I’ve had to explain to people in YouTube comments that those who enacted gun control in the past were tyrannical like Joseph Stalin, Adolf Hitler, Fidel Castro, and Mao. and that resulted in people being disarmed so they could be controlled and eliminated. I don’t think I use the words eliminated because I did not say that part, but I did say the control part. in the UK they have certain types of gangs going around and harming people. They probably wish they had a second amendment in the UK.
I agree with the emphasis on responsible gun ownership and use when called for; however, there is at least one other consideration in this debate. The leftist answer is to take away all guns from all people, which is clearly irresponsible. On the other hand, guns should be kept out of the hands of those who are prone to harm, not others, but self. The push to arm many may put guns into the hands of those who will commit suicide. Any one with eyes to see notices the terrible uptick in gun deaths. I have had two family members take their own lives with guns, and that is one reason I choose not to have a gun in the house. Guns are a terrible temptation in their power. The left sees that power, but refuses to connect it to the massive disorientation (psychological and spiritual) rampant in our society. Too many on the right link gun use to a warped sense of masculinity and power. I am not anti-gun: I grew up in a gun-owning and hunting family and with a brother in law enforcement. (He has used his gun in the line of duty.) But an admirable emphasis on guns for self-defense and protecting the defenseless needs to factor in the reality of human sin, brokenness, and fragility.
I would certainly agree with this point in general. We are living in a time of great mental sickness.
In a healthier time, there might be a place for instituting more rigorous requirements for gun ownership. Unfortunately, right now, such requirements would lead primarily in the direction of limiting guns for those who legitimately want them while leaving criminals free to acquire their weapons in the black market or underground.
Point well taken. In the immediate aftermath of the shooting some politicians (I don't remember which ones, and unfortunately Pope Leo seems to have sort of chimed in along the same lines) decried "weapons of war." But war doesn't begin in the clip of a handgun; war begins in its first weapon, which is the mind and the heart and the soul of the person disfigured by sin.
Yes - and I agree with Mother Teresa who said something like this: a society that practices and justifies violence to the unborn will never be able to prevent violence from overtaking every other area of life.
Righteous ire is one thing, but you can't be advocating that we go around packing heat like it was the Dakota Territory in 1880. The "solution" is to lock up crazy people, as this recent shooter was, in what used to be called Nut Houses. In the case of armed terrorist bands, like the so called Intifadas, we should simply call in the cavalry and deal with them in an organized manner.
Yes, we should be "packing heat." It takes great effort to buy an appropriate firearm, obtain a concealed permit, practicing at a range and then carrying the weapon in a practical holster. This is the primary means to immediately deter a determined criminal. In 1880, unlike today, there were not madmen killing innocent children.
I would reframe it as 'responsible ownership'. Self defense is a right, not a privilege. Defending the young innocents, as noted, is a responsibility of the adults. Being properly trained is a personal responsibility.
However, when society judges the shooter sane, and those against his insane ideology as themselves insane, where does that leave the common sense knight?
Yes, that's the issue: that "society" thing. What is it? I don't remember voting, back in the 70's, to close mental institutions (because they treated Jack Nicholson so badly in that movie). So how does one change what "society" thinks? By hanging them up from the lamp-posts, as the old song said? Just as soon as we figure out who them are? Personally, having a foot and half in the grave, I don't see myself carrying a pistol around, shooting myself in the other half-foot.
Yes, I agree with re-institutionalizing the mentally ill. But only once we’ve re-established a sane concept of mental illness. Which means extinguishing the trans lunacy and dropping the hammer of the law on doctors (and do-gooder mothers) who participate in it. It’s dangerous to begin institutionalizing the mentally ill before there’s a basic, sensible consensus on what constitutes mental illness. The state could easily declare religiosity to be a form of schizophrenia.
It’s also worth noting that the shooter admitted sustaining brain damage from marihuana use. The “weed” dispensaries need to be shuttered, and the merchandise destroyed.
The situation is wretched. No one rejoices that guns are needed by civilians to protect against insane people (like that MN tranny). But that's where we're at, and the situation won't improve by forcibly taking guns away from citizens or preventing them from having them. Instead, it will just leave regular folks at the mercy of the crazies.
The Second Amendment states, "A well-regulated Militia, being
necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to
keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed". Keep in mind that our
Constitution was based on English common law and the need for a
well-regulated Militia. I for one do not believe the founding fathers
had any idea of what would come from the 2nd Amendment and
would be horrified to think that the simple hunting guns they owned
and rarely used back in their day have become rapid-fire weapons of
mass destruction.
From 1791, people felt there was very little need to own guns, other than to hunt,
except in the Wild, Wild West as others have pointed out. And fathers showed their sons the proper use of a gun, how to carry it when not in use. There was far, far more respect for guns and their use prior to mass production of guns. When the NRA was founded in 1871 it was more interested in the sporting aspect and educating people on the proper use of guns. But in the 1970’s that all changed and the NRA became weaponized.
Today there may be more guns in America (at least 260-400 million
– the figure varies) than people and that includes children. Moreover,
less than half of all guns are handguns. If people are concerned
about self-defense as the writer seems to believe, why do we need
to have more rapid-fire guns then handguns? Why do we need rapid-
fire guns at all?
The thing is, all common sense in the debate on owning guns has
gone out the window. The argument is that if we limit or eliminate
the ownership of rapid-fire guns then ‘they’ will soon come after our
handguns.” No other country in the world comes even close to the
US when it comes to mass shootings. And of course, most of the
perpetrators, if not all, are mentally deranged, as I think you have to
be mentally deranged to want to randomly kill multiple human
beings, especially children.
Matthew 26:52 reads, "Put your sword back into its place; for all
who take the sword will perish by the sword". Which is where we get
the proverb, “He who lives by the sword dies by the sword.
I don't think that the author here is necessarily advocating automatic or semi-automatic weapons. It would suffice for self-defense that handguns be available, with people who know how to shoot them. I should say, for the record, that I believe the best use of firearms is for hunting!
FYI Dr. K, most modern handguns are semi-automatic. I'm not sure what the original commenter means by a "rapid-fire gun", it's not a clearly defined term, but automatic weapons are tightly regulated and nearly impossible to obtain across the country.
Yes, quite correct: the gun re-loads after being fired. What I meant is that AR-15-style military rifles don't seem like a great idea to distribute widely.
"And it’s this readiness to act that helps explain why America remains generally safer than Europe." I suppose one could define "safer than" in many different ways, but if one compares homicide rates in Europe (EU + UK) with those in the U.S. one finds that the U.S. homicide rate is roughly 2 to 5 times higher than that of most European countries (Eastern European countries generally have a higher rate. A 2023 analysis of Eurostat data shows that Latvia had the highest rate in the EU at just over 4 per 100,000, while most member states were well below 2 per 100,000.) Europe overall has a murder rate of about 2 - 2.5 per 100,000, though most Western European countries have a rate of fewer than 1.5 homicides per 100,000. The U.S. has a rate of about 4.97 - 5.8 per 100,000. If one looks at the six biggest cities in the U.S and Europe one finds the same pattern: of the six biggest American cities Houston had the lowest homicide rate at 11.5 per 100,000, while Philadelphia had the highest at 20.1 per 100,000. Of the six biggest European cities Rome had the lowest rate at 0.33 homicides per 100,000, while Berlin had the highest at 3.25 per 100,000. (These statistics date generally from 2022-2024).
All this is not to suggest that European countries do not have significant problems with violent attacks on citizens, but it is simply wrong to imply as Mr Mac Ghlionn does that Europe is a more dangerous place than the U.S., particularly if one defines "safer than" in terms of the likelihood of being murdered.
Well articulated argument to support obligation to defend ourselves and our families. Western governments have turned against their citizens supporting mass invasion by others who do not share values and actively seek to harm the native populace.
I’ve had to explain to people in YouTube comments that those who enacted gun control in the past were tyrannical like Joseph Stalin, Adolf Hitler, Fidel Castro, and Mao. and that resulted in people being disarmed so they could be controlled and eliminated. I don’t think I use the words eliminated because I did not say that part, but I did say the control part. in the UK they have certain types of gangs going around and harming people. They probably wish they had a second amendment in the UK.
I agree with the emphasis on responsible gun ownership and use when called for; however, there is at least one other consideration in this debate. The leftist answer is to take away all guns from all people, which is clearly irresponsible. On the other hand, guns should be kept out of the hands of those who are prone to harm, not others, but self. The push to arm many may put guns into the hands of those who will commit suicide. Any one with eyes to see notices the terrible uptick in gun deaths. I have had two family members take their own lives with guns, and that is one reason I choose not to have a gun in the house. Guns are a terrible temptation in their power. The left sees that power, but refuses to connect it to the massive disorientation (psychological and spiritual) rampant in our society. Too many on the right link gun use to a warped sense of masculinity and power. I am not anti-gun: I grew up in a gun-owning and hunting family and with a brother in law enforcement. (He has used his gun in the line of duty.) But an admirable emphasis on guns for self-defense and protecting the defenseless needs to factor in the reality of human sin, brokenness, and fragility.
I would certainly agree with this point in general. We are living in a time of great mental sickness.
In a healthier time, there might be a place for instituting more rigorous requirements for gun ownership. Unfortunately, right now, such requirements would lead primarily in the direction of limiting guns for those who legitimately want them while leaving criminals free to acquire their weapons in the black market or underground.
Point well taken. In the immediate aftermath of the shooting some politicians (I don't remember which ones, and unfortunately Pope Leo seems to have sort of chimed in along the same lines) decried "weapons of war." But war doesn't begin in the clip of a handgun; war begins in its first weapon, which is the mind and the heart and the soul of the person disfigured by sin.
Yes - and I agree with Mother Teresa who said something like this: a society that practices and justifies violence to the unborn will never be able to prevent violence from overtaking every other area of life.
Righteous ire is one thing, but you can't be advocating that we go around packing heat like it was the Dakota Territory in 1880. The "solution" is to lock up crazy people, as this recent shooter was, in what used to be called Nut Houses. In the case of armed terrorist bands, like the so called Intifadas, we should simply call in the cavalry and deal with them in an organized manner.
Yes, we should be "packing heat." It takes great effort to buy an appropriate firearm, obtain a concealed permit, practicing at a range and then carrying the weapon in a practical holster. This is the primary means to immediately deter a determined criminal. In 1880, unlike today, there were not madmen killing innocent children.
I would reframe it as 'responsible ownership'. Self defense is a right, not a privilege. Defending the young innocents, as noted, is a responsibility of the adults. Being properly trained is a personal responsibility.
However, when society judges the shooter sane, and those against his insane ideology as themselves insane, where does that leave the common sense knight?
Yes, that's the issue: that "society" thing. What is it? I don't remember voting, back in the 70's, to close mental institutions (because they treated Jack Nicholson so badly in that movie). So how does one change what "society" thinks? By hanging them up from the lamp-posts, as the old song said? Just as soon as we figure out who them are? Personally, having a foot and half in the grave, I don't see myself carrying a pistol around, shooting myself in the other half-foot.
Yes, I agree with re-institutionalizing the mentally ill. But only once we’ve re-established a sane concept of mental illness. Which means extinguishing the trans lunacy and dropping the hammer of the law on doctors (and do-gooder mothers) who participate in it. It’s dangerous to begin institutionalizing the mentally ill before there’s a basic, sensible consensus on what constitutes mental illness. The state could easily declare religiosity to be a form of schizophrenia.
It’s also worth noting that the shooter admitted sustaining brain damage from marihuana use. The “weed” dispensaries need to be shuttered, and the merchandise destroyed.
Absolutely agree!
That should take only a generation or two. Meantime, what? Be quick on the trigger? We've made ourselves a nice circular argument. Alas.
The situation is wretched. No one rejoices that guns are needed by civilians to protect against insane people (like that MN tranny). But that's where we're at, and the situation won't improve by forcibly taking guns away from citizens or preventing them from having them. Instead, it will just leave regular folks at the mercy of the crazies.
Amen.
Well said!
The Second Amendment states, "A well-regulated Militia, being
necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to
keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed". Keep in mind that our
Constitution was based on English common law and the need for a
well-regulated Militia. I for one do not believe the founding fathers
had any idea of what would come from the 2nd Amendment and
would be horrified to think that the simple hunting guns they owned
and rarely used back in their day have become rapid-fire weapons of
mass destruction.
From 1791, people felt there was very little need to own guns, other than to hunt,
except in the Wild, Wild West as others have pointed out. And fathers showed their sons the proper use of a gun, how to carry it when not in use. There was far, far more respect for guns and their use prior to mass production of guns. When the NRA was founded in 1871 it was more interested in the sporting aspect and educating people on the proper use of guns. But in the 1970’s that all changed and the NRA became weaponized.
Today there may be more guns in America (at least 260-400 million
– the figure varies) than people and that includes children. Moreover,
less than half of all guns are handguns. If people are concerned
about self-defense as the writer seems to believe, why do we need
to have more rapid-fire guns then handguns? Why do we need rapid-
fire guns at all?
The thing is, all common sense in the debate on owning guns has
gone out the window. The argument is that if we limit or eliminate
the ownership of rapid-fire guns then ‘they’ will soon come after our
handguns.” No other country in the world comes even close to the
US when it comes to mass shootings. And of course, most of the
perpetrators, if not all, are mentally deranged, as I think you have to
be mentally deranged to want to randomly kill multiple human
beings, especially children.
Matthew 26:52 reads, "Put your sword back into its place; for all
who take the sword will perish by the sword". Which is where we get
the proverb, “He who lives by the sword dies by the sword.
I don't think that the author here is necessarily advocating automatic or semi-automatic weapons. It would suffice for self-defense that handguns be available, with people who know how to shoot them. I should say, for the record, that I believe the best use of firearms is for hunting!
FYI Dr. K, most modern handguns are semi-automatic. I'm not sure what the original commenter means by a "rapid-fire gun", it's not a clearly defined term, but automatic weapons are tightly regulated and nearly impossible to obtain across the country.
Yes, quite correct: the gun re-loads after being fired. What I meant is that AR-15-style military rifles don't seem like a great idea to distribute widely.
"And it’s this readiness to act that helps explain why America remains generally safer than Europe." I suppose one could define "safer than" in many different ways, but if one compares homicide rates in Europe (EU + UK) with those in the U.S. one finds that the U.S. homicide rate is roughly 2 to 5 times higher than that of most European countries (Eastern European countries generally have a higher rate. A 2023 analysis of Eurostat data shows that Latvia had the highest rate in the EU at just over 4 per 100,000, while most member states were well below 2 per 100,000.) Europe overall has a murder rate of about 2 - 2.5 per 100,000, though most Western European countries have a rate of fewer than 1.5 homicides per 100,000. The U.S. has a rate of about 4.97 - 5.8 per 100,000. If one looks at the six biggest cities in the U.S and Europe one finds the same pattern: of the six biggest American cities Houston had the lowest homicide rate at 11.5 per 100,000, while Philadelphia had the highest at 20.1 per 100,000. Of the six biggest European cities Rome had the lowest rate at 0.33 homicides per 100,000, while Berlin had the highest at 3.25 per 100,000. (These statistics date generally from 2022-2024).
All this is not to suggest that European countries do not have significant problems with violent attacks on citizens, but it is simply wrong to imply as Mr Mac Ghlionn does that Europe is a more dangerous place than the U.S., particularly if one defines "safer than" in terms of the likelihood of being murdered.
Well articulated argument to support obligation to defend ourselves and our families. Western governments have turned against their citizens supporting mass invasion by others who do not share values and actively seek to harm the native populace.