Guns, to my friends here at Mudcat

Subject: RE: Guns, to my friends here at Mudcat
From: puzzled
Date: 17 May 99 - 09:52 AM

I am a peace loving vegetarian who lives in a remote rural area. i grew up a country boy learning how to shoot a gun at an early age. As an adult i never owned one until recently. Here at my home a gun was pointed at me by a stranger i had never seen before. If i could have gotten to a phone it would have been at least a half of an hour before a cop could have gotten here. Fortunately, the gun holder was not totally crazy and left without harming anyone. But I will never be caught unprepared to protect my children again. i am a good shot and i will shoot to kill if the lives of my children are threatened again. It will indeed be hard to live with having killed or having tried to kill someone but to allow harm to come to my kids would be harder to live with. I still have bad dreams about what could have happened.
But even with such a event happening in my own yard, i still feel more threatened on the hiways than i do by some one owning a gun. how many times has some unthinking person in a hurry or in road rage come close to causing an accident to me or a member of my family? More times than i could count! How many people are killed in this country by guns every year? How many by vehicle accidents?
I will now own a gun to protect my family. And i will still drive a car and feel that driving is the greater risk.
and BTW most of the guns sales that i know about around here are person to person, not gun shops, not gun shows. No records, no background checks. Guns are easy to buy. Gun control laws won't change the fact that i can go to my neighbor's house and look over the hundred's of guns he has and choose my weapon of choice. I suspect that in the cities it must be somewhat like that, too. We are not in the UK It would be really hard to disarm Americans.

Subject: RE: Guns, to my friends here at Mudcat
From: dwditty
Date: 17 May 99 - 06:08 AM

Tucker, et al. No, I don't blame the guns, although I do not choose to own one. The problem, as I see it, is that our society has been completely desensitized to indecency. There was a time when peole didn't go around shooting up schools, post offices, lottery headquarters, etc. simply because it was unacceptable to do so. I personnaly feel that MTV, movies, TV, the news media,...have pushed the envelope of decency way to far. Sure, everyone has the "right" to express themselves however thay feel. The spirit of those rights should be defended at all costs. I just think that everyone needs to take a little more responsibility for the effect that their form of expression has on society. Our children have grown up with a twisted sense of "right" and "wrong." The Mudcat is a place to start. Certainly Alex or whoever has the "right" to use the forum to belittle and pontificate. I am heartened to see that mudcatters are responding as a "society" to define the lines of acceptable behavior rather than trying to "legistlate" a rule to define certain behavior. You see, it is all up to us - each and every one - to exercise our right to set the limits of what we will accept. Let's face it, if no one buys what someone else is peddling, chances are it will stop.

DW

Subject: RE: Guns, to my friends here at Mudcat
From: bseed(charleskratz)
Date: 17 May 99 - 05:11 AM

Alex, and any others who might have been bothered by my characterization of Clinton as probably the worst human being who has ever been president: I am not a knee-jerk conservative (I love the Austin Lounge Lizards" line in "Half a Man" that goes "I listen to Rush Limbaugh and it helps to ease the pain; he makes perfect sense to a man with half a brain.")--matter of fact I just changed my registration from Democrat to Peace and Freedom; I'm way left of our rapidly rightward galloping center. As for Clinton, while Monica, whom he seemed to regard as an aid to masturbation, was fighting to keep from testifying against him, he was sending his minions out to destroy her character. NAFTA and GATT which he pushed through congress (no Republican president could have done it) have padded the pockets of CEOs and stockholders of multi-national corporations at the expense of the American economy (the stock market is not the American economy. And he has taken the US as world vigilante torch from Reagan and Bush, making sure to use the torch only to start fires in countries which do not matter much to us--if we're fighting against genocide, why are we not doing so in Turkey and Indonesia? (I guess I'm through voting for the lesser of two evils.) --seed

Subject: RE: Guns, to my friends here at Mudcat
From: Don Meixner
Date: 16 May 99 - 11:13 PM

Tucker, you can play in my gang any time. We agree on this and many other non music related subjects. Its ashame your taste in music is so dreadful :-)

Don

Subject: RE: Guns, to my friends here at Mudcat
From: Allan S.
Date: 16 May 99 - 09:25 PM

Wow!!! just got back to Mudcat after a few weeks And I thought all folkies were knee jerk liberals. It warms the cockles of my heart to read this thread An other vote for Tucker. I just completed a 11 year project in Jewish Geneology on my family. and all those who remained in Poland were sent to Belzeck. This was an Extermination camp. All those who arived one day were killed and went up in smoke the next day. Sorry guys I have no intention of having that happen to my grandchildren just so some people can be PC. I remember some one saying that if those in europe had a gun the Holocast never would have happened. Never again will we go easy.

Subject: RE: Guns, to my friends here at Mudcat
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 16 May 99 - 06:41 PM

Is anyone else having trouble with the backspace key or the delete key deleting their whole message? Boy am I going to be careful how I type this since it's the third time!

There are a lot of trains of thought going on, and it's going to be hard to avoid rambling on too long.

I was tempted to condemn Alex's personal attack on Tucker - but then was tempted to hurl abuse at Margerita. The permissiveness she condemns is the mercy which would have saved the "Geeks" at Columbine from being tortured on a daily basis by the "Jocks". The equalizer was the only avenue of defence left. Where is the valid distinction between the right to bear arms to defend oneself from corrupt government and to do so to defend oneself from other injustice? Of course in England we have neither, but should we?

More curiously, why is it impermissible to defend one's own dignity yet permissible to slaughter animals in the name of "sport" - yet I am prepared to sing "the Innocent Hare". So why do I associate American contemporary acoustic music (sorry, I can't call it "folk") with the celebration of killing animals for "sport"? I hope this link to music saves me from the wrath of the "music only" brigade. Even so should we censor music - or when.

Oh, and for the "back to basics" brigade, remember "Ode to Billy Joe".

Subject: RE: Guns, to my friends here at Mudcat
From: Kathleen Morgain
Date: 16 May 99 - 06:20 PM

Richard Bridge: thank you for so succinctly putting into words the nagging feelings that are troubling me over the issue of guns in the hands of the otherwise powerless.

"Us" versus "Them" is as old as humanity. Pogo was right, we are ALL "us". Now if I can just remember that, next time I'm impatient with a checker who can't add, copyreaders who can't spell, tailgating drivers, other people's children, people whose postings are clearly not as clever as mine.....

-gunless in Seattle, -Kathleen.

Subject: RE: Guns, to my friends here at Mudcat
From: Sam Hudson
Date: 16 May 99 - 05:53 PM

I have very mixed feelings on the issue of gun control. I was a member of a gun club here in the UK and enjoyed target shooting with pistol and rifle. Following the Dunblane tragedy, all that has gone, as private ownership of handguns is virtually impossible under new UK law. And the gun clubs have folded.

So I lose an enjoyable pastime. And yet, it's hard to get away from the statistics. The US has a per capita figure of gun-related deaths that's fifty or sixty times that of the UK. Switzerland, which is one of the most crime-free countries in Europe, has the highest level of gun ownership - and the highest level of firearms-related crime and gunshot deaths.

I suppose it all comes down to your own view on what's most important in your society. The older I get, the more I feel that the restriction on my liberty to own and use firearms is probably a reasonable price to pay for a safer society.

Subject: RE: Guns, to my friends here at Mudcat
From: Lonesome EJ
Date: 16 May 99 - 05:44 PM

I support Tucker in his right to state his views, even if we disagree. I want to hear what he is thinking- the success of our society relies on all of us encouraging each other to air their opinions in a free and open discussion. Those who would suppress this through namecalling, should keep their mouths shut and stay out of the process. Or express themselves in a reasonable and respectful manner.

Subject: RE: Guns, to my friends here at Mudcat
From: Robin McG
Date: 16 May 99 - 05:08 PM

I go along with Banjer on both posts. Long may she wave!

Subject: RE: Guns, to my friends here at Mudcat
From: Banjer
Date: 16 May 99 - 01:09 PM

Guys, I did a Forum Search on our buddy and it seems he has been here at least since 22 October 1996. That is the earliest post I found for him. He seems to like Scottish music primarily, does seem to have a sense of humor as evidenced by some of his posts, and is involved with a folk Music Club in Lake County, IL. Seems like a fairly friendly feller. I assume he probably looks upon us "newbies" as flies in his ointment. Sorry to offend you, Alex, but I for one am here to stay and have no intention of limiting myself to a set parameter of topics to please anyone! Last time I looked, it was still the Stars and Stripes flying outside and as long as "she" waves I still have certain freedoms which I intend to excercise! I will use discretion in selecting topics that are at least remotely related to what the Mudcat is all about, but will not lose any sleep if occasionaly they do stray outside the norm.

Subject: RE: Guns, to my friends here at Mudcat
From: bbelle
Date: 16 May 99 - 12:06 PM

Alex .. I, too, do not know whence you came, but obviously you have not been involved in other Mudcat discussions. We are a group of individuals with widely diverse philosophies, none of whom asks anyone to drop what they are doing and run to their "side." We are also a group of individuals who respect one another and who do not refer to one another as a "dingbat." If you plan to stay awhile, please be respectful. Only by respect will you gain respect. I've said this far too many times ... what we sing and write is closely aligned with our political views, which is the essense of folk music. Tucker simply wants the right guaranteed to him in our Constitution, and I respect him for saying it aloud. I think "the right to bear arms" as it related to 1776 has a far different meaning than it does in 1999, and I would hope that he, and anyone else in this forum, would respect my right to say that aloud... moonchild

Subject: RE: Guns, to my friends here at Mudcat
From: Jeri
Date: 16 May 99 - 10:24 AM

Well, I pretty much agree with Banjer re both guns and Tucker

I don't agree with a lot of what Tucker says. I don't believe I need a gun to fight off the invading horde. I think Clinton is one of the best presidents we've had, on a professional level. On a personal level, it's a good thing a lot of past presidents didn't have a Ken Starr and a talk-show-mentality press (and public). I, however, respect people's rights to have different opinions. I think respect is what holds this group together. The arguments in here seem to be about ideas, not individuals.

I think people should have the right to own guns, but I think competency and a background check are essential. I can't for the life of me figure out why anyone would argue against those things.

Jeri - 22 non-getting-shot-at years in the military/marksmanship expert/no gun

Subject: RE: Guns, to my friends here at Mudcat
From: Margo
Date: 16 May 99 - 10:14 AM

I am with Tucker and Roger on this one.

I think that it is not the videos and bloody movies per se that are promoting violence and irreverence for life. It is an insipid permissiveness in the guise of civil rights.

I had stated in another thread that this is NOT A FREE COUNTRY. We have laws that one must abide, for the protection of all and simple decency. Those who chip away at the foundation of decency put forth in the Constitution are responsible for promoting violence.

Girls use abortion as a birth control. Kids growing up see that if you don't want someone around you just 86 them. (86; an old restaurant term meaning trash it.) You're bothered that there is a life growing in you: kill it. You're bothered that someone makes fun of you. Kill them. (For you girls who say it's your body and you want control over it, What happened to your control that you became pregnant when you didn't want to be? Do you mean only to exert control when it's convenient for you?)

You have the freedom of expression to piss in a jar and put the cross in it AND have the government pay for it, calling it art. Total irreverence. Should not be put up with for a second. That guy ought to piss in a jar at home all he wants and put whatever he wants in the jar. But by having the government pay for it (in the guise of diversity) you have an official stamp of approval of the disgusting, irreverent, bringing the whole country down to the level of the lowest common denominator.

When I was a kid, the class clown might put small pieces of chalk in between the felts on the eraser to give the teacher a hard time. Now sixth graders hold out ball point pens as the teacher walks by to mark up his/her clothes. (This told me by a teacher).

How come it is nowadays that someone can break into your home, get bit by your dog, and successfully sue YOU for damages? (This actually happened) Those who promote such permissiveness (criminal's rights in this example) are the ones responsible for chipping away at decency and promoting the "I can do whatever I want" mentality.

No, it's not the videos per se, it's a broad trend that can only be reversed if the people come to their senses and go back to basics.

Let's see who's feathers I've ruffled! :o)

Margarita

Subject: RE: Guns, to my friends here at Mudcat
From: Bob Schwarer
Date: 16 May 99 - 08:52 AM

Here's another pro-Tucker vote.

Bob Schwarer. NRA, target shooter, non-hunter, ex-GI(Infantry).

Subject: RE: Guns, to my friends here at Mudcat
From: Banjer
Date: 16 May 99 - 07:17 AM

Alex, I don't know whence you came, but would hastily point out that Tucker is a widely accepted and valued member of the Mudcat, has many friends here and unlike yourself has not had to resort to namecalling (aka Defamation of Character or Slander) Although we are a very diverse group we are also very tightly knit and I believe a can speak for the great majority here and say that an attack on one of us will be construed as an attack on the entire group. Your opinion and the right to voice it is strongly supported here. Your penchant for calling names and demanding that your way of doing things as the only correct way is NOT. I don't often get my hackles up friend, but you are damn close to seeing it!

As for the subject of this thread, it fits very well into the context of the folk music that we all admire. It is a social issue having currency due to recent events in our country. Social issues have traditionaly been the fiber of folk music.

As for my own opinion, I feel anyone that wishes to arm themselves is entitled under the Constitution of this land. I do feel that a Certificate of Proficiency in the safe handling of weapons and a background check is within reason. Being Civil War reenactors we have several pieces here. Two muskets, three pistols, all black powder weapons but lethal none the less. (I also have a 3/4 scale reproduction of a 6 Pound James artillery piece, capable of firing, but it's such a job getting it loaded I don't consider it my weapon of choice ;) )As for using a weapon against another, I have no qualms about it if that individual poses a threat against my life or that of others.

Subject: RE: Guns, to my friends here at Mudcat
From: Alex
Date: 16 May 99 - 01:17 AM

In the first place,Tucker, with those views, I really don't think you have very many friends at Mudcat. Secondly, is Mudcat the correct forum for this discussion. Is it possible to sectionalize Mudcat so that there is a Music-only area with another area for dingbats like Tucker and all the other spurious threads to reside. But since it is her, it certainly raises questions that are perplexing to everyone in the US today. So here's my two cents. Unfortuneately, there is no way to disarm America. Like Pandora's Box, guns have been available for so long that any attempts at gun control and laws against owning handguns or assault weapons simply result in law-abiding folks giving up their guns while criminals continue to hold theirs. The Colorado shootings were mainly done with shotguns. which will be the last type of guns to ever be banned. Tucker sounds like the kind of person who should not have firearms and is a likely candidate to shoot himself. At least in the foot. Probably twice before he realizes what the first problem was. The criticisms of Bill Clinton seems like snide secondary comments from a bunch of right wingers who ought to go away from Mudcat and join Rush in his paranoid world. How soon they forget Reagan's illegal Contra campaign and Bush's failure to solve the Iraq problem (at the cost of several hundred American lives). At least Clinton is standing up to his own philosophy (Why should I get killed in a foreign war) and is trying not to get our guys killed.

Subject: RE: Guns, to my friends here at Mudcat
From: Indy Lass
Date: 16 May 99 - 12:35 AM

Tucker, sorry you thought I was "coming after you." Was just stating an opinion. I can see both sides of the gun control argument--perhaps we all can to some extent, and that's why American society is struggling so with what to do about it.

Subject: RE: Guns, to my friends here at Mudcat
From: bbelle
Date: 15 May 99 - 11:46 PM

Well ... here's my two cents. I was raised with guns, hunting guns, not shotguns, and never thought much about it. However, I have been totally opposed to having guns in the house, for anyone. When I was attacked last December in front of my own house, I decided I was not going to be a victim again, without some weapon to protect myself, and decided to buy a shotgun and learn how to use it. I didn't buy that shotgun because I am totally positive that if anyone came into my home and suprised me, I would shoot to kill. In addition, since the attack, I have been almost paralyzed with fear several times when someone came up behind me, and I realized that if I had a gun in my possession, I would shoot them. I take careful measures not to put myself in situations where I can be attacked again and hope this never happens again. I do know, though, that if I killed someone, I could not live with myself. moonchild

Subject: RE: Guns, to my friends here at Mudcat
From: Roger in Baltimore
Date: 15 May 99 - 11:11 PM

Bseed,

In your last comment, you highlight just one concern about gun laws (or any law for that matter). The end result is often quite different from what was planned. And, even worse, the person "punished" by the law is not the person we hoped the law would punish.

I'm with Tucker on this. I would encourage those of you who have taken the opposite side to read some of the "pro-gun" literature. The general media has decided to be anti-gun and that is the way it plays out events.

In a recent school shooting incident, the Vice-Principal went to his vehicle and got his shotgun. He was then able to disarm the attacker and prevent further bloodshed. The vast majority of the media never mentioned the gun the Vice Principal used. One paper even noted the Vice Principal "persuaded" the felon to drop his gun. Are we to believe he talked the guy out of it? No way, it was the shotgun that "persuaded" him. But the media would like you to think otherwise. Cases where people successfully defend themselves with a weapon are often not reported at all.

But the media doesn't want you to hear that side of gun ownership. Yes, you are most likely to be shot by someone you know. What the media doesn't print is that you are even more likely to have your life saved by you or someone you know having a gun.

Someone mentioned traceability. If it is so hard to trace gun sales, why do we now know that "all of the guns" were purchased at some point at a gun show? Sounds like pretty quick tracing to me.

If you don't want to have a gun, don't own one. I have never owned a gun, but I served three years in the U.S. Army and I am capable of using a gun. Gun ownership for myself continues to be a question that I have not finally answered. The right to gun ownership, I will defend.

Roger in Baltimore

Subject: RE: Guns, to my friends here at Mudcat
From: bseed(charleskratz)
Date: 15 May 99 - 08:37 PM

That's part of the point, Richard, but easy access to the guns is the other part. I think that statistics still show that people are at more risk of guns owned by family members than by criminals (except, of course, in gang ridden neighborhoods where the wars between mini-nations are as likely, or more so, to take the innocent as the warriors of the other side--sounds like what's going on in Yugoslavia [how many of you still think we are there for humanitarian reasons?}). My next door neighbor was burglarized--in addition to the TV, nine guns were taken. And Tucker--I agree with you that Clinton is an awful president, possibly the worst human being who has held that office (I opposed his impeachment strictly on constitutuonal grounds). But we have been damned with a string of presidents who think that the US has the right to do whatever it damned well pleases all over the world so long as it doesn't affect profits, and the congress goes along with it (the president asks for a six billion dollar raid on the social security "surplus" to buy more bombs to drop on Yugoslavia, congress doubles that amount and tacks on a bunch of pork barrel raids on the same source of funding, and on environmental protections; because the war funding measure is considered urgent, these awful other add ons may pass (how about a constitutional amendment prescribing that each bill that passes congress must be limited to a single subject, a single program? Or at least that all amendments to a bill must receive a majority vote of each house before they can be added. We'll see that one passed up as soon as we get real campaign finance reform). Gawd, I'm wandering off in all kinds of directions.

Back to guns for one thought: the "use a gun, go to prison" laws have one major effect--women who go to jail for killing their husbands serve far more time than husbands who kill their wives. --seed

Subject: RE: Guns, to my friends here at Mudcat
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 15 May 99 - 07:18 PM

You have missed the point of recent events. The fault lies in a society that rewards for belittling and alienating others. Soner or later the worm will turn. If you deny it the power to do so you are one of the opressors.

Subject: RE: Guns, to my friends here at Mudcat
From: katlaughing
Date: 15 May 99 - 07:00 PM

So...we should censor MTV, videos, etc. instead of expecting parents to exercise their right to turn them off, not rent them, or tell their kids "No"!?

None of those other things is manufactured expressly for the purpose of killing; guns are. If they were made just for target shooting, we wouldn't need live ammo. There are plenty of other ways that police and others are beginning to use to stop someone without it being lethal.

A good can of spray paint aimed at the eyes can do wonders in disarming an assailant; and, if by some chance it gets used against you, it is not lethal.

kat

Subject: RE: Guns, to my friends here at Mudcat
From: John Hindsill
Date: 15 May 99 - 06:09 PM

Tucker, the last I heard nobody ever killed somebody, or themselves, with a video, a movie, MTV, or a book. And, yes, current gun laws should be enforced...STRICTLY.--John

Subject: RE: Guns, to my friends here at Mudcat
From: Tucker
Date: 15 May 99 - 04:31 PM

annieglenn, you can be killed very easily, be it gunpowder, fertilizer, gasoline, club,knife, poison,gas, bacteria. Go after the videos and MTV first, then come after me. I am your least threat. This is America. Let's enforce it's present laws, starting with keeping felons in jail and executing murderers. I wish you love and peace. Tucker

Subject: RE: Guns, to my friends here at Mudcat
From: Indy Lass
Date: 15 May 99 - 10:57 AM

As it was so tragically proven in Littleton, Co. and many other places in our country .. and the world throughout history...it dosen't take a soldier to shoot me or my loved ones down. All it takes is someone with a "shooting device" and the intent to use it.

Subject: Guns, to my friends here at Mudcat
From: Tucker
Date: 14 May 99 - 10:16 PM

I went to a thread a few minutes ago to explain some things to folks about guns. To those that think I am a tool of the NRA, think again. I don't belong to that group, namely because that while I believe in their cause I don't like being hit up for money twice a week. I do believe the founding father's meant what they said in the second amendment, and I really don't think Liberals want to really persue that because if they do every male from 16 to 60 might have to possess and know how to fire modern firearms. Not a bad idea to me, except when they have had a great weekend watching Airforce One where people blow others brains out for entertainment! What crap! People, first and foremost, let me be up front with you. I am not about hunting, shooting, or quilting partys. I own guns because I and my family will never willingly be digging our own graves and having soldiers shooting us down. That is the biggest mistake I think the Jews did in Europe, and the ones I admire the most are the ones that had the guts to fight the Nazis in Warsaw and in the aftermath of Sobibor. My country told me to take up arms when I was 19. I will be damned if they tell me I am incompetent to have them now! This coupled with the worst president the United States has ever had. Enforce the existing laws against felons, if that doesn't work, let's talk