This conversation is closed. Start a new conversation
or join one »
The time is NOW for people to stand up and say 'No More Assault Weapons" and not wait for the government to legislate the change.
Change starts when people change, not when governments legislate change. Think back to the days when driving drunk was socially acceptable, no matter who died in the process. Then Mothers Against Drunk Driving (MADD) formed. The rest is history.
The time is 'now o'clock'. We will change our resopnse to violence and stop purchasing violence video games as gifts for our children, and stop patronizing films that promote violence, mayhem and murder. Glorifying the horrific has become the norm.
What happened in Newtown, CT should never happen again.
Remember Mahatma Ghandi's words: "Be the change you want to see in the world". The time is now o'clock!
Maaher Sayeed 10+
I do not believe the in a civilized world and especially in a country which is the worlds super power a citizen needs to arm themselves for protection. This only indicates serious issues within the law and security provided by the government.
However, if people are held accountable to be more responsible and families and schools focus on teaching social responsibility and gratitude to fellow human beings the concept of violence, rage and anger can certainlty be beter managed. Parents that have chidlren that show serious problems mentally shoudl be held responsible to take proper attention much early on to address the problem, similarly households that have guns must be held seriously accountable with seriosu consequences for not keeping these weapons secure and absolutely out of reach towards children. With this the government also needs to have a more effecient watch system on who they are selling guns to and for what use. Perhaps a watch program for gun owners with periodic assessments could be a possible solution.
Killing innocent people is a mental sickness. Some are fed with such sickening ideas to kill others, some some are mentally deranged to this level, while others do it in a fit of rage and anger. A serious and effective system to educate people and hold people responsible could certainly turn the situation around. I guess MADD merely did just that.
Mark Larson
I live in a hunting community, ten miles from a town of about 70. Almost every male and many females own guns. Most of the hunting rifles are semi automatic. I don't hunt but I know people who use it for their only meat source. Guns can be a very useful tool. A semi automatic weapon can make a huge difference in your success at hunting.
As for body armor, why would a civilian need it unless expecting to be a gunfight. I spent many years in a large city in a poor neighborhood and never felt the need.
walter crockett
Mark Larson
Scott Koenraadt
Brian Doherty
I believe the majority of hunters do not use semi-automatic rifles. At least the hunters that I know in the northeast US.
Colleen Steen 500+
I do not believe the "average hunting rifle is a semi-automatic"....certainly not true in this area!
I agree that "outlawing" "large clips" could be helpful, along with banning the assault weapons serviced by the "large clips".
While an individual's definition of assault weapon may vary depending on one's knowledge, there is criteria which legally defines assault weapons, and that information can be found on line.
I do not believe that "outlawing body armor" could serve any useful purpose...body armor generally protects people from harm....it does not cause deaths....to the best of my knowledge.
I agree with you Mark, that emotional factors sometimes get in the way of legislation, which is why having accurate information is important with this discussion.
Brian and Mark,
I was curious about the question of how many US housholds have guns, so I did a search. The numbers are all over the charts, and as one survey says....it depends on who is honest about having guns in the household!!!
Dan Keenan
The tragedy of having 26 people massacred in a single location, in a single act of terror, is heartbreaking. But if we can set our emotion aside, so it may not be used against us by those who “would not let a good crisis go to waste, because you can get away with things that you couldn’t ‘normally’ do,” then ingest the uncomfortable acts of last century, we may accept that evil exists, and that evil lives by rules you and I do not live by. Evil is simply about power; power whose gears are greased with the corpses of those who get in the way.
As incomprehensible to my own mind and soul , the 26 loved ones recently murdered, is a single drop of blood compared to an estimated 170,000,000 slaughtered last century alone when politicians used their power to disarm and kill their citizens to meet their twisted agendas. Whole families, cities, races were targeted.The use of sincere human emotions after a tragedy to demonize guns is a dream of those who sincerely are fearful of guns and want to find and create a more loving and nurturing society. In that wish they find partnership with those hidden in their agenda to control and rule the citizens from which they get their power.
I would like to know if you still think of gun control the same as you do now, after watching the following historical summary of what happens when citizens are disempowered:
Innocents Betrayed
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vAU9AJfttls
There is evil in the world. Evil understands force. Evil thrives when it can roam and attack unresisted. Guns manage evil locally.
Tapan Sarkar (g)
Brian Doherty
Many of my friends are hunters and they do not use guns like these.
Marianne Delongi
Brian Doherty
In 1791 there were single shot powder loaded pistols and rifles. There were no Fighter Jets, Armored Vehicles, Missiles, Nuclear Weapons, Rocket-propelled Grenades, Helicopters, Rocket Launchers, ...
Do we think state militias should still be on parity with the US Military?
I do not believe we need to change the second amendment but need some more rational guns laws. We should keep in mind there are already in place many reasonable gun laws.
Marianne Delongi
Mark Larson
Marianne Delongi
Unfortunately gun legislation won't make the deeper changes that we need to embrace and the implication that we need to take an authoritarian approach, actually undermines the notion that we can and should be better communities without putting all the sharp objects where we can't reach them.
Where are the consumer boycotts of the deranged cultural material that is aimed at our children in film and other multi-billion dollar media industries?
The people have much more power in their day to day interactions than top down legislation will ever achieve. Moral persuasion is more lasting tool. Where are the electorate demanding that we again provide mental health services? Why hasn't money been made available to enhance school security systems? Much of our infrastructure improvement potential is bled out of the country when we invest in foreign wars.
Mahatma Ghandi also wrote "'Among the many misdeeds of the British rule in India, history will look upon the Act depriving a whole nation of arms as the blackest." It takes some dimensional thinking to understand why he would make such a statement. And within that context you find the same elements that surface each time the gordian knot of gun control is discussed in this country.
Many people, myself not one of them, live in parts of the country where there very real safety is dependent upon them having guns themselves.
It is too easy a solution to use gun control as the end all and be all of a problem that stems from so many other societal derelictions.
pat gilbert 50+
Larry White
Colleen Steen 500+
I agree with you in learning about the weapons that are discussed. The term "assault weapon" does indeed sound ominous, because it IS ominous. There is certain criteria used to identify assault weapons, and you can get that information on line. Guns used for hunting generally DO NOT meet the criteria. One very important reason, is that many of us eat the game, and we don't want meat filled with ammo.
pat gilbert 50+
Also the purpose of the second amendment was self protection not to have hunting rifles. If the shit hits the fan as it looks more and more likely, a citizen will be defending himself against automatic weapons.
Colleen Steen 500+
I think I also understand the purpose of the second amendment:>)
Colleen Steen 500+
Another thought......if I observed anyone hunting with an assault weapon, two things come to mind.
1) S/he is not a very good shot, if s/he needs multiple rounds to shoot wild game.
2) The meat (and therefor the animal) would be "wasted" because the meat would not be very good for consumption.
keripik buah
Colleen Steen 500+
Yes....I believe the time is NOW for people to stand up and say "no more assault weapons", and not wait for the government to legislate the change. We ARE the government....we send our elected respesentatives messages all the times regarding how we want them to represent us. I totally agree..."change starts when people change". I agree that glorifying the horrific has helped to "normalize" the behaviors.
The representatives in the state I live in (Vermont) are already talking about legislation to ban assault weapons when they are back in session in January. Although we have lots of hunters in this state, I'm not hearing any protest.
The gun buy-back in L.A. this year, which was moved up in time, appears to send the message that people are taking this issue to heart, and not waiting for legislation. The buy-back took in 400 MORE weapons than usual (total of over 2,000 weapons), including assault weapons
http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/lanow/2012/12/la-gun-buy-back-nets-2037-guns-including-75-assault-weapons-and-a-launcher.html
Larry White
Colleen Steen 500+
Paul Rhoton
To you,
From Us
John King
It's not the weapon. You're foolish to think so.
P.S. This isn't an intellectual discussion and doesn't belong on "TED.com"
Theodore A. Hoppe 200+
Candy Lightner, its founder, stated that MADD "has become far more neo-prohibitionist than I had ever wanted or envisioned … I didn't start MADD to deal with alcohol. Other critics contend that "MADD is at heart a bureaucracy, a big one. It boasts an annual budget of $45 million, $12 million of which pays for salaries, pensions and benefits. Bureaucracies don't change easily, even when the problems they were created to address change." MADD reported that it spent 16% of its budget on fundraising each year. USA Today reported that the American Institute of Philanthropy was reducing MADD from a "C" to a "D" in its ratings. The Institute noted that MADD categorizes much of its fundraising expenses as "educational expenses", and that up to 58% of its revenue was expended on what the Institute considered fund-raising and management.
Regarding guns though: "There are deeply held opinions on both sides when it comes to the choice between controlling gun ownership and protecting gun rights: 42% strongly believe it is more important to control gun ownership, while 37% strongly feel it is more important to protect the right of Americans to own guns."
http://www.people-press.org/2012/12/20/after-newtown-modest-change-in-opinion-about-gun-control/#utm_source=footer&utm_medium=internal&utm_campaign=ST
pat gilbert 50+
In this state I think a 502/DWI is about 10k for the first offense. It is about the money forget the moral BS. How many kids are on the streets after 2:00 am when most drunks are on the road?
Miles Taylor
Now the story without an assault rifle.
My life....as many innocent as i possibly can. I can't use a gun to give me power, and a blade would be too easily overpowered. Instead I will resort to a makeshift weapon. How about a molotov cocktail. With a few chains and some gas i could burn a whole theater alive, brutally killing hundreds more than I would have even if I sprayed a crowd with an entire clip.
The problem is the violence, not the method. Banning guns wont stop mass killings. Even in the unlikely event a killer couldn't acquire a gun illegally, there are so many legal weapons with much more horrific potential. Evil will not be thwarted by the laws of good, but a rifle in the hand of that teacher could.
Robert Winner 50+
Please do not think that this decisioin make me either weak of indecisive .... it is my belief that it allows me to make decisions based on facts not emotion.
Phillip Beynon
I read in the first 5 mins at least 3 separate post that used the term "guns that spray bullets". So I would like to point out that those guns your talking about the ones that "SPRAY" bullets are illegal so your desires to have them banned is already granted.
I do have a question to ask all that are in favor of taking our so called threat (firearms) away from our self. Why does it take such a horrific event to happen before you take any action (I do not doubt you feel sorrow for all involved). Yet over 100,000 die EVERY year from drugs created and sold buy companies with permits to manufacture them and that is in America alone worldwide is 2-5 million YEARLY. If we are going to stand up as a nation to protect the people of the nation guns are not the starting point.
Matt Smith
Why do people need 'guns that spray bullets'? I think you, and everyone who agrees, are asking the wrong question, instead ask why do people want them? Explore this instead because there are very few things we NEED as people. For instance, we don't need a computer, a cellphone, a personal car, nail-polish, make-up, etc. I promise you there is a sensible answer there for every gun owner.
Echoing other posters, the issues surrounding violent video games is absolutely absurd. There is absolutely no data to conclude or suggest that players of 'shooters' are leading to violent behavior, or in this case, school shootings. Should parents be more responsible for their children's upbringing? Yes, of course! However, the blame is placed on video games, television before that and comic books before that. For me and hundreds of people I've associated with over the years, I've played competitive violent video games since I was a boy, we are the some of the least violent people on the planet. If this is hard to swallow, consider the martial arts world, one would expect these fighters to be some of the most aggressive and violent people on the planet because that's what they do for a living right? Quite to the contrary, some of the nicest, friendliest and least aggressive people are professional fighters.
As always, we must remain vigilant and introspective, the answers will come and they need not be rushed to satisfy our bubble of safety mentality.
Dan Geurin 10+
I once saw a slogan that said "If you outlaw guns, then only outlaws will have guns."
It's not really the guns that bother me. It's the judgement of the people with the guns. Drugs are illegal and it doesn't stop people from dying because of them.
Kate Jones
Nate Kemper
Dan Geurin 10+
Salim Solaiman 50+
What about nuclear weapon ?
What about use of weapons (in all form from) by powerful nations / countries over weak nations / countries?
Kate Jones
Salim Solaiman 50+
Gary Taylor
And, remember... guns do not kill people, people kill people ... far more people that own guns and weapons of all types, including assault rifles, are responsible and ,listen, Do Not Kill People. And to hell with ALL the limits and restrictions people want to put upon other people.
The violent video game thing, jeez c'mon, what small compartment or bubble are you looking to put humanity in before you feel everyone is in check and you are safe?
Obey No1kinobe 50+
Why do the public need assault weapons.
Aren't non automatic pistols, rifles and shot guns enough.
Where do you draw the line on what weapons are available to the public?
Rocket launchers?
Gary Taylor
I know in my heart of hearts that criminals will still have weapons, law be damned. One way or the other, as I stated before: if there is a buyer, there is a seller, there is a market. Banning assault rifles will take them out of the hands of people that can handle owning them. It will not save lives. It will not change the fact that people are killing people everyday in the United States for various reasons using an array of weapons.
Who am I to draw the line? ... Even rocket launchers do not make killers. Rocket launchers are used by people to kill other people. What you have is a people killing people problem. Not a gun killing people problem.
Obey No1kinobe 50+
We have limits on what cars people can have on the roads. Suggest same logic can apply to weapons.
You still haven't acknowledged that it's easier to kill with a gun than without.
So if some criminals may get their hands on restricted weapons you think there should be no restrictions. Not sure that makes sense.
Suggest that having more power full weapons in the general population does not make us safer.
We have speed limits, although some break the rules, even though most of us would drive safely. But the limits make us safer.
Also, humans lose it some times. Better if their is a not a gun in reach at those times.
jim miller
Uhhhhhhhhh, 911!
greg y
Many people are advocating banning assault rifles or high capacity magazines. The proposals are missing the point. It only takes one bullet to kill and one death is a death too many. I read that in the last week over 100 people have died from gunshots since Newtown. Newtown was a tragedy, but I believe the real tragedy is violence everywhere.
Assault weapons are not the problem. Most of those 100+ deaths in the last week were not at the hands of assault rifles. Most didn't even use the full magazine of ammunition because they didn't need to. I have a gun in my house. It's locked in a safe unloaded. No one will ever use my gun to commit violence because it is always locked in my safe unless being cleaned or taken to the range to shoot. It could be a machine gun, it doesn't matter, it still won't be used for violence. I won't use it for violence because I don't express my anger through violence, I use words calmly, its more effective. That gun won't be used for violence unless my life or loved ones are threatened.
What should we do? What are the causes of violence in our culture? Is it desensitization to violence. Is it poor impulse control? Is it a lack of empathy? Is it mental illness? Is it poor communication skills? Is it deep in the threads of our culture (I think of the trivial nature of sitcoms and reality TV, the sensationalism of news, the lost art of conversation, the holes in our hearts for inner peace and fulfillment)? Is it greed? Is it selfishness? How do we stop the violence? Most of it is committed against people we know too. Why do we hurt those we know and love?
George QT
specs 2
The police in Canada and Britain and elsewhere don't have to deal with the proliferation of guns and the gun culture that exists in the US today. There are something like 400,000,000 guns out there today in the USA. I would hope to see those numbers need to be reduced dramatically or nearly erased before we should ever expect police to be unarmed while on the job.
George QT
Arkady Grudzinsky 50+
This is also a dilemma between trust and fear. Why do we fear people with guns? Why do we fear that everyone else is going to harm us? This is where our ability to reason breaks down. We make conclusions about things we don't know (which are uncertain and lead to fear and insecurity) by assuming that they are or will be like things we know (e.g. we think the sun will rise tomorrow, because it has done so for million years in the past). This is the only way we can operate in this world. This makes science possible. This gives us an illusion of "being in control". But this very principle is responsible for people making unjustified and ultimately wrong conclusions. This is how superstitions are born. This is how innocent people are punished for the crimes they don't commit. This is how racial and religious stereotypes are born.
Shall we succumb to fear and worry and make our life miserable or shall we trust each other and have faith that we will survive? People cannot cooperate without such trust. To do that, we must accept the possibility that other people may hurt us.
Jisong Xiao
Now a few may view restriction on gun trade as restrictions on freedom. I argue other wise. What freedom can you gain from having a gun in your home? Suppose you lock it up nice and tight and only take it out for cleaning once a year, then not having a gun is not a restriction on freedom at all. Suppose take that gun with you wherever you go, and you incorporate the gun into your daily lives. Well unless you are a police officer, your freedom with your gun has limited others' freedom of expression. Thus by allowing your freedom, you have silenced other's right to object to your view. This means the ownership of a gun cannot grant more freedom without taking away freedom from others - a gun does not give freedom.
Since a gun is only making the society irresponsible, and it does not grant any freedom, there is no point for anyone to get one.
Gary Taylor
I see you say there is no point for anyone to get a gun. Well, case closed, you just tidied that right on up. Only, see, lots of others feel the need to have a gun. They enjoy it, they are curious about them, they hunt with them to feed their families ( no supermarket, what? ), they feel secure when their loved ones are sleeping at home that if, god forbid, someone or some people, came to bring them harm that they would have that fighting chance to protect them.
Outlawing guns will not make psychos go away or make our streets safer. I do not know for sure what will, but outlawing guns or assault rifles is not the answer. And believe me, criminals will get guns, as long as there is a market. If there is a buyer there is a seller.
Arkady Grudzinsky 50+
It is an illusion that we have responsibility to control other people's behavior. Not only we don't have such responsibility, we cannot do it. By the way, if you feel a need to control other people's behavior, you should get a gun :-) Fear of guns is fear of ourselves.
I may agree with you that before people are trusted with guns, there must be measures in place to make sure that they can be trusted with guns - like driver's licenses are given to teenagers after a student's permit and a test. Perhaps, gun owners themselves must implement these policies.
Arkady Grudzinsky 50+
The knowledge that other person has or may have a gun also makes it scary to commit a crime against that person. Would the gunman enter a classroom if he knew that the teacher is armed and trained to use her weapon? Guns work far before the trigger is pulled. Their action is, first and foremost, psychological.
Steven Pinker suggests that "common knowledge" has a great power and changes the way people behave.
http://wordyenglish.com/lit/language_and_human_nature.html
I would make a hypothesis that if everybody carried a gun in plain view and everyone could see that everyone else has a gun, the gun violence would drop. There would also be a lot less road rage and everyone would be a lot more polite to each other. True or false? Are there historical examples with data?
It seems to me that the shootings are rarely committed by legal gun owners. From what I know, they are often committed with stolen guns by people who feel disrespected or insecure in hope of boosting their importance.
specs 2
I would suggest they are stolen from the average homeowner on main street. So as Joe homeowner buys more and more guns he is making it easier for criminals to access weapons. That starts the vicious circle and perpetuates the escalation of gun ownership and violent crime. It's gotten to the point now that folks without guns not only have to concern themselves with security from the criminal element, gun ownership is so out of hand and out of control, those poor folks now also have the George Zimmerman
crowd to worry about.
I live in Canada with a measure of gun control in place so I cant speak for the American law enforcement experience but most law enforcement personnel here spend their entire careers without ever having fired their sidearm in the performance of their jobs. These are the folks that put themselves in harms way every day. So tell me again why people need guns for protection in their homes?
Gun control is not perfect by any stretch. People do still get killed by gun violence. The fact is though they get killed in much much lower per capita numbers than without gun control.
So in the end it boils down to that old argument again - do the benefits for the many outweigh the benefits for the few.
Arkady Grudzinsky 50+
That's the thing. These news get blown out of proportions. There is no "George Zimmerman crowd". This is the only incident of the sort that I have heard of. Usually, this kind of incidents happen with police officers when they kill unarmed people.
You present things as if people in the U.S. are all armed and go on shooting rampages every so often. This is not true. I know people who carry a gun with them everywhere they go. I am not afraid of them at all.
Here is an interesting article which may explain why the shooter in Oregon mall this month has killed only 2 people before killing himself - he was confronted by a person who also had a gun. If not for this person, the death toll might have been larger. This fact is hushed by the media, for some reason.
http://newsbusters.org/blogs/tom-blumer/2012/12/16/virtually-unreported-ccw-holder-likely-prevented-larger-clackamas-mall-d
Re: "So in the end it boils down to that old argument again - do the benefits for the many outweigh the benefits for the few."
Who defines what the benefits are?
specs 2
The pilgrims landed seeking freedom from tyranny and oppression. That's the benefit and the intent of US citizenship and it was then captured in the opening paragraph of the Constitution
"We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America...."
Note the use of the terms 'Common defence' and 'General Welfare'
I would have to think, whatever the debate might be, the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few.
Re the article - what good the CCW fella did is debatable. He didn't actually fire a shot. He couldn't. Not without risking a bystander. Thank goodness he was responsible. Somebody like George Zimmerman wasn't and I would wager that for every time a CCW permit or permit to carry is proven to save the day, there must be 100s and 100s of accidental gun deaths from legally owned weapons.
Arkady Grudzinsky 50+
Exactly. And how do you do all that without guns?
Re: " He didn't actually fire a shot..." Yes. This is how guns are supposed to work to prevent crime.
Re: "for every time a CCW permit or permit to carry is proven to save the day, there must be 100s and 100s of accidental gun deaths from legally owned weapons."
Thousands of people die from car accidents. Cars also pollute air. Why are you against guns and not against cars?
specs 2
George Zimmerman is not a one of a kind type of incident. Many people are shot mistakenly and many more accidentally. I seem to recall within the past month or two a father down there shot his son coming home late one night mistaking him for a burglar.
We have a cabin up North - I don't ever dare use it in the Fall or Spring literally for fear of the Hunters mistaking me for wildlife.
As for Cars - They do kill people but I won't ban them. We have controls in place that protect citizens as best we can and I accept that more controls wouldn't significantly improve things. We could play this game day all day - We have random police stops of vehicles to ensure everything is in order with the vehicle and driver. Should we do the same Guns and the owners. I would say no but you drew the comparisson.
Arkady Grudzinsky 50+
Heather White 10+
So I guess the good man with the gun will be the first target of the bad man with a gun - since the bad man knows when he's going to strike, he has the advantage.... unless the good man with a gun becomes a bad man due to some life stressor that makes him snap. If this happens, he will be the ultimate bad man with a gun since everyone in the school will be conditioned into thinking of him as the good man with the gun. He'd be able to persuade any teacher to open the classroom door...
Thus the good man with a gun will have to be backed up by another good man with a gun (just in case the first good man turns bad). Perhaps the second good man should be covered by a third good man with a gun (repeat until every child is escorted around their school by an armed bodyguard).
A true nightmare legacy for 20 little children and their wonderful dedicated teachers.
Good for you Kate - and all US citizens of the same opinion.
Arkady Grudzinsky 50+
I think, specialists in international policies may agree that multiple countries having nuclear arsenals sufficient to destroy the Earth is the reason why we did not have a nuclear war yet. I believe, countries with nuclear arsenals almost never go to war with each other.
specs 2
a) a good guy with a gun?
b) a bad guy with a gun?
c) one of a million foolish guys with a gun that we also need to worry about
Arkady Grudzinsky 50+
George Zimmerman is neither good nor bad nor foolish. He is just a guy who worried about danger that did not exist.
Gary Taylor