If tomorrow YOU have a "traumatic experience" that someone thinks "makes YOU unfit to own weapons" will YOU voluntarily turn in your knives or anything else that can be used as a weapon? WHO is that determines when a "traumatic experience" warrants such actions??? I caught my ex-wife cheating on me, it was a "traumatic experience" and I own guns.....should I have surrendered my guns? Should she have been able to report that I had a "traumatic experience" so my guns could be seized? My guns were NO MORE a danger to her after the "traumatic experience" than they were before.

I'm sorry to hear of your past relationship problems. Rest assured, life does go on and what doesn't kill us makes us stronger.

Just about anything can be used as a weapon.

If the state wants to provide me with a home chef at their expense they can have ALL my knives.

You didn't answer ANY of the questions I asked. You will only give up your knives if the state pays for a home chef??? How about if I will give up my guns if the state provides me with armed protection 24/7 at their expense? After all the government elitists have 24/7 armed protection.

I think you misread my context. I actually did not take sides but presented data to address two perceptions.


One was that gun violence is directly or uniquely tied to gun ownership. The data suggests that gun ownership is all over the place between different countries, with no clear correlation to the gun violence rate. That is to say, that there are countries with fewer per capita guns but more gun violence, and also those with more per capita guns and more violence, there are some with more guns and more violence ,,, et cetera. so the NUMBER of guns does not seem to be the issue.


The second one was the argument often posed that people are killed by other means than guns. This is a true statement. I posed the analogy though, that people die from more illnesses than cancer as well, which doesnt cause us to think fighting cancer is somehow pointless.


My point of view is that it is too simplistic to point strictly to guns when speaking about gun violence. There is something else, such as our CULTURE in the US, that is less 'unity and working together' and more 'each man for himself'. My guess was that due to such a self absorbed culture, it is easier to devalue human life itself and therefore easier to commit violence, by whatever means, with guns being a favorite tool for that violence, here in the USA.

1. Our entertainment is based on sex and violence. Forty years ago I said that as these two items become more predominant not only will our morals and ethics go down but we will become so use to them that we will become immune to the real thing when it happens in society. I'm of the 60's generation. Free love (sex) was something my generation desired but it was, more or less, kept in the back room. Our decendents now consider it their absolute right no matter how it hurts marriage, society, children from unwanted pregnancies, disease or themself.

2. As technology progresses video has been able to accurately simulate what it looks like when a person is shot by a weapon. Blood, skin, clothing, etc, is seen being ejected just as it is when a person is really shot. We (especially those under 30) have become desensitised to killing and murder. All the younger generation has ever known is violent video games, music, movies and a legal system has given the entertainment industry the right to proceed no matter what the outcome. The RIGHTS of Hollywood (to make money this way) are embedded in concrete. Lawyers and judges could care less how it effects society as a whole. Notice that as entertainment becomes more graphically violent it don't take long for the audience to become bored with the level of sex and violence they've gotten use to. So new innovative ways are devised to display sex and violence in even more debase ways audibly, visually and psychologically.

3. When parts of society protest they are verbally mocked, abused and labelled as Nazi's trying to control others rights. Unfortunately it doesn't surprise me that most of todays serial shooters are 30 and younger. It's all they know. Entertainment is what has taught the 30 and under crowd their ethics, morals and conflict resolution techniques. Some parents attempt to intervene and have been taken to court by Child Protection Services or the ACLU. Parents are now afraid to say no to their children because of the courts and social pressure. It's, almost, against the law to stand up for the morals one believes in.

4.Unfortunately I feel things will have to become significantly worse until the courts, politicians, media, etc, will decide to do anything. The problem is when this stage comes the pendulum will swing way to far the other direction. Constitutional rights will be sacrificed. We can see this already beginning to happen. In 2017 several politicians and high level court judges suggesting eliminating the 2nd amendment. We say it can't happen here but then Germans said the same thing in the late 20's. This trend has been slowly forced on the American people but it's happened so slowly that no one thought we'd be where we are now. For the life of me, when I was 18 (1969) never in my wildest dreams would I have imagined that we would be where we are today. All of this "entertainment" is vigorously protected not because Hollywood is so interested in maintaining the constitution but because they are making SL-easy money off of it.

5. The Boiling Frog. The boiling frog is a fable describing a frog being slowly boiled alive. The premise is that if a frog is put suddenly into boiling water, it will jump out, but if the frog is put in cool water which is then brought to a boil slowly, it will not perceive the danger and will be cooked to death. The story is often used as a metaphor for the inability or unwillingness of people to react to or be aware of threats that arise gradually.

Our society is in hot water now and can't or doesn't want to perceive it or feels powerless to do anything.

Indiana House Bill 1284, sponsored by Representative Jim Lucas (R-69), passed from the House Committee on Judiciary by a vote of 9-2. It would provide immunity for a justified use of force in certain instances to help prevent frivolous lawsuits. Victims of violent crime shouldn’t be subjected to unnecessary civil suits, therefore being victimized twice. This bill would also require a court to award, in certain instances, reasonable attorney's fees if it determines a suit was brought unjustly, helping to prevent financial ruin for individuals protecting themselves and others.

Indiana House Bill 1643, sponsored by Representative Ben Smaltz (R-52), passed from the House Committee on Public Policy by a vote of 12-0. It would increase the duration of a 4-year License to Carry a Handgun (LTCH) to five years and also eliminate the fee. In addition, it would allow gun owners greater ability to carry a firearm for self-defense in houses of worship, while respecting private property owner rights.

Wednesday, 6 February 2019

---------------

Even though a state court, local court or grand jury finds a citizen who used a weapon to defend themself not guilty of any crime: I.E. self defense.

Yet the criminal or criminals family can still sue the victim who defended himself/herself. They become a victim a second time. Civil cases do not require the same level of evidence to find for the plaintive. I find the two above bills being worked on in the Indiana house a much needed modification to our state law.

did you know during WWII the Japanese decided not to invade America because they
Knew most Americans were ARMED!

With guns, we are 'free men and free women'; Without them, we are 'subjects'.

In 1929, the Soviet Union established gun control. From 1929 to
1953, about 20 million dissidents, unable to defend themselves, were
Rounded up and exterminated.

In 1911, Turkey established gun control. From 1915 to 1917, 1.5
Million Armenians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and
Exterminated.

Germany established gun control in 1938 and from 1939 to 1945, a
Total of 13 million Jews and others who were unable to defend themselves
Were rounded up and exterminated.

China established gun control in 1935. From 1948 to 1952, 20 million
Political dissidents, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and
Exterminated

Guatemala established gun control in 1964. From 1964 to 1981,
100,000 Mayan Indians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and
Exterminated.

Uganda established gun control in 1970. From 1971 to 1979, 300,000
Christians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and
Exterminated.

Cambodia established gun control in 1956. From 1975 to 1977, one
Million educated' people, unable to defend themselves, were rounded
Up and exterminated.

No they don't. Just ask Congressman Scalise.

the USA has practiced gun regulation since 1939, so far no one has been rounded up for extermination

I think the period of concern has passed, judging by the above examples ...

its not the gun or the control, its the political and military climate, and the social culture in which the guns and controls exist