BS: Do we need stricter gun laws?

Subject: RE: BS: Do we need stricter gun laws?
From: Bobert
Date: 14 Sep 13 - 07:38 PM

No, patusnret, it is you who doesn't get it...

I mean, your argument is the same as the tobacco companies... Buy as many cigarettes as you like, leave them laying on the floor and don't smoke them and guess what??? You won't get cancer???

What kind or argument is that???

Bottom line is more guns and more gun deaths because people don't leave their guns laying on the floor...

Guess better next time...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: Do we need stricter gun laws?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 14 Sep 13 - 07:24 PM

gnu - No, man...you misunderstood the gist of what I was trying to say. I don't mean that people should not "support the troops". I appreciate what the troops go through, and respect them. What I meant was a social culture that idolizes the military (and the police, as Suzy suggested) in such a way that if a person objects to an unjustified war they are accused BY various super-patriots of "not supporting our boys in uniform", which is total bullshit!

I DO support the troops as individuals who serve...I do NOT support the unjustified wars. Understand? And I do not wish to be falsely accused of being unpatriotic or of "not supporting the troops", because I am against the war!

Yet anyone who questions an American war IS accused of that by people who should know better.

My way of supporting the troops is this: End the damn foreign wars and bring them home to their families and their own soil!

I object to any social order that elevates its own military so high in the people's minds that to dare to even question a bad war is to be seen as "unpatriotic" or "traitorous" or "cowardly". That's the way the fascist powers saw it, that's the way all dictators and fanatics see it, and that's what I object to. People should be free to publicly oppose a war and not be attacked in that kind of contemptible fashion for doing so.

****

patusnret - I was referring to the per capita rate of gun violence in the USA and Canada, not a simple calculation of the bare total numbers, period. The per capita rate is a lot higher in the USA. I hope you know what "per capita" means, or I'm wasting my breath telling you this. And I already know that most Americans don't give a tinker's damn what's happening in Canada...or anywhere else outside the borders of the USA. Everyone knows that. That's why you Americans are so beloved and popular all across the world... (sarcasm) Your sense of exclusive importance is your defining national characteristic. You think no one matters except you. The rest of the world thinks otherwise.

By the way, I agree with you that guns themselves are not the problem. Irresponsible people are the problem. If you read through my posts with any real attention, you would have got that. I agree...HOLD PEOPLE responsible for their actions, don't blame the tools they use to commit those actions. I do NOT think guns are bad.

Subject: RE: BS: Do we need stricter gun laws?
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 14 Sep 13 - 05:18 PM

""Idolization of the armed forces! I can think of no other society on Earth at this time except perhaps North Korea which is so besotted with and fascinated by the power of its own military, and which makes such constant appeals in its media to unquestioning support of "our boys in uniform"."

Like Gnu, I object to that paragraph, and I am 100% anti guns in private hands weithout overriding reason.

It is not a case of idolising armed forces, to support te men in uniform who do the dying so the rest of us don't have to. They are doing a job you or I wouldn't relish and they are doing it often involuntarily, having been drafted (in the US at least). In the UK they are all volunteers.

Now if we idolised the warmongering bastards who sent them out to die, you would be absolutely right.

If the world had the common sense to insist that leaders who chose to go to war must give up the day job and lead the troops into battle, there would be no more wars.

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: Do we need stricter gun laws?
From: GUEST,patusnret
Date: 14 Sep 13 - 03:57 PM

The level of ignorance and misunderstanding on this thread is unbelievable!!!

Here is a challenge for each and every one of you. Go get your favorite gun, buy a gun if you don't have one, then lay your gun on the middle of the floor not allowing anyone to touch it, sit and wait. Let me know how long it is before your gun shoots and or kills someone. HINT: inanimate objects don't kill people...people using them do.

Start holding PEOPLE accountable for their actions, not blaming the object they've used to commit horrible crimes. This crazy notion that "if we had stricter laws" crazy people wouldn't do crazy stuff was authored by crazy people, cause it just ain't so. If we continue along these lines hammers, cars, knives, etc will all be outlawed or require strict government regulations to own. I'm not sure about the rest of you but I think the government has screwed up everything and anything they've been involved in for the last 100 years or so. I also know that the cardinal rule to life is "don't piss off the guy with the gun" so I make sure I'm the guy with the gun…. Those of you that think guns are bad and crazy people won't use them if we don't have them have lost your ever loving minds. Criminals will find a way to get them regardless of your useless laws. Don't believe me? Try this, go out on the interstate and do the speed limit while riding in the fast lane. Let me know how long it takes for you to be A: flipped off B: yelled at C: pulled over for obstructing traffic or D: run off the road by a guy with a gun.   

BTW comparing the murder/gun murder rates in Canada to the U.S. is moronic at best. The population of NYC is probably greater than the entire country of Canada....besides what U.S. citizen in their right mind gives a tinkers damn about what happens in Canada anyway?

Just saying....

Subject: RE: BS: Do we need stricter gun laws?
From: GUEST,Musket curious
Date: 14 Sep 13 - 03:05 AM

Yeah but Gnu. . This national charade of going into the woods all the time. It ain't fooling no one. ;-)

Mind you, fairs fair. If hunting was licenced for you south of the border they'd make it easier by napalming the forest first.

Subject: RE: BS: Do we need stricter gun laws?
From: Bobert
Date: 13 Sep 13 - 07:47 PM

Let's keep in mind that the CDC (Center of Disease Control) was conducting a study on gun violence and the early reports were that if you were 22 times more apt to be shot with a gun if there was a gun in the house in which you lived...

The NRA got wind of that study and thought "Oh, shit, we gotta stop that study" and so they called in their markers and had their boys in Congress stop that study...

Why doesn't the NRA want to know this stuff...

Never mind... We all know...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: Do we need stricter gun laws?
From: gnu
Date: 13 Sep 13 - 05:08 PM

LH... you just crossed the line. Idolization of the armed forces by those that advocate "support our troops"?????

If I didn't read that wrong....

Fuck me! I can't even begin to write a response to that shit.

Seriously, man. Yer gonna have to dig WAY deep to explain why you said that in order for this little black duck to not peck yer ass ta shit. I shall try not to read anymore of this tonight but I will DEFinitely be back on the morrow.

pissedoffgnu

Subject: RE: BS: Do we need stricter gun laws?
From: Suzy Sock Puppet
Date: 13 Sep 13 - 04:53 PM

And don't forget,idolization of the police. Very disturbing.

Subject: RE: BS: Do we need stricter gun laws?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 13 Sep 13 - 04:45 PM

Yeah, I was thinking of renting "Deadwood", but haven't gotten around to it yet.

The social problem in the USA regarding guns is twofold in this respect:

1. Idolization of guns and gun-toting heroes in the popular culture, and that goes way back...

2. Idolization of the armed forces! I can think of no other society on Earth at this time except perhaps North Korea which is so besotted with and fascinated by the power of its own military, and which makes such constant appeals in its media to unquestioning support of "our boys in uniform". In this respect, the USA reminds me of the fascist powers of WWII whose societies were marked by an extraordinary preoccupation with their military forces and their advanced weaponry which had been turned, in effect, into objects of public worship. This has been the case in the USA ever since the end of WWII and right up to the present era. It is also pretty standard for American politicians to run for high office on the basis of past military service, and generals or war heroes have frequently been elected president. I've never heard of a Canadian prime minister who used his past military credentials to get elected. We elect civilians in Canada, not ex-military heroes. That tells you the difference in national psychology in a nutshell.

Fascism has always been marked by extreme worship of the military and extreme appeals to patriotism to override inconvenient things like common sense.

Subject: RE: BS: Do we need stricter gun laws?
From: Suzy Sock Puppet
Date: 13 Sep 13 - 04:09 PM

No point Little Hawk. I was watching Justified last night. Thinking about how guns and gun fighters are portrayed in American TV and movies. America's love affair with Westerns seems to fit in with what you were saying up above.

Tim Olyphant also played Sheriff Bullock in Deadwood, another great series. I've seen "The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance" a few times. I have that one.

Subject: RE: BS: Do we need stricter gun laws?
From: gnu
Date: 13 Sep 13 - 03:54 PM

SSP... Canadian 《Noun》 Armed to the fuckin teeth but not in public. Keeps guns and ammo securely locked up separately as required by good gun laws. Has a permit to do so which is renewed every five years by good gun laws. Must possess a licence for possession or a licence for possession and aquisition or a licence for possession and aquistion of restricted weapons. Must apply for a permit to transport restricted weapons (like handguns) to and from an approved range at ceratin times and by certain routes. Must take a course and pass tests for competency before obtaining permits. Must submit to a background check. Must have written permission from a spouse.... I'll stop there. In other words: Canadian 《Noun》Responsible gun owner.

Subject: RE: BS: Do we need stricter gun laws?
From: frogprince
Date: 13 Sep 13 - 03:16 PM

This may not "prove" anything, but it's a situation you might find interesting, from here in out little town, that I just found out about:

Young woman living in dirty, extremely cluttered trailer with her two toddlers and the marginally employable husband whom she convinced to marry her after the birth of the second child. Young woman herself has history of behavior such as cutting self...

Young woman calls her uncle one day, asks his assistance in obtaining a carry permit. Uncle refuses.

Shortly after, she talks her uncle into accompanying her into a gun shop. She then lets him know that she has obtained the permit, and points out the gun she wants him to buy for her. Uncle turns around and walks out of gun shop.

Again shortly after, she has purchased the gun and is wearing it regularly.

One month ago: the husband is dead from a shot from the same gun. The record at this point says self-inflicted. The uncle, who has heard his niece's version, and who knows all parties involved very well, says he hasn't the least idea what to believe as to what actually happened.

Subject: RE: BS: Do we need stricter gun laws?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 13 Sep 13 - 11:09 AM

Or to put it briefly: You've got a high level of immature, frightened, paranoid, poverty-stricken, unemployed, drug-using or drug-dealing, and otherwise very stressed-out people in the USA....and THAT is the essential problem. It's a society that is sick at many levels.

To deal with it effectively will require dealing with a great many more social issues than just the issue of gun ownership. People need jobs. They need affordable health care (like in Canada and most of western Europe). They need better education. They need a more honest government. They need saner drug laws. They need a government that doesn't keep taking them to war in other countries. They need better public services (socialism!!!).

Try that for a decade or so instead, and see if you have less trouble with gun violence after that.

Subject: RE: BS: Do we need stricter gun laws?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 13 Sep 13 - 10:54 AM

Yeah, well, there's evidence to suggest that increased levels of driving instruction, licensing, and car ownership lead to increased levels of drunk driving too... ;-)

You can't drink and drive if you don't have access to a car or know how to drive it!

So, I think what you're saying might better be expressed as:

Increased levels of gun ownership enable increased levels of gun violence.

To further explain my point, my uncle loved guns, collected them, went hunting with them....and practiced complete safety in the use of guns and never had the slightest inclination to fire a gun at another human being in his entire life and never hurt another human being. So in his case, as in many others, owning guns did NOT lead him in the direction of shooting people, because he wasn't inclined to shoot people. It would, however, have enabled him to shoot other people if he had been inclined to do so.

The essential problem is not the gun. The essential problem is the psychology of the person who wants (or is inclined when under stress) to use the gun irresponsibly and unlawfully. This is why a very high level of gun ownership in Switzerland is not a problem, but a very high level of gun ownership in the USA is a problem. The psychological state of much of the American public is the real problem, not the guns per se.

Subject: RE: BS: Do we need stricter gun laws?
From: bobad
Date: 13 Sep 13 - 07:47 AM

"Researchers in the United States claim to have established a convincing statistical link between gun ownership and homicide, according to a new study.

The study, which appears in the American Journal of Public Health, challenges the National Rifle Association's claim that increased gun ownership does not lead to higher levels of gun violence."

Boston University study finds link between gun ownership and homicide

Subject: RE: BS: Do we need stricter gun laws?
From: GUEST,Musket curious
Date: 13 Sep 13 - 02:55 AM

Ah but Vinnie is far more lethal with a car door and I don't see politicians lining up to ban them. I'd ban the one that swung open on my car last year leaving a dent in my wing but hanging is too good for supermarket car park parkers.

I'm trying not to enter this debate. Countries should be encouraged to civilise and evolve by themselves without interference of advanced nations. In any case, on this subject Goofus seems to be on the side of sanity in a curious but undeniable way. That confuses simple souls like me.

Looking at the contributions of LH and others. I might just for the umpteenth time rollout the wording I saw on a T shirt in Canada not that long ago.

Canadian. 《Noun》 Unarmed American with Healthcare.

Subject: RE: BS: Do we need stricter gun laws?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 12 Sep 13 - 09:56 PM

Okay. I looked him up. It turns out that I have not seen a single thing he's been in...except "Rango", where I gather he did the voice of one of the characters. I loved Rango. I have to assume that Mr Oliphant is mostly in movies that don't attract my attention in the first place.

I do know the Raylan Givens character he plays in one of them, though, because I've read most of Elmore Leonard's books. Why? Elmore Leonard is a superb writer. I read very little crime fiction, but I'll read anything if Elmore Leonard wrote it. He's got the gift.

I get how Jimmy Stewart and Tom Hanks are Everyman figures.

I get how John Wayne and Timothy Oliphant star in movies with guns.

But what is your point?

Wayne and Stewart co-starred in "The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance", a rather interesting cowboy movie.

Subject: RE: BS: Do we need stricter gun laws?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 12 Sep 13 - 09:46 PM

Hmmm. I don't know Tim Olyphant. I guess I'll have to look him up and see if I get what you mean.

Subject: RE: BS: Do we need stricter gun laws?
From: Suzy Sock Puppet
Date: 12 Sep 13 - 08:31 PM

Little Hawk, here's what I'm thinking;

Tom Hanks/Jimmy Stewart - Everyman.

Tim Olyphant/John Wayne?

I'm thinking that.

What do you think? Don't you tell me you don't know these people.

Subject: RE: BS: Do we need stricter gun laws?
From: GUEST,Big Al Whittle
Date: 12 Sep 13 - 11:38 AM

typical namby pamby liberal stuff......

if we all had guns and shot each other now and then....mark my words, you'd see a difference - and it would make people pull their socks up!

Subject: RE: BS: Do we need stricter gun laws?
From: Bobert
Date: 11 Sep 13 - 04:53 PM

Well, one thing we have found out is that the NRA can get it's people to the polls... They recalled two state senators yesterday for having the audacity of voting for same gun laws...

Here's what its going to take to get America back into sanity here... It's going to take a bunch of whacked out far left people to shoot up a C-PAC convention... When the right wing internalizes that bullets can be fired from both sides of the divide then they are going to wake the heck up... Right now, they *assume* that it is their boys with all the guns...

Assume = makes an "ass" out of "u" and "me"...

If a few of them ended up on the wrong end of one of these shootings they'd get it real quick...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: Do we need stricter gun laws?
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 11 Sep 13 - 04:04 PM

Yes ~~ but he needs subtitles just as much as Al Pacino!

~M~

Subject: RE: BS: Do we need stricter gun laws?
From: GUEST,Big Al Whittle
Date: 11 Sep 13 - 03:57 PM

Vinnie Johes is a big rough lad all right. I'd back him and his football boots against steven Seagal with an Uzi any day.

However you Americans find guns so alluring and sexy. Earth hath nothing fairer to show than Jody Foster lying down and speed reloading as she did for Buffalo Bill.

I wouldn't mind polishing her Glock.

Subject: RE: BS: Do we need stricter gun laws?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 11 Sep 13 - 02:24 PM

Thanks, Suzy.

Japan is an interesting case. There one has a society with extremely violent and sadistic entertainment by way of videos and magazines...and yet a very peaceful society with a very low crime rate. The violent pornography and other such media seem to act as a relief valve, rather than causing people to act out that violence in society.

I doubt it would work that way in many other places, but it does work that way in Japan, which again shows that they are operating from a basic psychology which differs greatly from American psychology. Japan is a society which has always emphasized dutifully serving the needs of the group and the nation over serving the needs (or desires) of the individual. The history of the USA indicates the opposite approach entirely, as rugged individualism is the ideal most celebrated in the USA, and exemplified in a long history of heroes and villains, gangsters and lawmen.

Either approach has its merits, its strengths, and its weaknesses.

Subject: RE: BS: Do we need stricter gun laws?
From: Suzy Sock Puppet
Date: 11 Sep 13 - 01:39 PM

Little Hawk you're very knowledgable and a deep and critical thinker- and not arrogant or full of yourself or spoiling for a fight. I really enjoy reading your posts. I feel they add something to my own thoughts.

That was funny Jack. My favorite is the series "Justified." I'll leave the meaning behind the title to your imagination :-)

Subject: RE: BS: Do we need stricter gun laws?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 11 Sep 13 - 10:41 AM

LOL!!!

Subject: RE: BS: Do we need stricter gun laws?
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 11 Sep 13 - 02:31 AM

"I'm quite glad they don't allow guns over here in England, but I do enjoy film with Americans shooting at each other - The Godfather, westerns, Die hard, and stuff like that. Keep it up chaps! "

Have you seen, "Snatch?", "Lock Stock and Two Smoking Barrels?", The two recent "Sherlock Holmes movies"?

They have all the violence you love and you won't need subtitles to fully comprehend the dialog.

Subject: RE: BS: Do we need stricter gun laws?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 10 Sep 13 - 10:20 PM

True. What I would suggest is that the Swiss situation is very different, the maturity of their society is much more advanced, it's a more traditional society, it's a smaller, more homogeneous society, and all these things result in Swiss people having a very different psychology about guns than Americans do, which was my point.

Swiss citizens also feel a lot safer than American citizens do. There are many people in Switzerland and Germany who like to hunt with guns...sport hunting for various wild game, but that doesn't mean they own a gun with self-defense being the main thing in their minds, and it appears that self-defense is the main thing in the minds of a great many Americans.

Far fewer Canadians than Americans (per capita) own guns, and most own them with hunting in mind, not with self-defense in mind. Again, it's a different psychology at work, and that is my point.

As for Somalis, they own guns primarily with warfare in mind, as rival warlords carve out their turf. That's an even worse circumstance than what is seen in the USA.

Subject: RE: BS: Do we need stricter gun laws?
From: Bill D
Date: 10 Sep 13 - 08:31 PM

Bobert comes closer than anyone to linking the history & culture of the USA regarding guns to the current mentality where so many just **think** guns every day.

Sure... our origins and westward expansion and wilderness made guns a useful thing for many, but once many people lived in urban areas, the very availability and 'mystique' kept the urge to 'mess with guns' quite fashionable... and the gun manufacturers did nothing to discourage it.

Face it... just SEEING guns everywhere exacerbates the idea that one 'ought to have a few...just in case'. If only police and farmers and hunters had them after 1900 or so, we'd be far better off.

All the statistics in the world about Switzerland don't prove anything... except that very few in Switzerland have had any need for them in many years. Switzerland's location, geography and history just doesn't favor gun mentality.

Subject: RE: BS: Do we need stricter gun laws?
From: GUEST
Date: 10 Sep 13 - 07:13 PM

A brief history of the USA

:)

Subject: RE: BS: Do we need stricter gun laws?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 10 Sep 13 - 04:50 PM

I think that what the Founding Fathers did at the time was perfectly sensible in the context of their time. It made good sense. They had no way of forseeing what would happen over 2 centuries later in a much larger and more technological society than their own. Other institutions have arisen to take the place of the citizen militia which they were envisioning in the late 1770s.

"If Congress had the balls to stand up to...."

Forget that idea. Congress doesn't have the balls to stand up to anything that gets in the way of Big Money interests, in my opinion, and that opinion has been borne out time and again. (The same situation prevails in Canada, and virtually everywhere else as well that has an elected assembly.)

Subject: RE: BS: Do we need stricter gun laws?
From: Bobert
Date: 10 Sep 13 - 04:09 PM

There is no way that the Founding Fathers could foresee AR15s in the hands of teenagers...

Back in their day arms meant single shot muzzle loaders... The kind they used against the Brits...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: Do we need stricter gun laws?
From: sciencegeek
Date: 10 Sep 13 - 04:03 PM

"And that is just what the founding fathers envisaged in the USA, but they were dumb enough to make the guns a right and make the trained militia a suggestion, rather than both being a legal obligation.

Don T. "

maybe not so much dumb as a little short sighted... after all, at the time there were only militias. No standing army, no draft, no mercenary troops ('cause those guys work for cash & we didn't have any worth mentioning) and a constitution designed to be altered to fit changing times.

as for making life "safer" from guns in the hands of the "wrong" people... take the $$$$ out of drug dealing and watch it slowly shrivel up. Work on the social issues that encourage/drive young people towards violence. Oh yeah... let's go for saner laws if not saner people.

Subject: RE: BS: Do we need stricter gun laws?
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 10 Sep 13 - 03:30 PM

Bobert: "(Note to GfinS... You are making an ass out of yourself)."


Well, an ass is a donkey, which is the symbol of the Democratic Party..and I assure you, I wouldn't do THAT!!!

Oh Oh,..just got a call from North Carolina, warning me that you were at the hardware store trying to buy a hunting license for donkeys!!..and everyone that looks like one...smells like one...talks like one....and hold on to your hats:..Gives head NOT as good as one!!!...YIKES!!..Bobert's riled up, and on the loose!!

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Do we need stricter gun laws?
From: GUEST
Date: 10 Sep 13 - 03:27 PM

Do we need stricter gun laws???

It likely depends on who the "we" is aimed at.

As to saner people in the USA - Good luck with arranging to get that one:)

Subject: RE: BS: Do we need stricter gun laws?
From: Bobert
Date: 10 Sep 13 - 03:20 PM

I *half* agree with you, Rap...

Yes, we need to change the culture... But as LH pointed out a lot of folks buy guns because they are fearful of other people with guns... The shear number of guns makes it hard to change the culture... It's kinda a chicken and the egg situation...

I truly believe that if Congress had the balls to stand up to the NRA and require background checks (no exceptions, period) and maybe a couple other common sense laws that it would signal to the general public that is fearful of other people who can fr4eely buy guns that Congress is concerned about our safety and that would be a great first step toward changing the culture...

More guns won't do it...

B~

(Note to GfinS... You are making an ass out of yourself)

Subject: RE: BS: Do we need stricter gun laws?
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 10 Sep 13 - 03:12 PM

The United Federation of Turtles is lobbying right now, to keep guns out of the hands of cold blooded turtle shooters, who have also expressed a psychotic distaste for everyone who isn't a drooling Democrat. Signs of psychosis is they think everybody who doesn't agree with him are all KKKers, and Tea Pot Terrorists. Be on the look-out..we hear he's also stalking George Zimmerman...he heard he gave bad head!

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Do we need stricter gun laws?
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 10 Sep 13 - 02:50 PM

""Gun politics in Switzerland are unique in Europe. Switzerland does not have a standing army, instead opting for a people's militia for its national defense. The vast majority of men between the ages of 20 and 30 are conscripted into the militia and undergo military training, including weapons training. The personal weapons of the militia are kept at home as part of the military obligations; Switzerland thus has one of the highest militia gun ownership rates in the world.[1] In recent times a minority of political opposition has expressed a desire for tighter gun regulations.[2] A referendum in February 2011 rejected stricter gun control.[3]""

And that is just what the founding fathers envisaged in the USA, but they were dumb enough to make the guns a right and make the trained militia a suggestion, rather than both being a legal obligation.

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: Do we need stricter gun laws?
From: Rapparee
Date: 10 Sep 13 - 02:05 PM

LH, Bobert -- I've thought for a long, long time that any gun problem the US has can only be solved by a deep, basic change in the psychology and social makeup of the nation. Back around perhaps 1959 we had a chance at establishing a rational, national, system of gun ownership. Even the NRA would have cooperated. Then Kennedy was shot and television brought the Vietnam War into the living room. Movies and television programs became more violent; violent sports (e.g., football) became great social forces. People were gradually desensitized to violence of all sorts. Then came video games which effectively used the same methods of instruction used by the military.

LH, you wrote, "...the rule of law always went into frontier territories first and established a very consistent rule of law." Ah, I refer you to the REASON why the NWMP were founded, to Riels' Rebellion, and other things. Canada was not as violent as The Wilde Weste, true, but most towns in The Wilde Weste had laws banning the carrying of firearms in town (see, for example, Ellsworth and Dodge City, KS and El Paso, TX).

Subject: RE: BS: Do we need stricter gun laws?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 10 Sep 13 - 01:46 PM

Yes, there is a climate of fear in the USA now, and that, along with economic distress, is the engine driving gun-related violence.

In Switzerland, where there are a very high number of military firearms in the hands of the civilian population, there is very little gun-related violence, because in Switzerland you don't have that societal climate of fear and economic distress...and you have an orderly and peaceful social tradition going a long way back.

In Somalia the climate of fear and the economic distress are about as bad as they could possibly get, so the profusion of guns there leads to a tremendous amount of violence.

As a population thinks about life, so it will be clearly reflected in what they do. The problem in the USA is a psychological problem related to both past history...and present political, economic, and social forces. The solution is a gradual shift in politics and national psychology, and a more just economic situation, not a few more bandaid laws stuck on the wounded body politic.

Subject: RE: BS: Do we need stricter gun laws?
From: Bobert
Date: 10 Sep 13 - 01:07 PM

Let me also add this... I was in the NRA from about 8 years old until maybe 13 years old... I was a regular member of a shoot club... I think that the first handgun I ever saw, other than in western movies, was during that time when one of our instructors brought a flint lock dueling pistol to our underground shooting range...

I mean, sure... I had seen cops with holstered handguns but never saw one out of it's holster...

Today, handguns are everywhere... We have wackos who just stuff 'um under their belts and walk around...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: Do we need stricter gun laws?
From: Bobert
Date: 10 Sep 13 - 12:55 PM

It goes beyond LH's explanation, Colt 45... America hasn't been as armed as it is today...

Ya' see, the NRA (National Rifle Association) has been peddling fear and that coupled with it's ally, the Republican Party also peddling fear, white America is now armed to the teeth... And here's the strangest part about it... When asked why so many guns are needed in the house, Bubba answers, "So I'll be ready to defend my right to have them when the government comes for them"???

That is delusional thinking... First, the government ain't coming for them, Bubba but...

...even if they did you don't have enough fire power to stop the government... Heck, they just rake you double wide with a helicopter gun ship and in less time than it takes to say, "I like my guns" you and everything in the double wide are shot to pieces...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: Do we need stricter gun laws?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 10 Sep 13 - 12:54 PM

He's perfectly sane, Bill. ;>) I can attest to that from personal acquaintance. He does, however, enjoy pulling various of the greybeards around here now and then.

The main problem is the psychological attitude of the general population...and the attitudes expressed in American entertainment, mass media and the government, all of them violence-obsessed, in my opinion. Create a paranoid, angry, fearful, stressed-out population, many of whom are in acute financial distress, and the probability is very high that some of them will react to a situation in an extreme way and misuse their guns.

In Somalia, you have a considerably more extreme condition of desperation and poverty in the population...and a vast number of guns. See what happens. It's far worse than in the USA.

In Switzerland, on the other hand...

"Gun politics in Switzerland are unique in Europe. Switzerland does not have a standing army, instead opting for a people's militia for its national defense. The vast majority of men between the ages of 20 and 30 are conscripted into the militia and undergo military training, including weapons training. The personal weapons of the militia are kept at home as part of the military obligations; Switzerland thus has one of the highest militia gun ownership rates in the world.[1] In recent times a minority of political opposition has expressed a desire for tighter gun regulations.[2] A referendum in February 2011 rejected stricter gun control.[3]"

And the gun related crime situation in Switzerland...

"Further information: Gun violence and Crime in Switzerland

Government statistics for the year 2010[15] records 40 homicides involving firearms, out of the 53 cases of homicide in 2010.

The annual rate of homicide by any means per 100,000 population was 0.70, which is one of the lowest in the world.[16] The annual rate of homicide by guns per 100,000 population was 0.52.[17]"

*********


See? The real problem is not the presence or availability of guns. The real problem is the social and cultural attitudes of a population...a far more subtle and complex matter than the mere physical availability of a weapon. The social and cultural attitudes in the USA stem from a long tradition of unlawful gun-related violence, and that tradition is perpetuating itself.

Subject: RE: BS: Do we need stricter gun laws?
From: Bill D
Date: 10 Sep 13 - 11:58 AM

Why yes! Offering yourself as the standard model?? ;>)

Subject: RE: BS: Do we need stricter gun laws?
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 10 Sep 13 - 11:55 AM

BS: Do we need stricter gun laws?
No....we need saner people!

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Do we need stricter gun laws?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 10 Sep 13 - 11:46 AM

It derives from the early history of America, colt 45. In the 1770s, the USA was a land with an extensive frontier bordering on wilderness, and in that wilderness lived numerous tribes of Indians, many of whom were at more or less continual war with the white population which was expanding into their traditional lands. Virtually everyone who live outside the main cities like Philadelphia or Boston or New York needed a gun for self-protection from Indians, not to mention from grizzly bears, which then inhabited pretty much the whole nation, and were extremely dangerous.

Most of the population were small farmers and homesteaders. They needed guns to hunt for food, and to protect themselves in war and when encountering dangerous animals.

This was taken for granted at the time, as it was in Canada too, for that matter, for much the same reasons.

Everyone pretty much walked around freely with guns, and no one thought anything of it. It was totally normal at the time.

Furthermore, the experience of the American Revolution against British rule had made clear the necessity of having an armed populace who could quickly form local militia forces in time of war. This was also the case in Canada (British North America), and in many other places at the time.

And THAT's why the American founding fathers wrote a specific clause in the Constitution guaranteeing the Right to Bear Arms.

Now, however....it's over 200 years later...and the environment is almost totally different. The bulk of the population is living in huge metropolitan areas and suburbs when it does NOT make sense for ordinary citizens to walk around freely with guns. The frontier is gone. The bears are almost all gone. The Indian wars ended in the late 1800s. And yet....the Constitution remains...a document fashioned to meet the needs of the late 1700s!

That is the bizarre situation we have as a result of the changing tides of history.

Now, given that people relate to the Constitution as a more or less "holy" document...and are loath to alter it, specially if it seems to support some desire they have...you have a situation where present day folks are using a very old guarantee of rights totally out of its historical context.

And to answer your question: That's what it's all about! Old tradition is still asserting itself in a land whose founding fathers would hardly even recognize it if they saw it now.

Subject: RE: BS: Do we need stricter gun laws?
From: GUEST,colt 45
Date: 10 Sep 13 - 11:26 AM

What is it with you Americans, The right to bear Arms,
What's that all about ?????????????????
It's Simple if you allow people to walk around freely with Guns, you should accept what goes with that and get on with it.
Personally though I can't see how and why this is allowed but there you go!

Subject: RE: BS: Do we need stricter gun laws?
From: Bill D
Date: 10 Sep 13 - 11:23 AM

Of course we need stricter gun laws.... but this case is hardly a basis for the argument. In this case we suspect that police over-reacted and made little effort to resolve it without shooting the old guy.

We need to filter and screen applicants to police agencies, just as we need to better screen applicants for gun licences.....and police agencies need to train more about how to disable people without deadly force.

We HAVE lots of guns already out there, with little chance of getting rid of them.....so we need creative ways of dealing with and controlling those who have the guns.

Subject: RE: BS: Do we need stricter gun laws?
From: Big Al Whittle
Date: 10 Sep 13 - 11:21 AM

And all those Patricia Cornwell novels where her lesbian niece is always polishimg her Glock....!

God I'd love to polish a lady's Glock, even if she was a lesbian. You Yanks know how to live all right!

Subject: RE: BS: Do we need stricter gun laws?
From: GUEST,Colt 45
Date: 10 Sep 13 - 11:13 AM