Why attack Sikhs?

I own firearms. We keep two loaded in our home at all times.
Typically carry one in the vehicle with us as well.
I carry a gun because others carry guns. And knives. And are bigger than me with possible malintent.
That said, I own mine legally, have learned gun safety, and acknowledge that not everyone else that carries meets either of those expectations we set for ourselves in our house. I don't think gun control laws will make a damn bit of difference. Just create a bigger black market and more problems. Like making abortions illegal... They're still going to have them. Would you rather a coat hanger or a doctor? People who couldn't meet legal requirements for owning a firearm WILL get them, if that's what they're after.

I don't see an answer. Everyone wants to "fix" the problems... these are individuals making choices. Wait, we can fix that?! Cue 1984....

 

I did not say that there are not gun control laws. I said that the attitude of the NRA and the like-minded is that I should not have a say.

People can speculate all night and day that 'gun control laws' do not and will not change anything. It's still just speculation. You can point to one law or another, one place or another as proof that it doesn't work and I call bullshit because we've never reached enough of a consensus at any time that enables the enactment of consistent, comprehensive legislation that targets the causes of gun violence. Which is, yes, more than just about guns. But it is about guns, too.

 

Do you believe that all movie goers across the country feel as intimidated as Sikhs today or Muslims after a Mosque burning?

And yes, intolerance has always been there, but acting on that intolerance has increased. And I would suggest that the increase is attributable in part to the ratcheted up rhetoric of the anti-Muslim crowd, the anti-government crowd, the pro-family crowd...

But perhaps you dont see the connection.

 

Intolerance is definitely a factor but not the sole contributing factor. Intolerance finds itself in every corner of our society but mass killings like this are fortunately rare. Was the Oak Creek killings any different than the Aurora killings? One has a definite connection to hate groups and intolerance, the other is seemingly the work of a demented soul. Both are the work of people who clearly weren't normal. Both are insane, at least to me. In the Oak Creek murders is insanity the main factor while racial hatred only a secondary factor? I know people how are extremely intolerant who would never kill. Ever, under any circumstance. Some of them even own guns. The more I think about this, the more I think these situations will always present themselves. If it isn't guns it would be by a bomb or some other destructive force. Aberrant behavior cannot be regulated or licensed. It cannot be contained. Fortunately isn't that frequent of an occurrence.

 

Gun control is not just about law-abiding v criminal access to guns.

It is about preventing harm, including harm to oneself, friends, family and the community.

There were approximately 35,00 gun related deaths last year.

The majority of gun related deaths were suicides and guns were the method more than twice all other methods combined. Would there have been fewer if a gun was not so accessible at a time of personal crisis?

There were 16,000 homicides last year, of which 11,000 were by guns. Would there have been fewer if a gun was not so accessible, particularly in cases where the act was an unpremeditated emotional spur of the moment response?

It is too easy for gun rights advocates to dismiss gun control as an ineffective policy that wont stop criminals. The problem is more complex.
--- merged: Aug 11, 2012 at 12:49 PM ---

I disgree.

But putting aside, how do you suggest we deal with the growing number of acts of violence (hate crimes or domestic terrorism), particularly among extremists on the right, resulting from intolerance or fear or ignorance?

 

interesting how the gun thing gets isolated by the gun people who then swap out imaginary arguments for gun controls for what others actually say.

the question is not whether individual gun owners like to like their guns. the question is whether the levels of gun-related violence in the states are acceptable and, if they are not (and i cannot imagine an argument for that level of violence) what should be done to reduce it.

people who like to like their guns like to focus on the ways in which they like to like their guns. i like to like my guns, they say. others who do not like the ways i like to like my guns are intimidated by the guns i like and the ways i like to like them. as if that addresses problems of gun-related violence.

people who like to like their guns like to like the ways they like to like their guns too. i like to make holes in things from a distance, they say. i like to make holes in things from a distance in the exact place i want to see a hole in that thing made from a distance. you, you bastards who want to take away the guns that i like, you do not want me to make holes in things from a distance in the exact place what to see a hole in that thing made from a distance. what possible social problem can follow from me liking to make holes in things from a distance? as if that addresses problems of gun-related violence.

sometimes people who like to like their guns like to like thinking about the world as a crazy place made up of atoms disconnected from any social context like they like to imagine themselves as being, free thinking amuricans with weapons systems. sometimes people like to like having their special weapons systems nearby in case the encounter another person just like them with their own special weapon systems nearby just in case whose idea of what that just in case is happens to veer into a different special place. like the guy who decided one fine sunday morning that he had had about enough of this invasion by people who look funny and wear funny hats who gathered in a temple or church and thereby posed a threat to the integrity of the white race and decided, based on the perception of a threat, to go shoot a few of them. threats and their perceptions are funny things.

or one could say that levels of gun-related violence in the united states are unacceptable in general. they have been unacceptable. the occasional massacre simply move that unacceptability to the foreground. which means that moves to increase controls on guns are moves against a long-standing problem. and that really very simple and obvious move is enough to eliminate any interest there might be in claims that talking about gun control laws in a supportive way is being reactive, not to mention increased gun control laws.

this of course presupposes that there's some validity to the claim--which seems to me insane---that there's some Problem with policy being fashioned to address a social problem. what the fuck else is policy in general but an attempt to address a social problem? is the claim here then that all policy is bad because it all addresses a social problem after that social problem is understood as a problem, so after it is acknowledged as existing, so after it has existed, so is, one way or another, reactive with respect to a social problem? by that thinking, there should be no social policies on anything. there should be no roads, for example, because the idea of making them was a response to the lack of them before, and because the decision to make them followed from a perception that the lack of roads was a problem, it was therefore a very bad idea to make roads.

 

How many cases like these do we need to read about before acknowledging that easy access to guns in the home might be a problem.

Father suspected of killing wife, 2 children, self in Oregon murder-suicide - Crimesider - CBS News


Dad in Salem murder-suicide shot self |
kgw.com Portland

Arizona Family Murder-Suicide Dad Had Brain Tumor - ABC News

 

I think the solution is to address the culture that supports this behavior rather than the particular mechanism (guns) that is used to carry it out.

I think the FBI should keep tabs on the hate groups just like they should keep tabs on the extremist Muslim population in this country. I think you have to maintain some common sense to the approach and due to constitutional restrictions you need to be VERY careful to avoid targeting someone because of their religious or political leanings, but when people start advocating violence against other citizens or the government they are fair game, IMHO.

Honestly I believe in profiling, but it is a sword that cuts both ways: If you are trying to stop an international al-qaeda based terror plot you should pay more attention to people who are muslim. When you have a problem with radical right attacks against political (Oklahoma City) targets or minority groups (Sikh's) it is reasonable to look to the white power/ ultra right groups. Had the perpetrators of these attacks remained at large in neither of these cases would it have made sense for the police to focus their attention on say... black people because it doesn't jive with either common sense or precedence.

I don't think there is anything wrong with the FBI keeping tabs on various groups they feel have the potential to go radical, provided they limit themselves to a passive approach at that stage. Again, common sense should apply.

I am willing to discuss firearms regulation, but at the end of the day I do not support any restriction in the right to own/bear arms, just as I do not support using the most recent incident to outlaw 'hate speech' or to make it illegal for 'radical' groups to assemble... I have no doubt those laws would make future attacks more difficult and less likely, but it is a slippery slope which hands power to the establishment that can never be taken back. Our rights provide us with extraordinary freedoms and protections, but they also come with a price... People can abuse the latitude we afford our fellow citizens to occasionally do harm; if we restrict our freedoms to prevent the occasional crime we will do more damage than a few fascists ever could.

I am troubled by Roachboy's rhetoric as he is quick to lump basically conservatives into a single group and hand them blame for the Sikh shooting incident, which is ridiculous. I have yet to see the liberal establishment accept responsibility for the Unabomber.


With regard to the hate-crimes laws: I disagree with them completely. I don't think you should put particular groups of people on a pedestal and then say 'if you kill them because they are x y or z you have committed a worse crime than if you killed this other person over here.'
--- merged: Aug 11, 2012 at 1:40 PM ---

To be perfectly blunt: Yes, the levels of gun-related violence in the United States is an acceptable price for the maintenance of a fundamental right and would still be even if the levels of violence were much greater.

Likewise if you could prove that there would be say a 90% reduction in crime nationwide if we gave up our right to free speech or due process or the vote, etc. the price of maintaining those rights would still be worth the sacrifice.

I will not give up a right, regardless of what price I have to pay to maintain it. Nor do I tolerate those who would give my rights away for me. To steal from Ben Franklin "They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety."

I also support the right of the Sikh Community to take pro-active steps using the freedoms given by our system to ensure they are less vulnerable to this sort of thing in the future. I can't imagine walking around town with my daughter unarmed and unable to protect her. Were I a member of a community targeted by hate-groups I don't think my attitude would be any different.

Our gun laws exist partly to enable the right to self defense. This means legal protections ensuring targeted groups are able to defend themselves if they choose to do so.

 

What is the point of discussion if you believe the right to own/bear arms is absolute?

The Unabomber was a anti-government, anti-technology, survivalist. Have you read the Unabomber's manifesto. It is an anti-left diatribe.

Hate crime penalties are based on the added level of victimization...much like there are different criteria and different levels of penalties for vandalism, assault, murder.

 

Also the idea that people would not commit suicide if they didn't have a gun is bullshit. There are plenty of ways to kill yourself, a firearm just makes you less likely to screw it up. Besides, I am not particularly interested in saving those who don't want to live.

 

... I have read his manifesto and I know how he rails about the left. However, he is more or less an Anarchist which leftists groups seem to tolerate. Look at the blending of liberals and anarchists at many protests such as Occupy Wall Street. I am not saying he was a member of the democratic party in good standing, but the analogy is comparable to Roachboys accusation that the conservative party embraces right wing hate groups and is responsible for their actions. The Sikh shooting guy was a fascist which is nowhere near the republican platform, but that didn't stop Roachboy making an accusation of responsibility.

 

Ca

Cars serve a greater utilitarian purpose and are a greater necessity and drivers are regulated.

And the assumption that removing guns from close proximity wont result in fewer murders/suicides is the same old diversion as the argument that criminals will always find a way to get a gun.

 

What anarchist group is currently preaching bigotry, intolerance and violence?

 

Absolutely.

But does that mean we shouldnt have any laws/regulations that penalize behavior outside the norm?
--- merged: Aug 11, 2012 at 2:01 PM ---
Gun control may not prevent acts of violence by those with evil intent. It will make it more difficult to obtain a weapon and it certainly may reduce incidents where the violence is a spur of the moment act by otherwise law abiding citizens and a gun is so readily available.

How many guns are put on the black market by legal (straw) purchasers of multiple weapons in a single shopping spree (or over a period of a few days or weeks)? Why should anyone be able to walk into a gun shop and buy five AK47s? Who really needs five semi-automatic weapons for personal protection or recreational pleasure?

 

Leftist groups tolerate Anarchists, therefore they should apologize for the Unabomber.
Rightist groups tolerate Fascists, therefore they should apologize for the Sikh murderer (whose name I don't plan on remembering).

Hey, I don't make the rules. I'm just following along.