BS: Do we need stricter gun laws?

Subject: BS: Do we need stricker gun laws?
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 09 Sep 13 - 02:19 PM

107 year old man, Suicide by SWAT?

Subject: RE: BS: Do we need stricker gun laws?
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 09 Sep 13 - 02:20 PM

please pardon title typo.

Subject: RE: BS: Do we need stricker gun laws?
From: Elmore
Date: 09 Sep 13 - 04:16 PM

Do we need stricker gun laws? Hell, I don't know. They just bagged George Zimmerman for threatening his estranged wife and his father- in- law with a gun. Should the police take his gun away?

Subject: RE: BS: Do we need stricker gun laws?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 09 Sep 13 - 05:03 PM

Well, it's not that hard to understand why a 107 year old man would wish to remain in the home he was accustomed to living in, and why he got defensive about it. If he hadn't had a gun, of course, they'd have busted down the door and taken him somewhere else by force. From his point of view, the way it turned out might have been what he'd have preferred, all things considered. (although that's hard to say after the fact)

He over-reacted. Many seniors become very uncooperative when being asked to move from their home, and I can understand why.

What does it have to do with enacting stricter gun laws? You can make all the laws you want, but this sort of thing can still happen, seems to me.

If it was Indians, back in the traditional times, they'd have left the old man alone to live wherever he wanted to. We live in a society of busybodies now.

Subject: RE: BS: Do we need stricker gun laws?
From: gnu
Date: 09 Sep 13 - 05:09 PM

"Shellie Zimmerman was asking that her husband pay for a permanent life insurance policy with her named as the beneficiary, according to a divorce petition made public last week."

"Last month, Shellie Zimmerman, 26, pleaded guilty to a misdemeanour perjury charge for lying about the couple's finances during a bail hearing following her husband's arrest after Martin's shooting."

Both from CBC news.

Hahahahahaa! Let's convict him again without due process. And, if he is found innocent in a court of law, let's not wait to read the trial transcript... let's just hang him anyway.

Re gun laws, hell yeah! Re lynch mobs? Fuck no!

Subject: RE: BS: Do we need stricker gun laws?
From: GUEST,Eliza
Date: 09 Sep 13 - 05:15 PM

Couldn't a negotiator have been found, an experienced professional, to talk gently to the old man and try to calm him? He was probably terrified, confused and extremely defensive. Was it really necessary to blast him to bits in such a barbaric way? Poor old soul, I hope he's at peace now.

Subject: RE: BS: Do we need stricker gun laws?
From: gnu
Date: 09 Sep 13 - 05:42 PM

Gee... I didn't even read about the old fellah. Maybe I do have an alternative for assisted suicide when it's my turn. I mean, if they are still so screwed up in the head as to not help me f and when I want help going out in a humane way, this might be worth invesigating. I mean, why waste ammo eh?

Subject: RE: BS: Do we need stricker gun laws?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 09 Sep 13 - 06:01 PM

Indeed, gnu. That's what your neighborhood SWAT team is for, after all. When you're ready to go, just phone them up and say, "There's a maniac in my place! He's got a gun, and he's threatening to kill the whole neighborhood! Please hurry!"

Then just wait for them to arrive. I expect Chongo will resort to this one day when he gets too old to bust heads, romance dames, and drive fast cars.

Subject: RE: BS: Do we need stricker gun laws?
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 09 Sep 13 - 06:33 PM

"Well, it's not that hard to understand why a 107 year old man would wish to remain in the home he was accustomed to living in."

According to the article, he had lived there about a month. With that kind of judgement he should not ave been able to buy a gun. IMHO.

Subject: RE: BS: Do we need stricker gun laws?
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 09 Sep 13 - 07:12 PM

Tell Chongo if he is willing to do that, I'll pay for the bullets and a bus ticket to Pine Bluff. Heck, I'll even make the 911 call.

Subject: RE: BS: Do we need stricker gun laws?
From: Ebbie
Date: 09 Sep 13 - 08:30 PM

I gather from what it says that the owner of the house had invited him to live there with her (perhaps temporarily?) and then a month later found an apartment for him to which she expected him to move.

Calling a 107-year-old person 'elderly' is somewhat of a misnomer, at least in today's parlance. Any person over a hundred years old is OLD and is probably weak in the cognitive department. Not that it can't be otherwise: an aunt of mine died at 104 and by all accounts at her death was as mean as ever. But generally speaking.

However, I agree with one thing: A 107-year-old person has no business with a gun. Wonder if his "roommate" knew he had one?

Subject: RE: BS: Do we need stricter gun laws?
From: Sandy Mc Lean
Date: 09 Sep 13 - 09:46 PM

There has to be a better way to respond to situations such as this than to send out trigger happy Wyat Earp swat teams! With proper understanding and negotiation the results may have been different! "Shoot first and ask questions later" is the folly of fools!

Subject: RE: BS: Do we need stricter gun laws?
From: Rapparee
Date: 09 Sep 13 - 09:52 PM

I have a friend, Ebbie, who will soon be 90. He sleeps with a loaded .45 automatic by his bed. It comforts him, because it's the same one he carried in the Pacific as a Marine in WWII, on Peleliu (Bloody Nose Ridge) and Okinawa among other places. He hasn't fired it in years, and yes, he has PTSD and no, he won't be treated for it. After all, he is a Marine.

Audie Murphy slept with the light on and a .45 by his bed from the time he left the service until the time he died.

I know far, far too many veterans of Vietnam, Gulf I, OIF, OEF, and Afghanistan who do the same thing.

Was this man a veteran of WWII? He could have been a career soldier, sailor or Marine. Is that why he had a gun, because of the war in his mind? Or did he listen to the news and thought that a firearm was his only protection?

Perhaps, if we lowered the level of violence in our world...perhaps if humanity actually became humane...but violence sells movies and video games and television shows.

Subject: RE: BS: Do we need stricter gun laws?
From: Bobert
Date: 09 Sep 13 - 10:50 PM

Do we need stricter gun laws???

Ask the 100,000 Americans who were shot last year or the 100,000 Americans who will be shot this year and next year...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: Do we need stricter gun laws?
From: Rapparee
Date: 09 Sep 13 - 11:25 PM

Ah, Bobert -- the Centers for Disease Control's statistics show 11,078 homicides by firearms in 2010, or 3.6 per 100,000 of the population. For all homicides, the numbers are 16,259, or 5.3 per 100,000.

There were 19,392 firearms suicides, or 6.3 per 100,000; suffocation suicides were 9293, or 3.1 per 100,000; suicides by poison, 6,599 or 2.1 per 100,000. In all, there were 38,364 suicides, or 12.4 per 100,000 -- making suicide the number 10 cause of death in the US.

According to the CDC, the 15 leading causes of death in the US in 2010 were:

1. Diseases of heart (heart disease)
2. Malignant neoplasms (cancer)
3. Chronic lower respiratory diseases
4. Cerebrovascular diseases (stroke)
5. Accidents (unintentional injuries)
6. Alzheimer's disease
7. Diabetes mellitus (diabetes)
8. Nephritis, nephrotic syndrome and nephrosis (kidney disease)
9. Influenza and pneumonia
10. Intentional self-harm (suicide)
11. Septicemia
12. Chronic liver disease and cirrhosis
13. Essential hypertension and hypertensive renal disease (hypertension)
14. Parkinson's disease
15. Pneumonitis due to solids and liquids

Homicide (assault) dropped from the Top 15 for the first time since 1965. There were 40,393 drug-related deaths, 25,692 alcohol-related deaths, and 31,672 non-fatal injuries due to firearms.

Wikipedia has a table world firearms deaths, but it is all too often "incomplete" data or data combined from several years or data from years other than 2010. Yes, some countries have data for 2010, but unless we can compare all the comparison would be invalid.

Subject: RE: BS: Do we need stricter gun laws?
From: Suzy Sock Puppet
Date: 09 Sep 13 - 11:28 PM

Yup Little Hawk. Busybodies and control freaks. There's always a way around everything but not if people insist that others, especially those who may be impaired in some way or otherwise at a disadvantage, do what they say when they say it. That's the mentality of people who beat children, elderly people or the handicapped when they assert their wills.

I suppose the world would have come to an end if the poor old guy had been allowed to stay in his room and the decision to force him to leave had been deterred to a later time after the situation had deescalated. 107 years old and those people couldn't cut him slack? Police had no choice? Bullshit. There were a lot of choices here. No Plan B?

Calling the police in to handle a situation with a friend or relative is who obviously in a state of mental and emotional distress is surely one of the most ignorant, heartless things one could do. It's nothing I would have ever done. I would have let him win the standoff. Then I would have remained vigilant for an opportunity to get the gun in the near future. Don't know if I could have pulled off this course of action but I would have tried.

Subject: RE: BS: Do we need stricter gun laws?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 09 Sep 13 - 11:48 PM

Exactly what I was thinking, Suzy. Just leave the old guy alone for a day, don't bother him, wait for him to calm down, and wait for a safe opportunity to remove the gun without hurting anyone. That would be the sensible thing to do, seems to me. All it would require was a little patience. I think he was probably reacting the way he did, simply because he was scared.

Jack - Pine Bluff? Where is Pine Bluff and what is its significance?

Subject: RE: BS: Do we need stricter gun laws?
From: Bobert
Date: 09 Sep 13 - 11:51 PM

I didn't say "killed", Rap... My stats are correct...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: Do we need stricter gun laws?
From: Bobert
Date: 10 Sep 13 - 12:00 AM

And, the way I heard it, the supposed hostages had already escaped...

But fuck that...

Ya' know, there are way too many people being killed by cops... Happens around Charlotte at least once a month... Guy comes out of a house and "makes a threatening move" and bang-bang-you're-dead... That's the way it always is... Details at 11...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: Do we need stricter gun laws?
From: GUEST,Musket being patriotic
Date: 10 Sep 13 - 07:25 AM

But we already have strict gun laws?

Oh. Sorry. Wrong country. Can't help you there.

Keep banging the rocks together.

Subject: RE: BS: Do we need stricter gun laws?
From: gnu
Date: 10 Sep 13 - 08:48 AM

A footnote to my post above. Z's ex went to Z's house "unexpectedly". She changed her story after the police investigated at the scene. Police found no gun on Z and found her father uninjured. She refused to have police arrest him for domestic violence. She and her father have refused to file charges. There's more but I think the thread should address the OP.

Sorry for the interruption.

Subject: RE: BS: Do we need stricter gun laws?
From: Rapparee
Date: 10 Sep 13 - 09:58 AM

Bobert, where did you get your figures?

According to the news, the old guy seemed "excited" about moving. "Excited" how? As in "agitated"?

As for too many people being shot by cops, well -- the US government doesn't collect such statistics. Very incomplete stats for 2012 show 587 people killed by cops. Other articles seem to show that many or most of those killed by police are mentally ill. The police do have non-lethal methods and they should be used first if at all possible. Too many cops seem to have the "badge & gun" syndrome.

Subject: RE: BS: Do we need stricter gun laws?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 10 Sep 13 - 10:09 AM

Careful, Musket. ;-) They who bang rocks may turn to throwing rocks presently.

There are relatively few gun deaths per capita in Canada (if you leave out suicide)...fewer than in the USA...but I think it's more because of a difference in culture....cultural ideas and expectations... than because of a difference in laws. The whole domestic history of Canada has been sedate and orderly, whereas the history of the USA has revolved around periods of lawlessness (such as in the territories, prior to statehood, for example). It's a different psychology, you see, and it has produced a population with different attitudes.

In the development of Canada, the RCMP (Mounties) and the rule of law always went into frontier territories first and established a very consistent rule of law. The immigrants then followed. There was no chance for gunslingers, whiskey traders, and bandit gangs to establish themselves in the new territories. In the USA, however, the territories before statehood were basically in a state of anarchy, and every sort of organized vice and violence moved into the vacuum and flourished. This tended to produce a culture with much violence, and the law came a good deal later and then tried to cope with the violence.

Look at the history of Prohibition in the USA, and the explosion of organized crime and violence that that produced! During the same period Canada had legal alcohol...and did not suffer the wave of crime that swept across the USA.

The USA seems to have had a tendency on the one had toward extreme laissez-faire lack of legal order...and then extremely puritan over-reaction in the other direction, as evidence in the completely stupid idea of Prohibition, an idea which couldn't possibly succeed in a culture where most people WANT to drink alcohol.

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

Rap,

Google up "Number of Americans Shot Every Year"... This figure is 100% accurate... You are using "murders" rather than "Shot"... This information ain't hard to find... If your Google-ator ain't Googlin' then let me know and I'll find some sources...

Oh, Google "Brady Bill Gun Control"... That oughtta get you where you need to go...

B~

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

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

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: 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: 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: 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,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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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
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: 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: 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: 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: 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: GUEST
Date: 10 Sep 13 - 07:13 PM

A brief history of 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: 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: 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: 11 Sep 13 - 10:41 AM

LOL!!!

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 - 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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 - 04:53 PM

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

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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: GUEST,achmelvich
Date: 14 Sep 13 - 09:25 PM

yes

Subject: RE: BS: Do we need stricter gun laws?
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 15 Sep 13 - 01:55 AM

"Criminals will find a way to get them regardless of your useless laws. "
.,,.
True, here in the UK also --

but beside the point. It's not the criminals, who are breaking the law anyhow so have a 'sheep-as-lamb' take on the matter, who are the main problem...

but the respectable people who get angry & happen to have a deadly weapon to hand, so kill or harm seriously someone with it, which they would not do if it were not to hand.

I have said at some point on every thread on this topic in the last 4 years (& just count them!) that the rest of the world looks on in disbelief at that powerful nation so full of wise people ~~ the leaders of the civilised world, no less ~~ which nevertheless can't get heads round this simple fact; and continue to dysfunction in a manner pretty well unique to them as a result. If you don't believe me, just look again at those helpful annual statistics provided by Wiki {"List of countries by firearm-related death rate"} of the number of gun fatalities, country by country, which I have cited before: in single, or at most double figures everywhere except the US; where it is a 4-figure number ~~~

& be ashamed of your disgracefully dysfunctional non-laws...

~M~

Subject: RE: BS: Do we need stricter gun laws?
From: GUEST,TIA
Date: 15 Sep 13 - 02:10 AM

" hammers, cars, knives, etc will all be outlawed or require strict government regulations to own "

hammers are designed to do what?

cars are designed to do what ?

knives are designed to do what ?




and guns are designed to do what ?


When you can build a house, take your kids to school, and whittle a flute with a gun, your a-hole argument will begin to make sense.

Subject: RE: BS: Do we need stricter gun laws?
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 15 Sep 13 - 02:26 AM

And, anyhow, cars do require strict government regulations to own, at that, don't they? & people who harm others with them are very likely to lose the right to own them...

~M~

Subject: RE: BS: Do we need stricter gun laws?
From: Greg F.
Date: 15 Sep 13 - 11:00 AM

they are doing it often involuntarily, having been drafted (in the US at least)

NOT. Hasn't been a draft in the US since Vietnam. Don't believe Britain has a draft. Can't think of any of the European countries that do.

Also, THIS raises a valid point.

My country, right or wrong; if right, to be kept right; and if wrong, to be set right.
   -Carl Schurz

Subject: RE: BS: Do we need stricter gun laws?
From: dick greenhaus
Date: 15 Sep 13 - 11:30 AM

Doesn't everyone find the thought of a legally blind (or spastic) or otherwise physically limited, or criminal gun owner comforting?

Subject: RE: BS: Do we need stricter gun laws?
From: Greg F.
Date: 15 Sep 13 - 12:00 PM

Youse gotta problem wid dat, Dick?

Subject: RE: BS: Do we need stricter gun laws?
From: Greg F.
Date: 15 Sep 13 - 12:04 PM

Ooops. Operator error. Lets try THIS

Subject: RE: BS: Do we need stricter gun laws?
From: GUEST
Date: 15 Sep 13 - 04:03 PM

""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)""

Even if one corrects for the population difference, (lets say Canada is roughly 10 percent of the population of the USA), the gun crime stats differences are still significant-Canada being much lower. Maybe it's guns, maybe it's the wacko users, or maybe it's just that some in the USA don't give a darn what happens in Canada and choose to remain misinformed of what happens elsewhere, or find it too crime free and dull and stay home in the US of A (thank you for some of that, US crime fellas) - who knows the entire reasons for the differences :)

Subject: RE: BS: Do we need stricter gun laws?
From: dick greenhaus
Date: 15 Sep 13 - 10:14 PM

"
"Criminals will find a way to get them regardless of your useless laws. "

Great logic. Therefor we shouldn't have any laws, since criminals disregard them.

Subject: RE: BS: Do we need stricter gun laws?
From: gnu
Date: 15 Sep 13 - 11:09 PM

LH... misunderstanding. My apologies.

As for the rest of the comments, it amazes me that yet another gun thread will go on and on. Literally thousands of posts on this topic have choked the chicken here in Mudcat for years. And few really get it.

Guns don't kill people. Bad gun laws kill people. You can't sentence a gun to pay for committing a crime. If you don't regulate who can own a gun and what kind of gun they can own, you can never limit crimes involving guns. BUT, you cannot take guns away from Yanks and Canucks. If you tell a Yank or a Canuck they have to give up all of their guns... well, they just think yer a fucked up idiot that must live amongst a bunch of truly fucked up idiots that can't be trusted to be a responsible gun owner. Seriously, most Yanks and Canucks are smart enough to be responsible gun owners. Unfortunately, we have bad gun laws that allow misuse and abuse. Hopefully, we can get that rectified. But, NObody will ever take all of our guns away so shut the fuck up about it.

It's not guns. It's the gun laws.

See ya in another thousand posts.

Subject: RE: BS: Do we need stricter gun laws?
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 16 Sep 13 - 04:19 AM

"It's the gun-laws"

Yep, gun laws that allow any Tom, dick and harriet to own guns, and a constitution that actively encourages it.

Anyone who believes that gun-nuts are a few sausages short of a barbecue should come and live here, where we have good gun laws designed to limit gun ownership very strictly indeed, so almost nobody has a gun, and almost nobody gets shot, .

Anyone spot the correlation there?

Subject: RE: BS: Do we need stricter gun laws?
From: GUEST,Spleen Cringe
Date: 16 Sep 13 - 08:12 AM

Why would anyone want a gun? Weird.

Subject: RE: BS: Do we need stricter gun laws?
From: dick greenhaus
Date: 16 Sep 13 - 08:47 AM

"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."
THe key phrase here is "not allowing anyone to touch it" which sounds suspiciously like a gun law. Absent this, how long would it be until someone picked up the gun and shot somebody?

Subject: RE: BS: Do we need stricter gun laws?
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 16 Sep 13 - 08:52 AM

"Why would anyone want a gun? Weird."

Why, to protect themselves from 'The Bad Guys' and 'Mad-Dog Killers' of course!
What they really need protection from is their own pants-pissing fear and paranoia.

Subject: RE: BS: Do we need stricter gun laws?
From: Stringsinger
Date: 16 Sep 13 - 02:38 PM

It may be that this is based on ideas that can't be legislated but certain laws prohibiting automatic weapons and clips that contain many bullets can be implemented.

The US is crazy with a gun culture that apparently is politically and Ideologically motivated and fueled by the nutty NRA. Canada and Switzerland have about as many guns as in the US but don't have mass shootings as we do here on a regular basis.

Once again, the Constitution has been perverted and misread. Gun owners by in large are not a well-regulated militia.

Automatic guns were designed to kill people even though they are used secondarily for target practice. The crazy NRA supports their ownership distorting the Second Amendment.

Does it say something that you can use a gun owner license to vote but you must have a government ID if you don't have one. The message, only gun owners have the right to vote without any other documentation. The Voting Rights Act has been gutted by the Roberts Court. (Thread creep).

Movies, video games, TV shows all bow and give oblations to the Almighty Gun.

Subject: RE: BS: Do we need stricter gun laws?
From: GUEST,Ed T
Date: 16 Sep 13 - 05:56 PM

Are you choking the chicken again gnu? You will go blind doing that:)

Subject: RE: BS: Do we need stricter gun laws?
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 16 Sep 13 - 06:04 PM

It's total bollocks Greg F!

If the supply of volunteer soldiers dried up and America's government wanted to fight, they'd reinstate the draft in a New York minute.

The only reason that there was no draft for Iraq or Afghanistan, was the fact that their technological advantage was such that they needed only the existing volunteer forces.

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: Do we need stricter gun laws?
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 16 Sep 13 - 06:08 PM

""It's not guns. It's the gun laws.""

And here I was, thinking that was the subject of the thread.

Well, you live and learn!

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: Do we need stricter gun laws?
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 16 Sep 13 - 06:15 PM

And on the news today, another mass shooting with thirteen reported fatalities at a US Naval base.

Ho hum!

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: Do we need stricter gun laws?
From: Greg F.
Date: 16 Sep 13 - 06:45 PM

f the supply of volunteer soldiers dried up...& etc.

That's as may be, Don, but your idea that soldiers in the US are serving " They are doing a job you or I wouldn't relish and they are doing it often involuntarily" because of the draft is what's REALLY bollocks.

Subject: RE: BS: Do we need stricter gun laws?
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 16 Sep 13 - 06:50 PM

Ed T: "Are you choking the chicken again gnu? You will go blind doing that:)"

He'll see to it!

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Do we need stricter gun laws?
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 18 Sep 13 - 12:11 AM

"And on the news today, another mass shooting with thirteen reported fatalities at a US Naval base."

Yep, and the result will be a few million more guns sold to the small-dick, John Wayne wannabes. My wife has a theory that Americans are all idiots. I've always disputed that with her but, certainly where firearms are concerned, I'm beginning to think she might be right.

Subject: RE: BS: Do we need stricter gun laws?
From: Stringsinger
Date: 18 Sep 13 - 09:35 AM

Gun regulation would cut down the mass shootings because there would be prohibition on automatic weapons being sold. People who were mentally unstable could be identified
and refused after a comprehensive background check. Criminals would still be able
to obtain these weapons but might be isolated easier by law enforcement.

The NRA is an accomplice to the mass shootings taking place in the US. They have bought Congress and made them fearful. The NRA is a dictator not unlike Assad. They have not come out against more sophisticated weaponry. They have no scruples about the usage
of firearms.

Regulation of firearms should be as stringent as the rights for automobile owners, with liability insurance needed, testing for competency, and laws governing the use of cars.

The "well regulated militia" among firearms owners and the NRA doesn't exist. It's NRA's distortion of the meaning of the Second Amendment that intends no "standing army" in peacetime.

Subject: RE: BS: Do we need stricter gun laws?
From: Greg F.
Date: 18 Sep 13 - 09:49 AM

thirteen reported fatalities at a US Naval base


Hey, the shooter was exercising his Constitutional rights.

The fact that he was a nutcase with any number of run-ins with the Police is immaterial.

It doesn't matter how many innocent thousands are gunned down in the US annually, the defense ofConstitutional rights takes precedence.

Subject: RE: BS: Do we need stricter gun laws?
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 18 Sep 13 - 09:53 AM

The only point I'd argue on is......"Regulation of firearms should be as stringent as the rights for automobile owners, with liability insurance needed, testing for competency, and laws governing the use of cars."

In the UK the regulation of firearms is considerably stricter than for cars, and rightly so. Which is why hardly anyone here owns a gun, and hardly anyone gets shot.

IT WORKS.

Subject: RE: BS: Do we need stricter gun laws?
From: PHJim
Date: 18 Sep 13 - 10:45 AM

From: gnu - PM
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."

That definition makes it sound like all or even most Canucks own guns. Very few of my friends own guns and those who do own hunting rifles. Canadian handgun owners are not commonplace.
Canadians and Americans are not all that different. We watch the same violent TV shows and movies, play the same violent video games, have the same proportion mental disorders and bad people, and Justin Bieber has shown the world that the "polite Canadian thing" is a myth, yet somehow Americans are statistically much more likely to die from guns than are Canadians.

Subject: RE: BS: Do we need stricter gun laws?
From: Mr Happy
Date: 18 Sep 13 - 10:54 AM

In the greatest democracy in the world, the majority of the population must like guns so much & murder so commonplace, that they're not really concerned about changing laws.

I'm glad I don't live there!

Subject: RE: BS: Do we need stricter gun laws?
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 18 Sep 13 - 11:52 AM

"the only point I'd argue on is......"Regulation of firearms should be as stringent as the rights for automobile owners, with liability insurance needed, testing for competency, and laws governing the use of cars."

In the UK the regulation of firearms is considerably stricter than for cars, and rightly so. Which is why hardly anyone here owns a gun, and hardly anyone gets shot. "

And, of course, the vast majority of British people have absolutely no desire whatsoever to own a gun, and have the sense to realise that you're not safer if you have a gun, in fact it's more likely that you'll be shot by an armed assailant if you have a firearm.

Subject: RE: BS: Do we need stricter gun laws?
From: Mr Happy
Date: 18 Sep 13 - 11:59 AM

'And, of course, the vast majority of British people have absolutely no desire whatsoever to own a gun'

Good point

It really beats me why anyone would want a firearm?

Subject: RE: BS: Do we need stricter gun laws?
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 18 Sep 13 - 01:06 PM

It's interesting the way people talk about the American Constutution as if it was set in stne, and the Supreme Court just interpreted what was there all the time. In fact, in this as in other matters, the situation has been that over the years it has ruled one way and ruled another, and twisted and turned to meet the political views of the panel of judges.

So for example in 1939 it ruled that either the federal government or the states were perfectly entitled to limit any waepons types not having a "reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia". In 1876 it ruled that any limitations on imposing restrictions on bearing arms only applied to the Federal government. In 2010 it ruled precisely the reverse"...

Subject: RE: BS: Do we need stricter gun laws?
From: GUEST,John from Kemsing
Date: 19 Sep 13 - 12:18 PM

Many, many years ago in London, a policeman was shot and killed while attempting to arrest two burglars on the roof of a warehouse. It was a time when only soldiers carried guns. The newspapers were engaged with this story for ages. Shock! Horror! Policeman killed by armed robber! This was the notorious Craig and Bently case, a tale of questionable capital punishment in itself.

       Today, in cities such as Manchester and Nottingham and East London the police are having to deal with gun incidents by gang members with illegal possession on a daily basis, sometimes resulting in deaths or injuries. Even automatic machine type guns from certain Eastern bloc countries have been confiscated.

       My, how things have changed!

Subject: RE: BS: Do we need stricter gun laws?
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 19 Sep 13 - 01:00 PM

Nonsense. Don't believe everything you read in the tabloids.

Subject: RE: BS: Do we need stricter gun laws?
From: Rapparee
Date: 19 Sep 13 - 05:54 PM

I think we need better people. Desperately.

Subject: RE: BS: Do we need stricter gun laws?
From: Stringsinger
Date: 19 Sep 13 - 06:01 PM

The problem lies with the political clout of the NRA and the cowardly Congress who refuses to oppose them. Actually, the NRA is indirectly responsible for the mass shootings in the US and until their lobbying efforts and political control is curtailed, there will be more.

Stricter gun laws will have an effect on curtailing mass shootings although not eliminate them entirely because of the ideological nature of a gun culture that misinterprets the Second Amendment.

Not every person has a right or privilege to gun ownership and the owner
should be made accountable through liability insurance, mental stability, competence in handling a weapon through background checks and licensing and automatic weapons should be banned.

Subject: RE: BS: Do we need stricter gun laws?
From: bobad
Date: 19 Sep 13 - 07:15 PM

"It really beats me why anyone would want a firearm?"

In the US they say it's for protection against all the other persons with firearms - they don't get it.

Subject: RE: BS: Do we need stricter gun laws?
From: Bobert
Date: 19 Sep 13 - 08:39 PM

When does the government of the people and by the people fail???

When 90% of Americans want back ground checks and this chicken-shit Congress listens only to the 10% of gun wackos...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: Do we need stricter gun laws?
From: Teribus
Date: 20 Sep 13 - 02:19 AM

2012 - Afghanistan - population 31,108,077 - people killed 2,754 - 0.008%.

2012 - Chicago - population 2,714,856 - people killed 506 - 0.018%

In Chicago in 2012 there was a shooting every 3.5 hours.

Unfortunately the reality is that the bad guys will always get the guns - our experience in Britain shows us that and we must have the strictest gun laws in the world.

Subject: RE: BS: Do we need stricter gun laws?
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 20 Sep 13 - 04:28 AM

2011 - United Kingdom - population c. 60,000,000 - deaths by gunshot 146
2011 - United Kingdom - population c. 60,000,000 - homicides by gunshot 38

Proof (if any is needed) that the UK's gun laws, unlike those of the US, actually work.

source: gun policy.org

Subject: RE: BS: Do we need stricter gun laws?
From: Howard Jones
Date: 20 Sep 13 - 02:37 PM

In reply to John of Kemsing, yes things certainly have changed in the UK and guns are being used more often by criminals than used to be the case. However the difference is that these are largely used by gang members and other criminals against each other, rather than when committing crimes against members of the public. It would be very unusual for an ordinary burglar or even a mugger to carry a gun. Armed robbery is treated very seriously by the courts and given far heavier sentences. The police are still ordinarily unarmed and special units attend gun incidents.

Hardly anyone here feels the need to have a gun for their own protection, because it is overwhelmingly unlikely that we will ever be faced with an armed attacker. And while we are not immune from the occasional nutter running amok, it happens far less often because our nutters usually aren't able to lay their hands on guns.

Subject: RE: BS: Do we need stricter gun laws?
From: Stringsinger
Date: 20 Sep 13 - 04:33 PM

The odd irony is that people in the US who say they want a gun for protection would probably not know how to use it if faced with a criminal who does. There are very few reports of US citizens being able to protect themselves with a weapon successfully. There are no competency tests with background checks.

Most people who own guns are subject to theft of their weapons by criminals or kids who get into the gun closets.

Britain has the right idea here.

When I went up for jury duty, I told the defense attorney for the guy who used a gun in the commission of a crime that I would immediately pronounce him guilty. I didn't get selected for the jury, obviously.

Subject: RE: BS: Do we need stricter gun laws?
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 21 Sep 13 - 08:19 PM

Actually those statistics don't prove that it's the strict gun laws in the UK that prevent everybody getting hold of guns and shooting anybody in sight. Rather the strict gun laws reflect the fact that there's overwhelming revulsion at the idea that guns should be readily available, or should be seen as a normal part of life.

In fact it's not so long ago it was well into the 20th century that there were any gun control laws in the UK, and use of guns was pretty limited even before then.

As has been said here a few times, the problem in the States isn't so much the laws, it's the culture.

As for the NRA, that's only in the hands of crazies because the people who aren't crazy - more especially the gun owners who aren't crazy - don't take it over and turn it around so it supported sensible policies.

Subject: RE: BS: Do we need stricter gun laws?
From: Tradsinger
Date: 22 Sep 13 - 04:33 AM

It's a simple equation - less guns in the community means less dead people. Full stop.

Subject: RE: BS: Do we need stricter gun laws?
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 22 Sep 13 - 12:55 PM

McG, I'm pretty sure that the fact that our laws require a person to show a very good reason for possession of a firearm, and that 'self-protection against "The Bad Guys" or "Mad-Dog Killers" is NOT acceptable as a good reason within those laws, the vast majority of people who might otherwise be attracted to gun-ownership or possession are deterred from even considering it.

But I agree that the majority of British people rightly regard private ownership of guns, and the willingness to use them against other human beings, as an obscenity and a perversion in a civilised society.

Subject: RE: BS: Do we need stricter gun laws?
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 22 Sep 13 - 02:08 PM

""As for the NRA, that's only in the hands of crazies because the people who aren't crazy - more especially the gun owners who aren't crazy - don't take it over and turn it around so it supported sensible policies.""

Here's a thought!

Campaign for all those Americans who favour sensible and strictly enforced control of gun ownership to pay the membership fee and join the NRA.

Then make the crazy bastards back off and do it your way. The democratic process at work!!......Simples!

Providing of course that there are any Americans who genuinely care.

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: Do we need stricter gun laws?
From: GUEST
Date: 22 Sep 13 - 02:28 PM

That does seem a pretty obvious approach, Don. If it's actually true that most gun owners are sensible enough people, who have nothing against sensible rules, such as having proper checks and limitations on who can get hold of guns, all they need to do is take back control of the NRA.

The fact that that hasn't happened suggests that most gun owners are in fact nuts. But maybe it,s more a matter of apathy.

Subject: RE: BS: Do we need stricter gun laws?
From: Stringsinger
Date: 22 Sep 13 - 02:59 PM

In the US culture, violence is celebrated on TV, Video Games, Movies and in the para-military and military. Gun ownership is considered a sign of masculinity (maybe in place of a penis) and the apathy of the public is based on helplessness.

Stricter gun laws, although they won't eliminate the problem, don't reinforce the violence.
These laws make it less easy for NRA lobbyists to get to politicians and take the guns out
of the hands of those who are crazy.

The analogy is, the Civil Rights Movement where you can't legislate prejudice but you can make it easier for minorities to vote, attend a restaurant with decent service, and not be refused work due to race or ethnicity.

The NRA represents not the gun owners per se but the gun manufacturers who are getting rich at the expense of human life. These manufacturers are part of a bigger military industrial complex. Greed at the expense of human lives.

Subject: RE: BS: Do we need stricter gun laws?
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 22 Sep 13 - 03:14 PM

""The fact that that hasn't happened suggests that most gun owners are in fact nuts. But maybe it,s more a matter of apathy.""

I didn't suggest that sensible gun owners join.

I said ""Campaign for all those Americans who favour sensible and strictly enforced control of gun ownership to pay the membership fee and join the NRA.""

I would assume that there should be no difficulty persuading the NRA to accept your subscription, whether you own a gun or not, but I am of course open to contradiction from anyone who can state that this isn't the case.

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: Do we need stricter gun laws?
From: Greg F.
Date: 22 Sep 13 - 06:51 PM

Unfortunately, the composition of the membership doesn't matter, Don, since the NRA is no longer, and hasn't ben for a long time - a real membership organization. Its a lobbying and propaganda outfit bought and paid for by the gun manufacturers.

Greg F - former NRA member.

PS: The fact that the overwhelming majority of USAsians favor the Affordable Care Act and health care reform hasn't stopped the House TeaPublicans from voting 40-plus times to rescind it, at a cost of ca. 1.5 million per vote.

We're dealing with real brain death here.

Subject: RE: BS: Do we need stricter gun laws?
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 22 Sep 13 - 08:41 PM

I don't know about your legal system in the States, but I can't imagine that an organisation with members can very easily change that status so that it has no kind of membership control.

Some churches can work on that basis, where there has never been any kind of internal democracy, but my understanding is that any kind of voluntary organisation has requirements on those lines. At least that applies in the country I live in.

I'd suspect that in a legal assault on the hostility to democratic control of the current NRA the issue of whether non-gunowners should be able to take over the organisation might be a significant issue, which is why in my post at 2:28 ((which I accidentally put in as a GUEST) I suggested that the responsibility for exorcising the NRA should lie primarily with sane gunowners. I'm assuming that gnu isn't unique.