TexasCHLforum.com

The solution always includes taking rights from the people who obey the laws.
Strange file photo to use for the article. I'm sure the person who selected it did not know what he was looking at. I'm not sure myself... someone pressed bullets in cleaned spent casings?

http://theweek.com/articles/573932/cons ... un-culture

Very intriguing article. And a good read, albeit somewhat difficult...at least for me. I've had similar thoughts like that, from time to time, and I don't know what the answer is.... if there IS an answer.

If the Virginia killer did not have easy access to guns, if his scheme for murdering his former colleagues had to be accomplished with knives, hammers, or a home-made explosive device, the truth is that those murders would have been much less likely to occur.

Based on what evidence? Where is this "truth" and what is its source?

But wait - save for pockets of violence like Detroit, we're a law-abiding, peaceful society. I'm pretty sure I'm not the only person who has lived in the proximity of guns in much the same manner as living in the proximity of paper clips. Neither inspires violence. Care in personal safety is inspired by natural caution and criminals, not by firearms.

And civil rights certainly don't inspire violence. At appropriate times in history, tyranny requires it. Freedom is not poison.

It always amazes me how quickly the jackals get stuff like this out to press, even in this day and age. How many of these articles do you think they have typed and stored, just waiting for a tragedy?

At the end of the day, its about media coverage and mental illness. Stop making these killers famous, get people the help they deserve when they obviously deserve it and leave the guns alone.

Another example of the pseudo-intellectuals' conceit that they are just Soooo... much more responsible and cultured than us ordinary "masses". It doesn't matter if they claim to be on the left or right, they just know that they are our betters and should be able to control our access to firearms.

Make us all join a gun club? Get a license to exercise a constitutional right. Limit our firepower while law enforcement is militarized with tanks, grenades, and machine guns...Anything "tacticool".

I am in favor of Constitutional Carry, Open Carry, Concealed Carry, "assault weapons", etc. I don't think I'm better or more responsible than everybody else just because I train and shoot more often and have obtained my CHL. I do it because it is the law and I want to legally exercise my rights as much as possible.

The author (of the article) is probably just another RINO northeastern sissy...who thinks he's better than all us redneck, black, and brown people.

This article was a bit hard for me to read and seems like it may have been hard for the writer to put together as well. He does not seem to have opinions with a strong basis in fact, principles and reasoning, and seems to waffle all about in his essay. While the writer wants the reader to believe that he is in favor of private ownership (and supposed use) of firearms, he equivocates beginning with the use of "sick gun culture" in the title itself. He then goes into a bit of a morality play involving human rights arguments for the Second Amendment seeming at first to come down on the side of individual liberty/responsibility and then immediately jumps into "qualifications" for gun ownership. He then sprinkles in plenty of the current verbiage of the gun-grabbers, including the use of terms like "gun crime" designed specifically to demonize the tool and escape reasoned debate. All in all, the title is misleading on more than the simple statement of "sick gun culture" -- the use of Conservative in the title belies that the article itself references Conservatives only in the manner of essentially saying that they are wrong -- or at least mostly so -- by drawing the conclusion that the American model of individual gun ownership has yielded poor results. Overall, I chalk it up as another misinformation essay from our friends in the media.

Middle Age Russ wrote:This article was a bit hard for me to read and seems like it may have been hard for the writer to put together as well. He does not seem to have opinions with a strong basis in fact, principles and reasoning, and seems to waffle all about in his essay. While the writer wants the reader to believe that he is in favor of private ownership (and supposed use) of firearms, he equivocates beginning with the use of "sick gun culture" in the title itself. He then goes into a bit of a morality play involving human rights arguments for the Second Amendment seeming at first to come down on the side of individual liberty/responsibility and then immediately jumps into "qualifications" for gun ownership. He then sprinkles in plenty of the current verbiage of the gun-grabbers, including the use of terms like "gun crime" designed specifically to demonize the tool and escape reasoned debate. All in all, the title is misleading on more than the simple statement of "sick gun culture" -- the use of Conservative in the title belies that the article itself references Conservatives only in the manner of essentially saying that they are wrong -- or at least mostly so -- by drawing the conclusion that the American model of individual gun ownership has yielded poor results. Overall, I chalk it up as another misinformation essay from our friends in the media.

Absolutely correct. The article is rife with opinion and speculation and almost devoid of facts. For example,

But our firearm-related homicide rate is noticeably higher than every comparable industrialized nation. And furthermore, there seems to be a strong correlation between reduced access to firearms and a reduced rate of suicide.

First of all, comparing firearm-related homicides across countries is noticeably difficult to do, as John Lott points out. Countries keep statistics differently. For example, Great Britain doesn't count homicides until the killer is convicted. So, if you are murdered and your killer is never caught or isn't convicted, you aren't part of the statistics. Furthermore, comparing firearm-related homicides across countries tells you little about the level of violence in a country. You must compare ALL homicides, no matter the weapon that was used (including fists, feet and heads.)

John Lott points out the flaws in many of these arguments.

So the writer, who is obviously conflicted, swallows some of the left's arguments whole, without even bothering to look at the facts, and then claims he's a conservative and "we" ought to think about it? Well, I've given a great deal of thought about it, and I can't think of any reason to restrict gun ownership for law-abiding citizens, other than tyranny.

AndyC wrote:It's not the Gun Culture committing these murders, it's the Thug Culture - and all the people stabbed to death in England are just as dead as those killed by a scary gun.

This seems so easy to grasp yet so many chose not to.

chasfm11 wrote:

If the Virginia killer did not have easy access to guns, if his scheme for murdering his former colleagues had to be accomplished with knives, hammers, or a home-made explosive device, the truth is that those murders would have been much less likely to occur.

Based on what evidence? Where is this "truth" and what is its source?

Yeah, it's hooey, those particular murders could have been done easily with a knife or a hammer. In fact, in an interview, Trump even said it could have been done with a knife. The cameraman wasn't even looking. After attacking him from behind he could easily have run down the reporter and stabbed or bludgeoned her to death. He could also have waited for the right opportunity to run them down with a car, together or separately. He could also have used a bow. A sword would have been easier than a knife. If he couldn't buy a gun he could have made a zip gun. He could have used a black powder pistol that doesn't require a background check to purchase.