saved money from my paper route and cleaning a drive-in restaurant to buy it in time for dove season. In the years before I could legally drive, Id tie the Browning across the handlebars of my bike and ride to the fields outside town to hunt.

Ive owned several guns since, and own a handgun now. I bought that gun to keep my family safe, and lock it up to keep them safe from it. Like I said, responsible.

And so while Id like to believe Im not part and party to the gun violence that stains America, I cant. My grandmother shot and killed herself with a gun, and a few years ago my father shot and didnt quite kill himself with one. My stepbrother died in a murder-suicide with a gun, and the husband of one of my sisters co-workers was killed in a mass shooting.

None of that happened with my gun, of course, but after every new mass shooting, Im reminded that I bear a portion of the responsibility for our nations gun violence. There are too many guns to do anything about it, the gun lobby says. Regulations are a slippery slope that only limit the rights of responsible gun owners, they say.

My gun is being used to argue against common-sense laws and policies that could reduce gun violence in America, arguments I find unconscionable. Thats what being a responsible gun owner means today Im responsible. Ive been uneasy about that for a while now, and ashamed to admit its taken two more mass shootings for me to do anything about it.

That ended today. Today I disassembled my handgun, a 9mm Ruger, clamped the pieces in a vice and cut them in half with an angle grinder. Im sending the proper paperwork into the state to report it destroyed.

None of us individually can stop gun violence in America, but as a responsible gun owner, I will no longer be used as a justification for doing nothing about it. Today I did what I could. Today there is #ONELESSGUN.

http://i100.independent.co.uk/article/this-american-father-is-redefining-what-it-means-to-be-a-responsible-gun-owner--ZJGIIpiOPx?

No doubt. It's amazing that whenever there's an incident like this - people's priorities are never where they should be.

A lot of families have been devastated by gun violence. Clearly the solution is to go out and buy a gun. Oh and feel proud of it.

What a crock.

This article was clearly only written for the headline "President snubs grieving father". Some people love that kind of thing.

Meanwhile significant facts are missing from the article that make it impossible to get any sense of what actually happened.

In short, it is garbage.

And you are free not to carry. Trouble is if you were living in the United States you would have a strong desire to take away my right to do so . . Every day carry is normal for a lot of people .

I think the trouble is that you can't wrap your head around the idea of a person not feeling a need to carry a gun to go about daily life. And perhaps thinking that more people carrying leads to a society that is less safe overall. A society where, fpr example, people have a hero fetish and take it upon themselves to randomly start blasting at a shoplifter in a Walmart car park.

Personally, I don't think you (you personally) should be allowed to carry as I think your decision making is heavily influenced by paranoid hysteria. I totally accept that you may well be very different in real life, but I'd rather not have people carry guns around purely out of fear of what they see on the evening news.

The idea of it being normal and everyday for people to carry deadly weapons is something a lot of people don't want to get behind.

No. Don't do that.

Alternatively you could participate in a dialogue, instead of these vague monologues with no real point.