On mass shootings and gun rights.

[DivCurlGrad72]

Calls for stricter gun laws, or even outright bans, are almost exclusively the result of mass shootings and the horror they inflict on the public. In Australia, it was the Port Arthur massacre of 1996 that radically transformed the country's gun laws. In England, handguns were effectively banned after the Dunblane school massacre in the same year. Here in the US, it is the recent Las Vegas and Parkland shootings that have inflamed the discussions once again and led us back into a battle for our rights. One more shooting at a similar level of severity during the current legislative session in OR or WA could deliver the fatal blow.

Lacking the protection of a new Supreme Court decision, above and beyond Heller and McDonald, to finally and explicitly protect all commonly-used firearms, I think the time has come for gun-rights advocates to address the mass-shooting issue directly, loudly and unapologetically.

One idea that I find interesting was suggested by columnist John Daniel Davidson in his Feb. 2019 article Is The Second Amendment Worth Dying For?. In the article, Davidson asks the reader to think about the trade-offs between safety and freedom, and proposes a thought experiment:

What if we decided that a certain baseline vulnerability to mass shootings is part of the price of the American idea?

Should this be standpoint of the gun community: we will never be able to 100-percent protect ourselves from mass shootings. However, we value the the right to self-defense, as well as the ideas concerning tyrannical governments incorporated in the Second Amendment, and accept the necessary sacrifices, up to and possibly including the greatest sacrifice, to preserve these. It will likely not convince the opposition, but it's finally a message that puts us in an offensive position while weakening theirs, one that explicitly says we will no longer accept mass shootings as an excuse to take away our rights.

I don't have a further, in-depth analysis of the idea at this point, but in writing this post, simply wanted to get the idea out there and the conversation started.

Read More

 

[Heyjoe]

This idea is as old as the United states itself.

Thomas Jefferson: "Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem."

Translation:
"I prefer dangerous freedom over peaceful slavery"

Another way to make heads explode is to explain that the people we call "first responders " are typically second on scene of a crime or tragedy- often long after the house has burned down or the murder or rape committed.

The true first responders are the would be victims who take responsibility for the safety and well being of themselves and those around them

 

[Stomper]

Summed up thusly, and rather poignantly....

 

[notazombie]

Until literally everything is banned, there will be no such thing as absolute safety. For the millionth time, safety isn't what all this constant bluster is about. Just political theatre for the masses.

 

[ConcernedCitizen]

Until literally Even when everything is banned, there will be no such thing as absolute safety. For the millionth time, safety isn't what all this constant bluster is about. Just political theatre for the masses.

FIFY...

 

[Andy54Hawken]

Are there anti gun people who think the way they do for "safety reasons"...yes
Are there anti gun people who think the way they do for control reasons...yes again.
I'd venture to say that for as many pro gun people and all the varied reasons as to why they think the way they do....there is at least as many , if not more anti gun people and reasons...
Granted I also think that many folks who are anti gun for truly safety reasons are easily used by those who favor control reasons....

Life itself is dangerous , you can not 100% protect yourself from all forms of harm.
Our freedoms cut both ways...if used responsibly , Freedom to own Arms , act , think , worship , love , work , etc...can bring much enrichment to your life....failure to do so , can bring much sorrow.

Like many things the gun can be seen as both positive and negative....Kinda like Kool-Aid.
On 18 November 1978 , over 900 folks received cyanide laced Kool-Aid and died...Should we ban Kool-aid because it was the method of delivering the poison...?
Or how 'bout religion , because that was a method of control used by Jones...?
Maybe free speech , should go away , so no one can ever sway folks like that again..?

Many folks enjoy Kool-Aid , religion and free speech...and do not harm themselves or others with their use of any of the listed items....Why should any of the above be restricted for the many , by the actions of a few...?

Some folks want to ban guns because they can be used for evil ends....Well Murder and Mass murder as well as their friends Harm and Mayhem...have been around a lot longer than any firearm and will continue to work ill deeds , even if all guns magically disappear.
Andy

 

[notazombie]

Granted I also think that many folks who are anti gun for truly safety reasons are easily used by those who favor control reasons....

I believe that is 95% of antis. Frightened, emptional, uninformed and misled do-gooders that think they're helping...for the "greater good". I don't think they're evil, just wrong. Now, the other 5%...

You're right though. Life comes with risk.

 

[User 1234]

Until voters realize that gun bans don't actually affect criminals and don't make anyone safer, and instruct their elected officials accordingly, we will continue to fight these battles. If the new U S Supreme Court decision announces a strict scrutiny or even intermediate scrutiny test for gun laws, then we stand a better chance of winning in the lower courts without waiting twenty years for more Supreme Court decisions.

 

[WoodsPlinker]

This comes to mind:

"Our petitions have been slighted; our remonstrances have produced additional violence and insult; our supplications have been disregarded; and we have been spurned, with contempt"

"But when shall we be stronger? Will it be the next week, or the next year? Will it be when we are totally disarmed"

" Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery?"

Selectively taken quotes from Patrick Henries famous speech:

Patrick Henry's "Give Me Liberty Or Give Me Death" Speech

I believe it sums up my thoughts nicely on this subject.

 

[Aero Denezol]

I've been saying for a long time, mass-shootings are murder suicides, and should be treated and investigated as murder suicides, not as acts of terrorism. In almost all cases, the shooter planned to commit suicide upon completion of the act. I believe the shooter has already made the decision to take their own life, long before they killed anyone else. The mass shooting is just one last, dramatic attempt to get attention before killing oneself.

I know there are exceptions, like San Bernardino, which was politically motivated. But most mass-shootings are not political. Most of these dudes are missing a few screws, and everyone knows it, but nobody does anything about it. Adam Lanza's (Sandy Hook) private journals are now available to read online. The guy was struggling with autism and unable to make human attachments. He was also a pedophile.

Suicide is a health problem. Mass shootings are a public health problem. Suicide nationwide is up 24% over the past 15 years, meanwhile SSRI use is up 60% during the same time. Is there a correlation? We need to find this out.

IMO, the short answer to the OP question is, punishing millions of hard working, law-abiding citizens, who shoot for personal protection and sport, is not the solution to the Nicholas Cruz problem. Wasn't it Obama who said "we cannot let the actions of a few define all of us"?

I just heard this morning that the State of Oregon made $100 million in revenue off the marijuana taxes, and 40% of that went to the school system. Take some of that money and put some real security in the schools. Not a dude sitting at a desk going through paperwork, but a real security team with teeth, who actively patrols the grounds and is able to search backpacks if need be. The amount of drugs alone they will confiscate is going to shock the public.

 

[DB is Here]

Just look around the world. Those willing to trade freedom for safety will soon have neither.

 

[DuneHopper]

Problem is:

England gun ban, resulted in a 200% increase on person to person crime, robbery and rapes.
Australia gun ban resulted in a 70% increase on person to person crime, robbery and rapes.
Deaths by a firearm as indeed down, however people can no longer prevent person on person crimes.
Interestingly, in both these countries Murder is not down, its up slightly.

Lesson what did gun bans do? Disarmed the citizens and left thhem open to the whims of criminals.

Thats what we need to sell back, that there will be a increase on person to person crime, robbery and rapes. here.

 

[Herb g]

Until literally everything is banned, there will be no such thing as absolute safety. For the millionth time, safety isn't what all this constant bluster is about. Just political theatre for the masses.

Absolute safety doesn't, nor can ever exist on this earth. There will always be a weapon at hand for the evil minded. Rock, stick, butter knife. Fire was the weapon of the biggest school homicide in this country.

 

[Herb g]

Next

 

[DivCurlGrad72]

Just to clarify: I personally will always choose freedom over safety, and believe most members of this forum would too. As the saying goes, those who choose the opposite will wind up with neither. The question was more about going on the offensive with this message so that mass shooting events lose their power in the hands of those who seek to disarm us.

I'm at work right now, and need more time to read over your excellent responses in detail before giving a proper answer.

EDIT: I also realize there's the issue of real vs imagined safety to address.

 

[DuneHopper]

Mass shootings make up such a very small part, so much so, stats put it at the bottom of gun crimes yearly. Something anti-gunners ignore.

Interesting in a SPELL CHECK: Antifa is already in spell check.

 

[Herb g]

Spell check - interesting. Am constantly seeing letters/words printed that I didn't type in. Suppose I'm on another list.

 

[bbbass]

!. I was on SSRIs for years... didn't commit mass murder or even a single murder.

2. Our current society is averse to (a. Responsibility, (b. Risk. My home inspection business was risky... I was one of a very few of practitioners to try to explain the limitations of the service to clients, but often I would get a call years later complaining that their furnace wasn't working and wanting me to pay for it. No acceptance of any of the risks of home ownership. Society is like that... no acceptance of the risks of liberty and freedom.

 

[BSG 75]

Should this be standpoint of the gun community: we will never be able to 100-percent protect ourselves from mass shootings. However, we value the the right to self-defense, as well as the ideas concerning tyrannical governments incorporated in the Second Amendment, and accept the necessary sacrifices, up to and possibly including the greatest sacrifice, to preserve these.

I sure hope not. It would be one the most politically tone-deaf, self-defeating strategies we could adopt. Our fight is tough enough without shooting ourselves in the foot.

It will likely not convince the opposition,

Or the majority of American voters who don't own guns, or the supporters of gun control who also own guns.

but it's finally a message that puts us in an offensive position

Offensive in more ways than one to the majority of American voters who don't own guns.

offensive
adjective
of·fen·sive | \ ə-ˈfen(t)-siv

1 : making attack : aggressive The bear made offensive movements.
2 : giving painful or unpleasant sensations : nauseous, obnoxious, an offensive odor
3 : causing displeasure or resentment offensive remarks

Telling the majority of American voters who don't own guns but who support gun ownership to one degree or another that they must risk "sacrificing" themselves, or their children, or their loved ones as the price for some of us to own "assault weapons" is going to be pretty offensive to them all right, and will accomplish something that the gun controllers have failed to accomplish so far: produce broad public support nationally for strict gun control. No thanks.

Telling the American people that mass shootings are the price we all - including they - have to pay for the freedom of some of us to own guns - remember, about 70% of Americans don't own guns - and they need to "suck it up" and accept it gives the appearance that we don't care about the victims. This is 2019, not 1776. We have to make it clear that we do care about mass shootings - beyond offering "thoughts and prayers", a meme gun controllers love to taunt us with - and offer better solutions than the mindless gun bans pushed by the other side i.e. hardening soft targets, encouraging concealed carry by the law-abiding, and better mental health care.

 

[arakboss]

I sure hope not. It would be one the most politically tone-deaf, self-defeating strategies we could adopt. Our fight is tough enough without shooting ourselves in the foot.



Or the majority of American voters who don't own guns, or the supporters of gun control who also own guns.



Offensive in more ways than one to the majority of American voters who don't own guns.



Telling the majority of American voters who don't own guns but who support gun ownership to one degree or another that they must risk "sacrificing" themselves, or their children, or their loved ones as the price for some of us to own "assault weapons" is going to be pretty offensive to them all right, and will accomplish something that the gun controllers have failed to accomplish so far: produce broad public support nationally for strict gun control. No thanks.

Telling the American people that mass shootings are the price we all - including they - have to pay for the freedom of some of us to own guns - remember, about 70% of Americans don't own guns - and they need to "suck it up" and accept it gives the appearance that we don't care about the victims. This is 2019, not 1776. We have to make it clear that we do care about mass shootings - beyond offering "thoughts and prayers", a meme gun controllers love to taunt us with - and offer better solutions than the mindless gun bans pushed by the other side i.e. hardening soft targets, encouraging concealed carry by the law-abiding, and better mental health care.

The idea the OP was stating is a good one. If you are going to live in a free society (including one with the right to own firearms), all of society will have to accept the risk that comes with that freedom. This applies to having cars, limited jail space, drugs and alcohol, junk food, etc. You are likely to find more people among non-drinkers who would prefer that the rest of us not have access to alcohol.

I understand why it won't help our cause to go out and bluntly tell those that don't have or want guns that they have to deal with it and accept the risk, but it is true. As our society becomes more risk averse this problem will cause gun owners additional grief.

A good salesman would be able to convince somebody who doesn't want guns in their society that guns are good for them and reduce risk for them, even if they don't own or use them. Unfortunately we have a shortage of good salesmen right now.