People kill, not guns. Really!
I have heard the above repeated many times by those who are fearful that some of us might want to limit the availability of guns to the average person. Of course gun even advocates might limit the sale of guns to those who are clearly diagnosed with an acute mental illness.
On the surface, one cannot argue with the assertion that people and not guns kill. It is true that, drones not withstanding, a gun does not suddenly wake up one morning, stretch, asked for its morning oil and grease then decide to go out to kill. I also do not feel as if I can and want to argue against the use of guns to hunt for animals which one needs for food any more than I would argue against the harvesting of plants for food or the cutting of timber for shelter and furniture. I would argue against the wanton destruction of the environment or the killing of animas for sport. I totally support the Native American approach - that one takes only what one needs and one do that with a humble sense of gratitude.
Because I have lived in areas such as West Virginia and Oklahoma where there are likely to be people who hunt for their food supply. I am very supportive of healthy people owning a gun suitable for the game that they are hunting whether that be deer, rabbit, squirrel or even bear.
Many people, including law enforcement individuals, own or use a gun for protection. I do not agree that we have to use weapons capable to killing someone to protect ourselves or those we love. I also do not believe that any “stuff’ is worth killing someone over. Personally I would like to see the use of non-lethal weapons to stop someone who is attempting or threating to harm another. I am not convinced that cannot invent a better stunt gun or other weapons which would temporarily immobilize someone.
I also have seen no evidence that using various weapons of mass destruction ensures long term peace. I am aware that many have made what seem to be cogent arguments supporting the belief that the use of nuclear weapons against the Japanese in WWII saved many lives in the long term. I am certainly well area that many continue to put forth cogent arguments in favor of the use of bomb and other weapons to stop wanton killing and destruction of those labeled as the enemy. I cannot argue with the fact that there are those in the world who would have no problem killing me as a citizen of a country which has supported behavior which may seem immoral to others or which has engaged in arrogant, greedy, violent behavior to protect its way of life or its interest. Certainly ISIS, the Taliban, North Korea and other groups and countries perceive the United States as enemy and may perceive me as a citizen of the United States as the enemy.
I am also well aware that once a conflict begins the goal is to punish the other for their attacks which may be a response to our attacks which may be a response to their attacks, which ….
Yes, people decide to use guns and other weapons of mass destructions. No gun, bomb or other weapon ever got up on its own, put self in the hands of someone or loaded itself onto a drone or a plane and decided to hurl itself as person or group it deemed to be the enemy.
No one can argue with the fact that people use weapons to kill.
The logic seems to be that just having a gun(s) or other weapons is going to be a deterrent. If one is known to have more and bigger guns or other weapons that will deter other from attacking one. The problem, of course, is that both sides can continue to amass more and weapons. Thus, we have many countries in possession and/or in the process of possessing nuclear weapons. We in the United States are somehow convinced that it is not okay if other countries such as Iran and North Korea have nuclear weapon capability. Yet, at the very same time we think that we have a right to continue to develop and possess nuclear weapons. Just this morning I was reading an article in the Tampa Tribune (page 14) Admiral: Time to begin updating nukes” by Robert Burns. He quotes Navy Admiral Cecil Haney saying “we’re at the brick wall stage. Time to begin modernizing the country’s nuclear weapons is running short, he and other Pentagon leaders say. .. Robert Work, the deputy secretary of defense, said the Pentagon will need an estimated $18 billion a year between 2021 and 2035 to modernize the three “legs” of the U.S. nuclear triad-weapons capable of being launched from land, sea and air.”
If I were not a pacifist would I think I needed to be in a position to protect myself by having my own nuclear weapons or would I just agree that it is right that the United States, Russsia and Israel and and few other countries have nuclear weapons while I was not allowed to? Would I trust the United States or other countries to not use their weapons on my country or trust those weapons would not get in the hands of other people? The problem with “bigger is might” is that everyone can keep getting bigger and/or more powerful. The fear is always that someone will get into a position of power and actually use the weapons. After all, how may wars has the United States instituted or participated in during since WWII? Why would anyone trust a country which elected a George Bush or may elect a Donald Trump.
Guns and not people kill. Yes, that is true, but what happens if we take the option off the table of people using guns to kill? Some might then argue that only the bad people will have guns. I would argue that we need to quit manufacturing guns or only manufactured a little number of hunting rifles . The truth is that we have a lot of guns. We sell guns and other weapons to many countries. The manufacture of various weapons is big business. Temporarily stopping the manufacturing of guns or other weapons would be felt economically by many.
We spend a lot of money, energy and time convincing ourselves that it it right to kill the bad person. Who defines the bad person? Certainly everyone who has committed a murder, fought in a war or otherwise decided to harm someone has convinced themselves that the person they want to harm deserves it.
Guns kill, not people. The only purpose of a gun is to kill. There may be an isolated incident of someone using a gun, unloaded, to just frighten someone but even then the purpose isnto make the person think we are willing to harm them with the gun.
If we keep promoting weapons such as guns as a positive, we are going to have more people choosing guns to kill other people. We cannot keep promoting the ownernship of guns without expecting that they will be used more often. Of course, so called bad people/criminals are going to get guns and use them. We daily promote the notion that it is right for the good people to have guns and/or other weapons. This approach presumes that we can decide who the good people and that:
[if !supportLists] [endif]Good people will only uses them if they “have” to
[if !supportLists] [endif]Good people will never have violent thoughts or be mentally impaired.
[if !supportLists] [endif]Good people will decide who is justified in using a gun to kill.
Thetrace.org gives the following statistics:
“The data, compiled in the ATF’s annual commerce report, shows that from 1986 to 2008, the U.S. never produced more than 4.4 million firearms in a single year. But in 2013, the last year for which data is available, the number of firearms manufactured in the U.S. more than doubled, to nearly 10.9 million guns. The report tracks firearms of all types produced for civilian and law enforcement purchases (but not for military use).”
As we know not all of these stay in the US. Some are legally exported. Others are, I am sure illegally exported. What happens to all these guns? My understanding is that guns do not wear out in one year. They are operable for a very long time. That means that a lot of guns are available for a lot of people to use to kill or injure others.
It is time that we let go of the diversionary argument that people and not guns kill. The truth is the more guns we have around, the more we justify using guns and other weapons, and the more we are going to have people using guns to kill. The more we convince ourselves that all the good people needs guns to kill bad people the more we are going to have individuals and countries deciding that they are the good people who get to decide to use guns to kill the bad people. One can be sure that everyone one of us is going to be labeled the bad person by someone and that person is going to have easy access to a gun.
Can we stop all people from hurting others Obviously not. Can we keep all weapons out of a home? No. I am not going to get rid of all my kitchen knifes, my workshop hammers and other heavy tools. If someone is determined to find something in my home to hurt me they will find something. They will not, however, find a handgun. Neither will they find a hunting rifle, assault weapons, bombs or any other item built for the sole purpose of killing. I do not hunt. If I did I would do as friends of mine do. I would lock it in a gun safe.
The argument, people and not guns kill is an attempt to divert one from what we need to be discussing. Let’s quit accepting that as a way to divert our attention form the real issue. We need to find a way to demonstrate that it is possible to resolve disagreements and to share resource without the use of guns and other weapons which kill. If we cannot do this as a nation or as law enforcement groups then we can hardly expect others to learn that this is possible. We humans have often proven that if we eliminate certain options we will find other ways of dealing with issues. Let’s quit pretending that be can have billions of guns as a way of creating a less violent world. Let quit pretending that the issue is the right to protect ourselves and admit that guns and the promotion of gun ownership is big business. Some people are getting very wealthy over our willingness to buy that it is safe to have billions of guns which are designed for the sole purpose of killing.
Written February 28, 2016
I have heard the above repeated many times by those who are fearful that some of us might want to limit the availability of guns to the average person. Of course gun even advocates might limit the sale of guns to those who are clearly diagnosed with an acute mental illness.
On the surface, one cannot argue with the assertion that people and not guns kill. It is true that, drones not withstanding, a gun does not suddenly wake up one morning, stretch, asked for its morning oil and grease then decide to go out to kill. I also do not feel as if I can and want to argue against the use of guns to hunt for animals which one needs for food any more than I would argue against the harvesting of plants for food or the cutting of timber for shelter and furniture. I would argue against the wanton destruction of the environment or the killing of animas for sport. I totally support the Native American approach - that one takes only what one needs and one do that with a humble sense of gratitude.
Because I have lived in areas such as West Virginia and Oklahoma where there are likely to be people who hunt for their food supply. I am very supportive of healthy people owning a gun suitable for the game that they are hunting whether that be deer, rabbit, squirrel or even bear.
Many people, including law enforcement individuals, own or use a gun for protection. I do not agree that we have to use weapons capable to killing someone to protect ourselves or those we love. I also do not believe that any “stuff’ is worth killing someone over. Personally I would like to see the use of non-lethal weapons to stop someone who is attempting or threating to harm another. I am not convinced that cannot invent a better stunt gun or other weapons which would temporarily immobilize someone.
I also have seen no evidence that using various weapons of mass destruction ensures long term peace. I am aware that many have made what seem to be cogent arguments supporting the belief that the use of nuclear weapons against the Japanese in WWII saved many lives in the long term. I am certainly well area that many continue to put forth cogent arguments in favor of the use of bomb and other weapons to stop wanton killing and destruction of those labeled as the enemy. I cannot argue with the fact that there are those in the world who would have no problem killing me as a citizen of a country which has supported behavior which may seem immoral to others or which has engaged in arrogant, greedy, violent behavior to protect its way of life or its interest. Certainly ISIS, the Taliban, North Korea and other groups and countries perceive the United States as enemy and may perceive me as a citizen of the United States as the enemy.
I am also well aware that once a conflict begins the goal is to punish the other for their attacks which may be a response to our attacks which may be a response to their attacks, which ….
Yes, people decide to use guns and other weapons of mass destructions. No gun, bomb or other weapon ever got up on its own, put self in the hands of someone or loaded itself onto a drone or a plane and decided to hurl itself as person or group it deemed to be the enemy.
No one can argue with the fact that people use weapons to kill.
The logic seems to be that just having a gun(s) or other weapons is going to be a deterrent. If one is known to have more and bigger guns or other weapons that will deter other from attacking one. The problem, of course, is that both sides can continue to amass more and weapons. Thus, we have many countries in possession and/or in the process of possessing nuclear weapons. We in the United States are somehow convinced that it is not okay if other countries such as Iran and North Korea have nuclear weapon capability. Yet, at the very same time we think that we have a right to continue to develop and possess nuclear weapons. Just this morning I was reading an article in the Tampa Tribune (page 14) Admiral: Time to begin updating nukes” by Robert Burns. He quotes Navy Admiral Cecil Haney saying “we’re at the brick wall stage. Time to begin modernizing the country’s nuclear weapons is running short, he and other Pentagon leaders say. .. Robert Work, the deputy secretary of defense, said the Pentagon will need an estimated $18 billion a year between 2021 and 2035 to modernize the three “legs” of the U.S. nuclear triad-weapons capable of being launched from land, sea and air.”
If I were not a pacifist would I think I needed to be in a position to protect myself by having my own nuclear weapons or would I just agree that it is right that the United States, Russsia and Israel and and few other countries have nuclear weapons while I was not allowed to? Would I trust the United States or other countries to not use their weapons on my country or trust those weapons would not get in the hands of other people? The problem with “bigger is might” is that everyone can keep getting bigger and/or more powerful. The fear is always that someone will get into a position of power and actually use the weapons. After all, how may wars has the United States instituted or participated in during since WWII? Why would anyone trust a country which elected a George Bush or may elect a Donald Trump.
Guns and not people kill. Yes, that is true, but what happens if we take the option off the table of people using guns to kill? Some might then argue that only the bad people will have guns. I would argue that we need to quit manufacturing guns or only manufactured a little number of hunting rifles . The truth is that we have a lot of guns. We sell guns and other weapons to many countries. The manufacture of various weapons is big business. Temporarily stopping the manufacturing of guns or other weapons would be felt economically by many.
We spend a lot of money, energy and time convincing ourselves that it it right to kill the bad person. Who defines the bad person? Certainly everyone who has committed a murder, fought in a war or otherwise decided to harm someone has convinced themselves that the person they want to harm deserves it.
Guns kill, not people. The only purpose of a gun is to kill. There may be an isolated incident of someone using a gun, unloaded, to just frighten someone but even then the purpose isnto make the person think we are willing to harm them with the gun.
If we keep promoting weapons such as guns as a positive, we are going to have more people choosing guns to kill other people. We cannot keep promoting the ownernship of guns without expecting that they will be used more often. Of course, so called bad people/criminals are going to get guns and use them. We daily promote the notion that it is right for the good people to have guns and/or other weapons. This approach presumes that we can decide who the good people and that:
[if !supportLists] [endif]Good people will only uses them if they “have” to
[if !supportLists] [endif]Good people will never have violent thoughts or be mentally impaired.
[if !supportLists] [endif]Good people will decide who is justified in using a gun to kill.
Thetrace.org gives the following statistics:
“The data, compiled in the ATF’s annual commerce report, shows that from 1986 to 2008, the U.S. never produced more than 4.4 million firearms in a single year. But in 2013, the last year for which data is available, the number of firearms manufactured in the U.S. more than doubled, to nearly 10.9 million guns. The report tracks firearms of all types produced for civilian and law enforcement purchases (but not for military use).”
As we know not all of these stay in the US. Some are legally exported. Others are, I am sure illegally exported. What happens to all these guns? My understanding is that guns do not wear out in one year. They are operable for a very long time. That means that a lot of guns are available for a lot of people to use to kill or injure others.
It is time that we let go of the diversionary argument that people and not guns kill. The truth is the more guns we have around, the more we justify using guns and other weapons, and the more we are going to have people using guns to kill. The more we convince ourselves that all the good people needs guns to kill bad people the more we are going to have individuals and countries deciding that they are the good people who get to decide to use guns to kill the bad people. One can be sure that everyone one of us is going to be labeled the bad person by someone and that person is going to have easy access to a gun.
Can we stop all people from hurting others Obviously not. Can we keep all weapons out of a home? No. I am not going to get rid of all my kitchen knifes, my workshop hammers and other heavy tools. If someone is determined to find something in my home to hurt me they will find something. They will not, however, find a handgun. Neither will they find a hunting rifle, assault weapons, bombs or any other item built for the sole purpose of killing. I do not hunt. If I did I would do as friends of mine do. I would lock it in a gun safe.
The argument, people and not guns kill is an attempt to divert one from what we need to be discussing. Let’s quit accepting that as a way to divert our attention form the real issue. We need to find a way to demonstrate that it is possible to resolve disagreements and to share resource without the use of guns and other weapons which kill. If we cannot do this as a nation or as law enforcement groups then we can hardly expect others to learn that this is possible. We humans have often proven that if we eliminate certain options we will find other ways of dealing with issues. Let’s quit pretending that be can have billions of guns as a way of creating a less violent world. Let quit pretending that the issue is the right to protect ourselves and admit that guns and the promotion of gun ownership is big business. Some people are getting very wealthy over our willingness to buy that it is safe to have billions of guns which are designed for the sole purpose of killing.
Written February 28, 2016
RSS Feed