Other State A Gun Killed My Son. So Why Do I Want to Own One?

[DB is Here]

Opinion | A Gun Killed My Son. So Why Do I Want to Own One?

Read More

 

[The Heretic]

Texting on a phone in a car caused my niece to crash. Her car was hit by another car after her car crashed. I am told she died from the other car hitting her.

What killed her?

Her phone? Should I throw away my phones?

The car that hit her? Should I stop driving any car and/or stay off the roads?

Or was it her actions - the fact that she was texting and wasn't paying attention to her driving?

I think it was the latter. I generally do not text and drive at the same time. I almost always pull over or I am otherwise not moving if I need to text while driving my car (rarely happens) - easier anyway to just call (my car connects to my phone).

A gun didn't kill his son. A person killed his son.

 

[titsonritz]

Texting on a phone in a car cause my niece to crash. Her car was hit by another car after her car crashed. I am told she died from the other car hitting her.

What killed her?

Her phone? Should I throw away my phones?

The car that hit her? Should I stop driving any car and/or stay off the roads?

Or was it her actions - the fact that she was texting and wasn't paying attention to her driving?

I think it was the latter. I generally do not text and drive at the same time. I almost always pull over or I am otherwise not moving if I need to text while driving my car (rarely happens) - easier anyway to just call (my car connects to my phone).

A gun didn't kill his son. A person killed his son.

Exactly!! The gun didn't do squat, it can't, no inanimate object is capable of thought or free will.

Sorry about your niece, man.

 

[Andy54Hawken]

A gun...even a loaded one , can doing nothing until a person does something with it.*

Its about having a choice...
Just what you do with a gun , can make a life changing difference , for you or someone else ...Having someone else make that choice for you , is just wrong.
Andy
* Except for some Remington 700 rifles...

 

[CLT65]

I only own firearms with a special control device installed on them, a device that keeps them from just going off on their own and causing death and destruction. It's a device that will only allow them to discharge when a human being is in direct control and responsible for where the bullet goes. This device is called a trigger.

 

[Pete F]

My Dad taught Math in High School and later was a Vice Principal in charge of discipline. For 35+ years, he carried. It was one of two guns, Walther P38 or a 1911 (both WWII era). He even carried when coaching football. For those that think that teachers don't want to carry, remember my Dad.

 

[dcfranzen]

I wonder how many commenters will read the entire text of this New York Times article and appreciate this man's Odessey and where he is now. I'm surprised the NY Times published this article because it may just get a few sheep to start thinking differently from the rest of the flock.

 

[American123]

Edit to say. After reading the entire article:

As a teacher. I disagree that arming teachers would not be effective. If teachers can pass the same qualifications that police must pass or the military, there should be no barrier. Police are allowed to carry in schools. No difference between a teacher and a policeman in terms of shooting prowess if they are both held to the same standard. Hold teachers to an ever stricter standard if necessary, but still provide them the option. My point being, those who are interested will pursue high levels of standard and skill to gain such an option and those who are unwilling, or don't not have the skill to achieve the credentials would not. At no point did I ever support every teacher being thrust into their hand a firearm to keep in their class, that's irresponsible as it ignores the skills needed to effectively use a firearm in a precise manner.

Making good people defenseless has never made bad people harmless. Somehow for the anti freedom side it's morally superior for a class full of kids to be executed after their teacher is gunned down by an evil person than for a teacher to be able to shoot back while on the job. Claiming teachers do not have the stomach for self defense is incredibly ignorant. Given the choice between death of their classroom of students and themselves and death of an evil attacker, the evil attacker's soul would bear no weight against many teachers conscience. These terrible humans who commit mass murder have always sought victims they knew to be defenseless. They are cowards who have always sought no resistance toward their evil desires and have often time and time again at the experience of resistance turned the gun on themselves.

How about making it public knowledge that if you go a school to try to commit mass murder you will quickly be gunned down by any number of the staff who could potentially be armed and highly practiced. Evil seems to respect / want to avoid dying by someone else's hands, it would seem it is possibly one of the few things evil does respect as they can off themselves after committing atrocities, but do not before they encounter resistance that would lead to their death.

The notion that violent video games are the cause for growing desensitization toward mass killing is highly speculative at best. Consider that every year millions and millions and millions of kids and adults who own or have access to plenty of firearms and have also played many hours of video games where the goal is to kill the opponent as many times before the timer runs out still do not commit violence with their firearms in real life. This difference between video games and reality is easily distinguished.

For example, the game "grand theft auto" encouraged the player to engage in assassinations, theft, prostitution, and countless murders. Does that encourage players to engage in those activities outside of the recreational goals of the video game, tough to say, especially considering all of those crimes occurred for hundreds of years before video games ever existed.

A highly popular game, "call of duty" puts the player in several roles where killing opposing forces, or even civilians at times is part of the gameplay, contrarily there are also goals of saving others and protecting them from opposing forces, depending on the individual mission. Does this gameplay desensitize people to actual violence and encourage them to perform it in real life, hard to say. Again, there are millions and millions and millions of adults and kids who have access to real firearms and play these games and do not bring that video game violence outside of the video game.

The topic of drug prescriptions and mass shootings is another highly sensitive subject, but one that should be heavily examined. What commonalities can be observed between many of the mass shooters and their prescription drug history. Are there patterns that we can see as trending toward an event?

It would appear that the increase in these evil acts is something else, possibly related to the overall lack of respect for human life that some people seem to have, where that lack of respect for human life stems from is debatable, highly debatable and could stretch across many different topics from religious values, to family values, to societal values, to video games, to prescription drugs etc.

Another angle is considering the criminal justice systems responsibility deter heinous crimes and whether their current system of punishment is actually as effective of a deterrent as it could be.

Personally, beyond arming teachers, I'd like to add more options to the criminal justice system for how to deal with select heinous crimes. Make people understand that they are going to endure unthinkable pain and suffering if apprehended for such crimes. These additional options however would be considered by many to be barbaric, inhumane and more relevant to previous centuries of civilization than 'civilized' society.

As usual, a lot of variables, not a lot of evidence based solutions and a lot of people who want the situation to improve, but can't wholly agree on how to achieve that improvement or which solutions would actually be effective in achieving it.

 

[Alexx1401]

What killed her?

Her phone? Should I throw away my phones?

The car that hit her? Should I stop driving any car and/or stay off the roads?

Or was it her actions - the fact that she was texting and wasn't paying attention to her driving?

.

Guns seem to always be the only thing that somehow are to blame for what others do with them. Amazing to watch. In another life I knew a guy who sold "kits" to make a suppressor. One day Detective shows up at his door. Tells him a guy used one of his kits to make a suppressor that he used to kill a pastor of a church. The guy said, "really? So how did he do that, beat the pastor over the head with it?" Detective's face started to get red as he could see where this was going. So the guy said, "isn't what really happened is the guy used a gun to kill, or rather a bullet? So did you go see the people who made the gun or the bullet to tell them your story?"
It is amazing that nothing else is blamed for death caused by someone except guns.

 

[The Heretic]

The whole thing about 'On Killing', etc. - I've read much of that book (quite a while ago) and while I agree with some of the premises presented in the book, I am not sure about the video game conclusion.

Here is where I have a problem with that; if it were true, we would have a LOT of people (not just kids) who exhibit the antisocial behavior the author says can result from violent video games. Yet we don't. And yes, we did have mass shootings long before video games came onto the scene - as far back as 1891:

A Brief History of Mass Shootings – Behind the Tower

Now yes, I would agree that violent video games can 'desensitize' some people to violence, but most people understand the difference between a game and real life. When I was a kid, we ran around with toy guns playing 'war' or "cowboys and indians" or whatever - in theory then this should have been even more desensitizing - all it did for me was spark an interest in guns, not in killing people. Granted, at a certain point most kids would stop playing with toy guns and go on to other interests as we grew older (girls, cars and motorcycles for me).

I personally believe that a major component that the author did not mention (except a bit in passing) much less get into, is the role of the media in sensationalizing mass shootings - making the infamous famous. A very common sentiment voiced (in one way or another) by mass shooters was that they wanted to get the attention that the shooting would bring. The media feeds that need, IMO inciting even more shootings.

 

[The Heretic]

BTW - I don't play video games - I find them boring.

 

[nwslopoke]

The author is trying to justify something so his peers won't demonize him. More people need to learn the phrase, this is what I'm doing now.

Not as a put down. Just an observation. Liberals need other people to know and acknowledge they are a good person. More conservative leaning people, know themselves as a good person so lack the need to go around proving it.

 

[The Heretic]

Liberals need other people to know and acknowledge they are a good person. More conservative leaning people, know themselves as a good person so lack the need to go around proving it.

Some do - some don't.

Either way, it seems a lot of liberals believe that morality can be legislated, and that governmental law, regulation and socialism is the answer to all of society's problems. Instead of letting society deal with issues on a voluntary and individual level, they believe in using collective force to mandate what should be done into what shall be done.

Conservatives often believe in collective gov force also - just on different issues.

The left wants to be our mommy; pick us up when we fall down, kiss our boo boos, and help us along the way - even when we should be allowed to fail and learn from our mistakes on our own, when we should be taking responsibility for our own actions and situations.

The right wants to be our daddy; spank us when we say naughty words or look at naughty pictures, or smoke or drink something they consider naughty, control our sexuality, and so on.

Libertarians are like the black sheep uncle who doesn't say anything when sneak a Playboy or a joint into our bedroom and lets us make up our own minds about what we want to do and when as long as we don't harm anybody else.

 

[CLT65]

I read the whole article, and was impressed that the guy was open-minded enough to get past his emotions and preconceptions to actually try to understand the other side.

From reading between the lines I would assume that the guy is still a liberal/progressive who supports things like universal background checks, registration, and "assault weapon" bans. You don't change a lifelong statist mindset overnight, but you sure have to give the guy credit for making the effort and coming around the way he did.

 

[leadcounsel]

Texting on a phone in a car caused my niece to crash. Her car was hit by another car after her car crashed. I am told she died from the other car hitting her.

What killed her?

Her phone? Should I throw away my phones?

The car that hit her? Should I stop driving any car and/or stay off the roads?

Or was it her actions - the fact that she was texting and wasn't paying attention to her driving?

I think it was the latter. I generally do not text and drive at the same time. I almost always pull over or I am otherwise not moving if I need to text while driving my car (rarely happens) - easier anyway to just call (my car connects to my phone).

A gun didn't kill his son. A person killed his son.

Well said.

People die daily from the negligence or personal actions of others by all manner of things. Vehicles, phones, medical procedures, fire, electricity, viruses obtained in public, food borne illness, alcohol, boats, and so forth.

In history, probably billions of people have been murdered or killed on purpose with rope, pointy steel objects, fire, sticks and rocks and clubs of various sorts, drowning.

Placing blame an inanimate thing is the height of stupidity. Violence is an "evil" problem, not a tool problem.

 

[fmann]

I agree with all of you about video games -- it's just an easy scapegoat. Japan is a huge video game market, where kids play tons of games as well as watch mature animation and read mature comic materials (nudity, violence, sex, etc.). You can easily walk into a book store and see a kid reading a comic that is full of violence standing next to a dude reading something borderline pornographic.

YET their crime rates are among the lowest (if not THE lowest) in the world.

It's their culture that ingrains a strong sense of social responsibility from a young age that offsets any of the violence/etc. they see in their media.

 

[leadcounsel]

I agree with all of you about video games -- it's just an easy scapegoat. Japan is a huge video game market, where kids play tons of games as well as watch mature animation and read mature comic materials (nudity, violence, sex, etc.). You can easily walk into a book store and see a kid reading a comic that is full of violence standing next to a dude reading something borderline pornographic.

YET their crime rates are among the lowest (if not THE lowest) in the world.

It's their culture that ingrains a strong sense of social responsibility from a young age that offsets any of the violence/etc. they see in their media.

Japan is a poor analogy. They are bred from birth to be subservient and domicile. They have almost effectively zero % cultural melting pot or diversity. And they lead the world in suicide rates. They don't have the diversity or socio-economic problems found in America, nor the freedoms of choice. They are born, live in a homogeneous society, follow oppressive laws, keep their head down, work, and die under their state run tightly controlled government. If accused of a crime in Japan, conviction rates are over 99% and penalties for crimes are significant (by contrast, US conviction rates are high 80% and penalties are generally mild and offer court diversion or non-incarceration options).

Owning a gun in Japan is a fantasy. Near total ban. If you fire the gun, you can be sentenced to life in prison. Think about that for a moment. Yet, even with that, there's still illegal gun ownership and gun related homicides... in spite of the stiff gun penalties.

Even gangsters live in fear of Japan's gun laws | The Japan Times

"In 2002, there were 158 shootings in Japan and 24 deaths. Last year there were 45 shootings and eight deaths — and of the 45 shootings, 33 were yakuza-related."

And yet, still plenty of non-gun homicides including mass murder. Just 3 years ago there was a knife attack mass murder of at least 19 people in 2016. Japan knife attack: At least 19 dead - CNN

And just this week, knife attack kills 3 and injures over a dozen in Japan. https://www.independent.co.uk/news/...aths-injuries-children-attacker-a8932446.html

 

[Boboclown]

A gun...even a loaded one , can doing nothing until a person does something with it.*

Its about having a choice...
Just what you do with a gun , can make a life changing difference , for you or someone else ...Having someone else make that choice for you , is just wrong.
Andy
* Except for some Remington 700 rifles...

It was a choice to buy those remington 700s so...

 

[American123]

Japan is a poor analogy. They are bred from birth to be subservient and domicile. They have almost effectively zero % cultural melting pot or diversity. And they lead the world in suicide rates. They don't have the diversity or socio-economic problems found in America, nor the freedoms of choice. They are born, live in a homogeneous society, follow oppressive laws, keep their head down, work, and die under their state run tightly controlled government. If accused of a crime in Japan, conviction rates are over 99% and penalties for crimes are significant (by contrast, US conviction rates are high 80% and penalties are generally mild and offer court diversion or non-incarceration options).

Owning a gun in Japan is a fantasy. Near total ban. If you fire the gun, you can be sentenced to life in prison. Think about that for a moment. Yet, even with that, there's still illegal gun ownership and gun related homicides... in spite of the stiff gun penalties.

Even gangsters live in fear of Japan's gun laws | The Japan Times

"In 2002, there were 158 shootings in Japan and 24 deaths. Last year there were 45 shootings and eight deaths — and of the 45 shootings, 33 were yakuza-related."

And yet, still plenty of non-gun homicides including mass murder. Just 3 years ago there was a knife attack mass murder of at least 19 people in 2016. Japan knife attack: At least 19 dead - CNN

And just this week, knife attack kills 3 and injures over a dozen in Japan. Three dead including child after mass stabbing in Japan

Sounds like Japan's criminal system is working well as a deterrent. Violent crime should have significant punishment. Home invasions, strong arm robberies, rapes, murders, etc. all of that could catch someone a dirt nap and without and society would be much more peaceful.

Obviously they have strayed far from their roots on the notion of personal self defense weapons, and on that subject we can let them be them and us be us.

 

[The Heretic]

Japan's culture is changing. In the past it was all about being subservient to the collective. But today the new generations are becoming more individualistic and the corporate collective is being less beneficial to individuals (less likely to have jobs for life). Then there are the people who fall outside of accepted societal norms - which is increasing.