 sj |
||
|
||
BS: Gun control
|
|
|
Subject: BS: Gun control From: GUEST,Bainbo Date: 21 Mar 05 - 08:29 PM Miand now Red Lake, Minnesota |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Gun control From: Peace Date: 21 Mar 05 - 08:42 PM Red Lake The story is at the top. |
|
Subject: BS: Gun control From: GUEST,Bainbo Date: 21 Mar 05 - 08:45 PM Houston, Texas (one two-year-old dead); Milwaukee, Wisconsin (seven dead); and now Red Lake, Minnesota (eight dead). For God's sake, America, how bad does it have to get before anybody suggests some degree of gun control? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Gun control From: Bobert Date: 21 Mar 05 - 08:49 PM Guns don't kill people, people kill people.... (spit)... Commie... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Gun control From: Rustic Rebel Date: 21 Mar 05 - 08:51 PM I just heard this news on public radio. 8 people dead, including the shooter. I live about 60 miles from the school. Some articles |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Gun control From: GUEST,Bainbo Date: 21 Mar 05 - 08:56 PM But if the people who kill the people can't get hold of the guns... ? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Gun control From: Clinton Hammond Date: 21 Mar 05 - 09:01 PM Guns are for pussies |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Gun control From: Bobert Date: 21 Mar 05 - 09:05 PM That's right, Clinton... Me and you (spit) could take on a about a dozen of them "pussies" with just our wits and fists... Sho nuff could... (spit)... Bobert |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Gun control From: Rapparee Date: 21 Mar 05 - 09:40 PM He apparently killed his grandparents -- his grandfather was an ex-cop -- and used his grandfather's police-issued weapon in the shootings. The school is located on a sovereign Indian reservation. Fifteen wounded, five dead at the school, including the shooter, according to the FBI (who would have jurisdiction, since the incident occured on an Indian reservation). |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Gun control From: GUEST,from Minnesota too Date: 21 Mar 05 - 10:09 PM I expect this story won't have much in the way of legs. I doubt it will even put the Schiavo story off the top of the page for long, because the people involved are desperately poor people of color, on a remote, impoverished reservation. They weren't pretty suburban blondes, with well educated parents who look and sound good for the cameras and microphones. God, I hate these school shootings. When I walk into work in my inner city St. Paul high school tomorrow, it's going to be very crazy because of this. The kids are just freaked out. We have some kids with relatives on Red Lake, who go back and forth between here and the rez, and they will know the families involved. This just sucks. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Gun control From: Clinton Hammond Date: 21 Mar 05 - 11:56 PM I have no desire to 'take anyone on' If it was my world, only the military and cops would have access to guns... Be glad it's not.... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Gun control From: GUEST,Chongo Chimp Date: 22 Mar 05 - 12:19 AM Well, I was waitin' for a perfect world for years and years. Then I realized it ain't gonna happen. You put guns in ordinary people's hands, that can be dangerous. You put guns only in the hands of cops and soldiers, that can be dangerous too, if the government gets on a certain kind of power trip. Either way. It all depends on about 10,000 different variables which I ain't gonna bore you with by listing them all here. But I'll speak of a few. There ain't a lot of murders in Switzerland, but it ain't because of guns or no guns, it's because you got a different society there with a way different social consciousness. There are 10 times as many people in the USA as in Canada, but way more than 10 times as many murders in the USA. Different social consciousness. No new law or change in the law is going to suddenly make it all go away, folks. There ain't no magic wand out there that a legislator can pull outta his pocket and suddenly make your world safe again. If there was...they woulda done it by now. There has always been a lotta gun violence in the USA. It's a tradition, goin' right back to Davy Crockett and Wild Bill Hickock and Baby Face Nelson. That sort of thing tends to repeat itself, specially in the face of factors like grinding urban poverty and suburban alienation. As for country folks (in more of a wilderness environment), they will always have guns...because in many cases they need them. How are you gonna pass restrictive laws that are flexible enough to take their special circumstances into account? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Gun control From: GUEST,The Shambles Date: 22 Mar 05 - 03:07 AM The idea that guns are not the problem but the solution to every problem is the most dangerous concept. A concept still being being promoted by just about every movie. And when movie stars like Ronnie and Arnie are elected into power - this simplistic and fictional approach is one that many voters appear to be voting for. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Gun control From: GUEST Date: 22 Mar 05 - 03:16 AM more carelessness? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Gun control From: John MacKenzie Date: 22 Mar 05 - 04:16 AM It seems odd that the Grandfather as an EX cop, still had his police issue gun, did he still wear his uniform too? I mean when you retire you give the tools of the trade back don't you? Giok |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Gun control From: GUEST Date: 22 Mar 05 - 04:33 AM In the bbc report linked to, a local fire chief reports seeing the boy coming into the school with a number of weapons? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Gun control From: GUEST Date: 22 Mar 05 - 05:34 AM You need to carry a gun to defend yourself against nutters like that. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Gun control From: RangerSteve Date: 22 Mar 05 - 06:26 AM Giok, in my department, we have the option of purchasing our guns when we retire. I imagine it's the same in other departments. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Gun control From: John O'L Date: 22 Mar 05 - 07:04 AM "God, I hate these school shootings." - Guest from Minnesota too Is that what it's come to then? God I hate these rainy days, these parking cops, these warms beers, these cold hot dogs, these school shootings. How many more will there be before it doesn't even rate a mention? It's pretty plain to see that loaded guns are just too easy to get. It might be people who do the killing but access to a loaded gun makes it a first option rather than a later one, or perhaps even one that might be out of the question. NB: I'm not just talking about the USA here, I don't know wnat per capita rates are for any countries, but I see it in the news enough to tell me that the rates are too high everywhere. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Gun control From: kendall Date: 22 Mar 05 - 07:53 AM Chongo, right on. To blame guns for the actions of a few nuts is like blaming cars for killing or maiming 50,000 Americans a year. What we need is a change of attitude. A killing doesn't start with the availability of a gun, it starts with the desire to harm someone, and a baseball bat, knife or poison will do the job too. I dare say most of us would like to harm someone, but we are able to control the desire and weigh the consequences. Those nut cases lack the impulse control that most of us have. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Gun control From: GUEST Date: 22 Mar 05 - 08:07 AM Like I said above, the victims weren't pretty suburban blondes. This story will disappear in no time because the shooter and victims are poor people of color living on a remote reservation. The kid's mother is in a nursing home (car accident)and his father committed suicide last year. He was being raised by the grandparents. With an ex-BIA cop as the new authority in his life who was apparently a real jerk (according to a friend of mine from Red Lake who is a former district attorney in the area who had a couple of cases dealing with guy), on top of being mercilessly bullied at school, this kid never stood much of a chance either. So he took out his pain and rage at the world with grandpa's guns. Of course, the right wing press is painting him as a "goth" teen and neo-nazi. It's going to be a long week for those of us who work in Minnesota high schools. I hate being this cynical, but I have to say--what do people expect when we treat kids like this shooter like human garbage, and put him in a house full of guns in our society? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Gun control From: Wolfgang Date: 22 Mar 05 - 08:44 AM Jeff Weise's opinions posted in a Nationalist Forum (link goes to cache) "Todesengel" = "death angel" Wolfgang |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Gun control From: gnu Date: 22 Mar 05 - 08:49 AM GUEST said : "...being mercilessly bullied at school, ..." We have a large campaign underway in Canada to stop this type of abuse. Ads and programs on TV, radio, internet, and telephone help lines, school initiatives, and so on. One of the most positive things to come along in years. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Gun control From: GUEST Date: 22 Mar 05 - 08:57 AM We have one of those programs going on at my high school too. The kids ignore it, and the staff agrees it isn't making a dent, because the culture of public education institutions can't deal with the sort of systemic change in it's authoritarian behavior to make it effective, especially when no change is being initiated in the communities the kids live in. So thanks for those links Wolfgang, proving how quickly we can reduce the shooter to cartoon goth nazi caricature. As if that explains a fucking thing as to why he did this. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Gun control From: Rapparee Date: 22 Mar 05 - 09:02 AM Dear God, Wolfgang. 1. Many jurisdictions present the sidearm(s) they carried to cops when they retire. The State of Idaho recently voted to do the same for Conservation Officers (game wardens), as they too are sworn and trained police officers. 2. I don't have enough data on this to determine carelessness -- but to take two handguns and a shotgun to a school with the intent of doing harm is neither careless nor accidental. It's the action of someone who is mentally ill -- and why wasn't this discovered and treated? 3. Because, in answer to #2, the people involved are dirt poor, rural, and non-white. And many are without hope. Visit any Indian reservation; visit the Inuit and the Yupiq. Study the incidence of crime and drug use, and then tell me how well we treat a culture with 40% unemployment (as the Shoshone-Bannocks have here). 4. I just wonder how long before the poor in the United States will continue before they see the pie in the sky they are fed for what it is. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Gun control From: Big Mick Date: 22 Mar 05 - 09:07 AM At Columbine, the perps also made a number of bombs and grenades out of some fairly ordinary product, as I recall. Perhaps we should get rid of these, as well. And those friggin' airplanes that they flew into those buildings, they need to go. McVeigh used fertilizer and I believe that makes a helluva case for getting rid of this very dangerous substance. Andrea, the Texas Mom, drowned her babies in a bathtub, time for those to go while we are on the kick. I have no yank with countries for whom weapons are not a part of their culture. I have no issue with those who choose not to have them in their homes. But they have been a part of this country's culture since its inception. They are not going anywhere, despite the persistent attacks. Money and time would be much better spent trying to find out what would drive a young man to kill his grandparents and classmates and then attacking the problem. Solve the issue of hopelessness and helplessness, and you go a long way to ending this stuff. Make serious attacks on the issues of the widening gap between the richest and poorest instead of providing tax breaks for multinational corporations, and you provide real economic stimulus. Stop bullying in our schools, and take real steps to nurture the least among us, and you won't see much of this shit. Mick |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Gun control From: GUEST,Jon Date: 22 Mar 05 - 09:11 AM Rapaire, from what Guest a few posts above said he was not mentally ill. Just angry and hurt. If he was bullied, he may have been bullied once to often and most of us have breaking points. I don't think any mental health treatment will stop a person feeling they have been pushed that one step too far and feel that quite reasonably. I think it's more a case that loaded guns are a dangerous thing to have around in that situation. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Gun control From: GUEST,Bainbo Date: 22 Mar 05 - 09:12 AM The difference with aeroplanes, fertilizer and bathtubs is that they aren't made, sold, or bought with the intention of killing or injuring. Guns only have one purpose. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Gun control From: GUEST Date: 22 Mar 05 - 09:13 AM Menatl illness is often undetected until the person makes a plea for help. Until then it can be passed off as teenage angst. This was his plea for help. If he didnt have access to guns nine people may be alive today. Had he gone in armed with a baseball bat he would have been overpowered sooner rather than later. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Gun control From: Big Mick Date: 22 Mar 05 - 09:19 AM Really, Bainbo? How is it that of all the folks I know who own guns, none (outside of a wartime environment) have killed another human being? Thought ever occur to you that we own them for hunting, shooting sports, etc? This country has had an armed citizenry from its inception. The people that commit these crimes don't do it because guns are available, they do it because they are sick. I don't have a source, but I am willing to bet you that in excess of 90% of those who own weapons have never committed a crime with them, nor will they. Mick |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Gun control From: Big Mick Date: 22 Mar 05 - 09:23 AM And by the way, Bainbo, your argument actually supports mine. The largest mass murders have occurred with things that had nothing to do with guns. People kill, they will find the means. If this sick kid in Minnesota had walked in with a knife and stabbed 10 folks, would that be different? If he had taken some fertilizer and kerosene and blown the school up, would the argument be the same? Or would you be angry that our society has failed these young folks to the point that they murder others? Mick |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Gun control From: GUEST Date: 22 Mar 05 - 09:27 AM Big Mick I am sure you are right with the figures. But if my kids were among the dead, those figures would offer no comfort to me. I read Bainbo's post that the only purpose guns had was to be shot. That IS their only purpose and once they are available we are humanly unable to police who shoots what. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Gun control From: GUEST Date: 22 Mar 05 - 09:32 AM If he had a knife the chances are he would have also been overpowered. He would have had to be in very close proximity to his victims and at risk himself of being taken out with a chair. He would probably have been spotted lugging in enough kerosene and fertilizer to blow up the school. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Gun control From: Rapparee Date: 22 Mar 05 - 09:32 AM As I said earlier, I have too little data upon which to base an opinion. My thought is that he was mentally ill (read the posts that Wolfgang has linked to), and I more than suspect he was definitely at the end of hope. Jon, in the posts he states that he had been in some fights at school but there is no indication that he was bullied, at least that I could find. He makes reference to his "size" preventing others from picking on him. A gun points and fires in only one direction at a time. Like a ball bat wielder, why didn't someone or a group tackle the shooter? It's been done before. But I don't have enough data -- and I don't think I'll get it from the news feeds. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Gun control From: GUEST Date: 22 Mar 05 - 09:36 AM why didn't someone or a group tackle the shooter? For the same reason thousands don't every year? They were scared? That isn't a crime. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Gun control From: GUEST,Jon Date: 22 Mar 05 - 09:40 AM Rapaire, I was reading Guest: 22 Mar 8:07AM (a name would help...) He said: The kid's mother is in a nursing home (car accident)and his father committed suicide last year. He was being raised by the grandparents. With an ex-BIA cop as the new authority in his life who was apparently a real jerk (according to a friend of mine from Red Lake who is a former district attorney in the area who had a couple of cases dealing with guy), on top of being mercilessly bullied at school, this kid never stood much of a chance either. So he took out his pain and rage at the world with grandpa's guns. I wouldn't know about tackling someone with a gun. I'd have thought many people would be too scared and it would need someone with experience. But I don't live in a country where guns are common. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Gun control From: Big Mick Date: 22 Mar 05 - 09:41 AM Right, Rapaire, as usual you examine things in a more logical way. The point isn't what would have happened if he had a knife. The proper question is, if he HAD done it with a knife, bat, whatever, would your response be the same. In typical liberal logic, we treat the symptom instead of the disease. The point isn't that a gun was used to kill these unfortunates. It is that they were killed. That is why the McVeigh analogy, the Andrea analogy, and the 911 analogy are relevant. Guns in the US aren't going away. After all these years of trying by the anti gun lobby, there are more States with "shall issue" Concealed Carry Weapons Permits than ever. Deal with what caused the kid to kill, rather than what he used to kill. Then you make real progress, save lives, instead of just making yourself feel better over a simplistic band aid fix. Mick |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Gun control From: Midchuck Date: 22 Mar 05 - 09:42 AM The difference with aeroplanes, fertilizer and bathtubs is that they aren't made, sold, or bought with the intention of killing or injuring. Guns only have one purpose. If that's true, how could I have fired off hundreds and hundreds of rounds, mostly from handguns, and never once killed or injured anyone or anything, except whatever bugs or worms were living in the side hill I used as a backstop...as is in fact the case? (And those damn tin cans, of course...they're taking over. Gotta wipe 'em out!) Peer. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Gun control From: GUEST Date: 22 Mar 05 - 09:47 AM In typical liberal logic, we treat the symptom instead of the disease And that is where the difference in our opinion lies. I see the availability of guns as the disease. They are far easier to spot than mental illness in teenagers. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Gun control From: GUEST Date: 22 Mar 05 - 10:22 AM Guns is good says us Americans. That's how the west was won. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Gun control From: Big Mick Date: 22 Mar 05 - 10:29 AM Actually the difference is something quite different. I think we agree on the horrific nature of these crimes. And if I thought for one minute that you could limit the availability of guns, including my own, and stop gun violence, I would get behind it foursquare. It's my opinion that your logic is flawed in that you believe that you can get rid of guns. It ignores the fact that far in excess of 90% of legally owned weapons are never used for anything other than legitimate purposes. It also ignores the fact that most guns used in violent crime are illegally obtained. Each time a State tries to prohibit ordinary folks from owning guns, the criminals go to another State. When the Brady stuff came in, the criminals went to other countries. Violence by those that would do violence, never ends. All one does when they limit guns is take them away from ordinary, law abiding citizens. And finally, your logic fails because it is always based on these high profile cases. You try to use a disturbed teenager in Minnesota to make a case that every sportsman/woman knows isn't true. This is why the issue has never been won at the ballot box. And all the while you split the vote with folks that otherwise would agree with us on economic, working family issues. You send these folks over to vote for a war monger, and for what? So you can take away legitimately owned weapons from folks who have never committed a crime, and for the most part never will. Mick |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Gun control From: Kim C Date: 22 Mar 05 - 10:33 AM Umm, don't they have guns in other countries too? Even in countries where it's supposedly "illegal" for private citizens to own guns? There's been a loaded pistol in my house for 15 years. It's never even been fired. You can pass all the gun control laws you want - but criminals, by definition, don't obey laws. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Gun control From: GUEST Date: 22 Mar 05 - 10:38 AM To suggest a hypothetical "but what if he had made a fertilizer bomb or a knife" is ridiculous. The hypothetical questions should be "what would this kid have done if he hadn't had access to his grandfather's guns and police car"? Yes, he used his grandfather's cruiser to drive to the school. When I say he was ex-BIA, I didn't mean he was retired. The grandfather was employed as a Red Lake tribal cop. They don't have near the power that the BIA cops. I am not excusing what this kid did by a long shot. A lot of American Indian kids grow up in very similar circumstances on the rez (ie the issues related to poverty, poor parenting, losing parents,etc), but don't usually take out their rage and pain on others. It is more likely to be directed inward. The difference in this case seems to be access to the weapons and the bullying. All the local Minnesota news accounts are describing him as a loner who was bullied for his "odd looks". He was extremely tall apparently, and dressed in punk style, which would make him stand out on the rez in a way that he wouldn't in my inner city high school, where we have tons of kids dressing in punk fashions--they are very popular right now. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Gun control From: Big Mick Date: 22 Mar 05 - 10:44 AM Ahhh, I wondered when the voice of the great North would chime in. And with her/his own superior brand of logic too. Read this for comprehension, OK? Your beginning statement above To suggest a hypothetical "but what if he had made a fertilizer bomb or a knife" is ridiculous. is a gratuitous assertion. It can be just as gratuitously denied. Hence, you are full of shit. One more thing, you are attempting to move the discussion away from the point made. We call that "shifting the premise" in the big leagues. It angered you, IMO, that I pointed out the larger issue of splitting what otherwise would be a decent voting block over these tragic incidents. Mick |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Gun control From: GUEST Date: 22 Mar 05 - 10:45 AM I have always felt that all guns ought to be banned, they are an a menace, they serve no useful purpose and they do not need to exist. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Gun control From: Big Mick Date: 22 Mar 05 - 10:47 AM Now that was a well stated and succinct response. I understand, and respectfully disagree. All the best, Mick |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Gun control From: Peace Date: 22 Mar 05 - 10:58 AM I discussed the Red Lake tragedy with my students this morning. I then asked the students in the Grade 8 class how many owned guns. The answer was 63%. The total number of guns is more than the total number of students in the class. I also asked what the guns were for. The reply? Hunting and target shooting. One student is learning to restore guns--he and his dad are working on an older .22 rifle. Virtually 100% of the kids keep the ammunition in locked cabinets in different rooms from the rifles. I have no idea how many guns there are in Canada. I would guess a figure over 20,000,000. Last, when the only tool you have is a hammer, every problem looks like a nail. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Gun control From: kendall Date: 22 Mar 05 - 11:00 AM If I could wave a magic wand and eliminate all guns, I would do it in a heart beat. I can't, no one can. We must deal with things as they are, not as we wish they were. Kids need education; so do the teachers. Stop the bullies. If you see child abuse, call a cop, get involved or pay the cost of standing back doing nothing. A gun is like any other tool, it will harm no one until some nut case decides to "get even". Children getting a hold of unsecured guns is another story with another solution. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Gun control From: The Shambles Date: 22 Mar 05 - 11:06 AM Most justifications for censorship measures for pornography etc - use the fear of pornography falling into the hands of children. Is it not the same with guns? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Gun control From: Peace Date: 22 Mar 05 - 11:19 AM A naked person means little (in a sexual sense) to a child. So what then changes a naked person into pornography? Maybe the same thing that turns a rifle into a weapon. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Gun control From: Midchuck Date: 22 Mar 05 - 11:21 AM Part of the problem is that we are terrified of young people having access to pornography, because it might motivate them to have sex - like they needed motivation! - but we saturate them with proviolence propaganda of the most blatant sort, without thinking anything of it. Look at a video game catalog some time. I oppose censorship in either case - but some parental awareness of what the kids are being exposed to wouldn't hurt. Peter. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Gun control From: GUEST,petr Date: 22 Mar 05 - 11:36 AM well Im all in favour of gun control, but one just has to look at a country like Switzerland, where everyone has to go through military service and by law has to keep a loaded automatic weapon at home (albeit under lock and key) and compare Switzerlands murder rate (almost zero) with the US. It is much more a product of the culture, how we are raised what we are exposed to. In the typical American movie, problems are invariably solved with violence. That tells us something. The US murder rate is something like 25times that of the UK. BUt if one looks at other cultures, such as the Yanomami in south america who are very warlike, and encourage their kids (as soon as they walk) to go around and hit other kids with sticks. Their murder rate is 5000 times that of the US. Contrast that with the Kalahari bushmen who are the opposite, dont even spank their kids - its all cultural Im afraid. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Gun control From: The Shambles Date: 22 Mar 05 - 11:48 AM I always think that the best movie would start just when the camera is zooming back at the end of a typical violent movie. You know the scene - the hero is struggling off to hospital being helped by the tearful blond heroine and all around there are crashed cars and broken bodies, all lit by the flames from a burning building...... Apart from the interesting explanation from the hero, for the reasons for all of the carnage - it is at that point when the reality of what guns do to people's lives and the efforts of those who are trying to minimise this - becomes clear. But as with most of John Wayne's movies - the townsfolk's problems are all solved by the use of the old 'peacemaker' - in the right hands.... John Wayne was an actor....... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Gun control From: GUEST Date: 22 Mar 05 - 11:51 AM and a shite actor at that. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Gun control From: GUEST Date: 22 Mar 05 - 12:00 PM Ah kendall, the boy's legal guardian WAS a cop. I'm saying that the grandfather cop may have been part of the problem, not the solution. Cops aren't saints. They have the same problems everyone else has, they just have a lot more power and can do a lot more damage to society at large than the rest of us because of their authority. Our illustrious Bush selected Republican governor--who supported forcing the NRA backed conceal and carry laws in this state (that a majority of Minnesotans didn't support) through the MN legislature not so very long ago--is already doing the Republican grandstanding and political "pro gun lobby" exploitation of the situation we've seen in other school shootings. Politicians are scum. And the pro-guns folks are already on their usual talking points: the guns aren't the problem, but (fill in the blank) the internet, teen goth culture, video games, bad parenting, propensity towards violence of American Indians, etc. is what caused this kid to go nuts. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Gun control From: Azizi Date: 22 Mar 05 - 12:08 PM Brucie, I congratulate you for taking the time to discuss this tragedy with your students. There have been drive-by shootings and a number of other tragedies that have occurred near the elementary school where my daughter teaches,including a boy from the school who died of a heart attack while playing football with other children who also attend the school. My daughter discusses these tragedies with her class. However, through conversations with other teachers and other children enrolled at the school, she has learned that few other teachers take time from their schedules to discuss these tragedies. I guess teaching to the test was more important [sarcasm] or the teachers didn't know what to say. This makes a bad situation worse since children & youth need opportunities to talk about these kinds of occurences. Similarly, in the beginning of the school year at the school where my daughter teaches, two men associated with the school committed suicide. One was a new science teacher who had been at the school for 3 days. The other was a little league football coach who had been working with the students for years. The school system brought in a counselor for the science teacher who nobody knew and not one for the football coach..It would have been too much like right to have counselors available for the students for both of these tragedies. And again, few teachers discussed either tragedy in class or in after-school groups. Teachers and school administrators need to do a better job of meeting the needs on children in these non-academic situations. Again, Brucie, thanks for giving your students an opportunity to learn and share information and feelings about this tragedy. We need more teachers like you! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Gun control From: Rapparee Date: 22 Mar 05 - 12:22 PM I have long said, over and over, that the problem of violence, not just in the US but in the world, is cultural. In the UK it might take the form of pissing down a tube into a stranger's pocket at a football game, or visiting another country for football and smashing cars, or drowning someone in a public toilet. In the Middle East and Northern Ireland, in Russia, and in other countries it's killing "those others" (for whatever reason). Decry violence as you will, it's written "finis" to more than non-violence ever has. Do not assume that by stating that fact I approve of it. Life isn't what we wish it was. But I do think that where there is hope there is less violence than where hope has disappeared. Neither violence nor firearms are solutions anymore than a computer is a solution. Cure the disease. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Gun control From: Bill D Date: 22 Mar 05 - 12:31 PM "... I am willing to bet you that in excess of 90% of those who own weapons have never committed a crime with them, nor will they." I agree totally....let's see, that's hmmmm....3-4 million who would or have? Why don't I feel better? Sadly, I also agree that if we tried to ban private gun ownership, we would be centuries in accomplishing it. We ARE condemned to live in a society where people who hate, are angry, are mentally unstable, who want money, etc., will continue doing things like this for the foreseeable future. More harm than good will come from easily available firearms, and STILL those who are emotionally committed to their ownership will defend them. I **KNOW** that most of those defenders are honest, reasonable, non-violent people who are careful, law-abiding gun owners. Now, why do I still not feel safe? Note that the group which Weise posted to last year is busy using the tragedy to further defend its policy of division and hate |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Gun control From: Rustic Rebel Date: 22 Mar 05 - 12:38 PM Guest 3/22/05 8:57, Just curious if your high school has metal detectors at the doors? I know our local school up here does. The kids can't walk into the school with a pair of pliers without it going off. Kim C.-I'm the same. I have had a loaded gun for years that has never been shot. I don't have it for hunting, I have it for protection. If I ever had to use it, I 'think' I would aim for the sky (ceiling), before using it on a person. The point is not all gun owners are going to use a gun to kill. I don't agree with gun control. The right to keep and bear arms, you know. Second amendment. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Gun control From: Clinton Hammond Date: 22 Mar 05 - 12:51 PM "made a number of bombs and grenades out of some fairly ordinary product, as I recall. Perhaps we should get rid of these, as well. And those friggin' airplanes that they flew into those buildings, they need to go. McVeigh used fertilize" Yer not that thick, Mick, I know! LOL The difference is all your examples are things that were made to be harmless, that some jerkass MADE into weapons... and such a jerkass can make ANYTHING into a weapon... GUNS, however were invented for ONE purpose... The killing and injuring of other human beings at a distance... That they get used now by some for hunting and at targets is just euphemistic of their intended purpose... "they have been a part of this country's culture since its inception" So was slavery... and the attitude that women were 2nd class citizens... and that GOD said Black and White were forbidden to marry... Wanna go back to believing the world is flat too Mick? (Hell dude... a lot of people already do!) "Money and time would be much better spent trying to find out what would drive a young man to kill his grandparents and classmates and then attacking the problem." In the mean time... get rid of the stupid guns... If you had a kid that was too stupid to figure out that it'd burn itself playing with matches, and even after it HAD done so, it continued, you'd take the matches away right? "Solve the issue of hopelessness and helplessness" Nice ideal mate... and I'm all for it... But until we do, you just gonna let 'em keep runnin' around armed??? Seems like a bass-ackwards way to do things to me... " A gun is like any other tool" Bull... a gun is not a tool... a Pipe-wrench is a tool... a zippo is a tool... a gun... a sword... a cross bow... those are weapons... Their inception was to perpetuate and facilitate the destruction of HUMAN life... And people who feel the need to carry weapons in day-to-day life are sad in my book... But no... you folks'd rather blame society... it's the movie makers, and the people who code the video games... and the rap music... and the 'lousy' parents... (Oh no... we've got NONE of those HERE...) It's the bullies in school... it's the drugs... It's all the sex on TV... It's the hole in the ozone layer... It's the reverse racism... and the gay marriage... Not to mention the fast food! *singing, in my best Bob Geldof* "Are there any queers in the theater tonight? Get them up against the wall! There's one in the spotlight, he don't look right to me, Get him up against the wall! That one looks Jewish! And that one's a coon! Who let all of this riff-raff into the room? There's one smoking a joint, And another with spots! If I had my way, I'd have all of you shot!" Don't get me wrong... NO society, no one country has a monopoly on nutters... We all have 'em, and they're always gonna cause problems... but with guns in the equation, they problems they can and do cause are MUCH easier (Don't anyone try to tell me it's hard for ANYONE to get a gun, especially in North America) to pull off... and they're capable of a much higher body count (unless they're really NUTS and do stuff like plant bombs and such... ) So ya... by all means... do everything you can to FIX 'society'... but I for one don't see how it can be done without getting rid of the stupid-ass guns... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Gun control From: Clinton Hammond Date: 22 Mar 05 - 12:54 PM "if we tried to ban private gun ownership, we would be centuries in accomplishing it." A lot less time than it'd take to change 'society' though... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Gun control From: Sorcha Date: 22 Mar 05 - 12:54 PM You'll get no argument from me about gun 'control'. Our controls are too lax. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Gun control From: Big Mick Date: 22 Mar 05 - 01:01 PM Bill, we are great friends and always will be. But your contention that we are all, somehow, emotionally tied to weapons is a ridiculous contention. I am no more emotionally attached to weapons than I am football gear, my fishing gear, a telephone, my computer, or any other inanimate object. My problem is that most anti gun people base their arguments on unattainable goals, and emotion. They act as if one could wave a magic wand, make the guns go away and the violence would stop. That is as illogical as any argument I have ever heard. If I could wave a magic wand and make all the people that would kill disappear makes just as much sense. I enjoy shooting sports. I enjoy hunting. And I take pride in the training I have in the use of my firearms in a safe manner. That includes knowing that if I am forced to defend myself or my family, I will be able to in a very efficient manner. But I doubt that I, like most policemen, will ever bring out a weapon for that purpose. While I am quallified to carry a concealed weapon, I can't remember the last time I did. Other than the unrealistic argument of "getting rid of all guns", no one yet has advanced a decently thought out argument yet. The only thing I hear is hypothetical. And they will never happen. Mick |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Gun control From: GUEST Date: 22 Mar 05 - 01:05 PM Why can't you adopt the same gun laws as the UK? It isn't a magic wand, but it is a step in the right direction. And alot more positive than doing nothing? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Gun control From: Big Mick Date: 22 Mar 05 - 01:08 PM And would you be so kind as to tell us the positive effect? How about the rising violent crime rate? Mick |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Gun control From: GUEST Date: 22 Mar 05 - 01:10 PM Sorry for being thick but I don't understand what you mean? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Gun control From: GUEST Date: 22 Mar 05 - 01:22 PM Guest. I would suggest you re visit the UK. Violent crime and gun crime is on the rise. Since in the UK it is illegal to fight back now the yardies rule the streets. Yours, (in disgust) Aye. Dave |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Gun control From: GUEST,guest 1.10pm Date: 22 Mar 05 - 01:27 PM I live in the UK. Gun crime rose last year by 2%. The previous year it rose by approx 34%. The new laws and statutory sentences are trying to lower the increase even more and are working. In London gun crime dropped last year and in the wake of that success, other police forces are adopting the same initiatives. Notably the Matrix project in Liverpool. Sitting back and doing nothing will not have an effect on gun crime. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Gun control From: Kim C Date: 22 Mar 05 - 02:08 PM Let's say we got rid of guns. People would still find a way to murder, maim, and intimidate each other. . . knives, bows & arrows, bombs, baseball bats, scissors, frying pans, knitting needles, hatpins, nail clippers, box cutters, slingshots. . . you name it. And it would only be a matter of time before someone invented a substitute firearm. Like Kendall said, we have to deal with the way things are, and not the way we wish they were. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Gun control From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 22 Mar 05 - 02:13 PM As Big Mick advises, it's pretty clear there is no way of waving a magic wand, and getting rid of guns in the States. Or getting rid of the love affair many Americans clearly have with them. Right now, and for the foreseeable future, that's an impossibilist agenda, and as such it just gets in the way of getting people organised to bring about the things that could be done,and that could help. As the drug situation demonstrates, in a society where addiction is involved, and enough people want to do something badly enough, just making it illegal and trying to impose prohibition is liable to just make things worse. The better way is surely to cvoncentrate on trying to adjust things so that the damage is reduced. And at the same time work on changing attitudes, so that the behaviour involved is recognised as undesirable by more and more people, and the rationalisations start to fade away. And you hope that over time the culture will change. My impression is that when it comes to tobacco, that kind of approach may be working. I'd say that would be the way to approach gun possession and gun control. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Gun control From: Clinton Hammond Date: 22 Mar 05 - 02:29 PM "no one yet has advanced a decently thought out argument yet. The only thing I hear is hypothetical. And they will never happen." And how is "Society needs to change" ANY better, or ANY more attainable???? It's not... It's more a pipe-dream from what I can tell... And it's too vague to even begin attempting... HOW does socitety need to change? HOW does one impliment those changes??? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Gun control From: Little Hawk Date: 22 Mar 05 - 02:36 PM Sort of like saying "Clinton Hammond needs to change", right? :-) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Gun control From: Clinton Hammond Date: 22 Mar 05 - 02:40 PM Yer better off trying to change society LH! :-P |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Gun control From: Little Hawk Date: 22 Mar 05 - 02:43 PM Yeah. :-) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Gun control From: GUEST Date: 22 Mar 05 - 02:49 PM RR, no my school doesn't have metal detectors, and never has. As far as I know, none of the Mpls or St Paul public schools uses them. Some schools do use security cameras. My school doesn't. We do have one security guard for 2,200+ students and staff, and one St Paul School Liason police officer. But I support not having metal detectors. They didn't do anything for the staff and students of Red Lake. There really is no way to defend against the sort of attack at Red Lake or Columbine, without putting armed guards at every entrance to a school building, and that simply won't happen. Even though I am in an area of the school that is often the target of shooters (the library), I feel safe working here. My daughter didn't feel very safe attending school here though. But that was because of bullying and in-school threats of violence from other students (both male and female) to beat kids up. We have had incidences of weapons being found in school. I haven't had many discussions with students today about the shooting. Most kids clam up rather than talk about it. The most in depth conversation I had today was with a Hmong student, and we ended up talking about how racism was effecting the coverage of this incident, just like it did with the media coverage of the killings of the hunters in Wis. alleged to have been committed by a Hmong man from St Paul. While his family lives in a different school area and none of that family's kids attend our school, the family is well known in our school community. Our student population is roughly 1/3 Hmong. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Gun control From: GUEST,munchie Date: 22 Mar 05 - 04:25 PM I have guns in my home. Why? Because if I do not, the I am subject to being overpowered by those who do. I do not have any children and never will. I am 47 years old. I do not understand why people have so many children, and then are apparently unable to raise them into productive citizens. Why shouldn't the parents of these murderers be held somewhat accountable? For those who say, "but it's not THEIR fault", I say, neither is it the gun's fault. Everyone is responsible for their own actions. Parents are not responsible if their kids turn out to be murderers, and guns are not responsible for the sick people who use them for evil. Its no wonder with all the violent stuff on tv that people are prone to think of violent solutions to their problems. Those touchy-feely actors who hate Bush so much, should put their acceptance of acting parts where their mouths are and stop taking part in violent tv shows, (like CRS), and movies. The gun control solution would be like letting the tail wag the dog. The way to fix the problem of people who want to kill other people is not to take away every means they have to do it, but to fix whatever it was that made them that way in the first place, be it social, economic, racial or whatever. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Gun control From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 22 Mar 05 - 04:40 PM At the end of the day there's a divide between those of us who see wanting to have a gun as a kind of sickness and those who see it as a kind of health. I'm just glad to live in apart of the world where most people see it the same way as I do. However that's a remote kind of thing really, an abstract argument about moral philosophy and so forth. It isn't too relevant to the real issue. For Americans that must surely be to find ways of minimising the number of occasions where things like this are going to happen, while accepting that, for good or ill, there are going to continue to be an enormous number of guns in your country for a long time to come, maybe for ever. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Gun control From: Big Mick Date: 22 Mar 05 - 08:25 PM Clinton, I appreciate your position. Changing society is a tough row, but infinitely more doable than the other proposals. The gun control issues don't fly with the people who own them and vote for a very simple reason. Law abiding citizens who own guns for sport, recreation, and self protection aren't committing the crimes with them. About the only controls needed beyond what we have in place now, are those which would cause a thorough investigation as to how (for example) the young man came into possession of his Grandfather's weapon. I believe that when a gun accident, such as the killing of the little girl in Flint, MI, USA (whom MTed wrote so eloquently about) by the little boy, the owner of that pistol should be prosecuted for murder. As to changing society, there is a correlation that can be made between the removal of the social safety net, and the increase in gun crime and crime in general. These programs bring hope to the least among us. Back when the world though of the US as a somewhat flawed, but overall great, country, it was because of the respect and desire shown towards the least among us. As funding for programs such as Headstart and other such programs was taken away, hopelessness begins to set in. I am not advocating that folks aren't responsible, but I am telling you that when kids are born into and raised in neighborhoods where there is no way out, they look for other solutions. When a kind feels powerless at school from being physically injured, no one seems to give a shit, they take matters into their own hands. It is just as great a tragedy that this young man killed himself as it is that he killed others. This represents a total failure on society's part. I would take issue with your contention that these changes that could be made are just as hypothetical as those proposed by the "just make guns go away" crowd. Good Social legislation has been shown time and again to bring about fairly rapid changes in the crime rate and subsequent violence in the streets. No one wants to grow up to be a gangster unless those are the most successful people around. Show them another way, assist them a bit by removing the societal roadblocks, and they will walk straight away from these acts. It has little to do with the guns, they have always been available. It has everything to do with why they picked it up. All the best, Mick |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Gun control From: Bill D Date: 22 Mar 05 - 08:46 PM just to be clear Mick...I never advocated "getting rid of all guns".Nor did I claim that *all" gun owners are emotional about them....what I did say was that "...those who are emotionally committed to their ownership will defend them.." , even in the face of evidence that they are a problem. I ought to modify my statement to note that many are "emotionally committed" to the principle of "keeping and bearing arms..", even if they are not rabid owners..(the phrase "gun fondlers" comes to my mind....you have met them. *IF* I could wave a magic wand and have it like I want, I would allow true hunting rifles (that is, NO auto or semi auto assult weapons in private hands....that means NONE), and each & every gun would be registered, and EVERY person who intended to use a gun, even for hunting, would be registered and double checked during a serious waiting period. Hand guns would be **extremely** regulated, and allowed mostly to law enforcement. Some exceptions would be made for target shooting...(serious stuff like Olympic pistols...which are too expensive for most black market deals anyway). I would further enforce **very** strict ammunition laws, so that no criminals could acquire better ammo than the police have! No armor piercing rounds...etc. This would include **very** strict laws on importing various guns & ammo, with penalties way beyond what they are now. There are other modifications I would make and many details are hard to anticipate......Now, having said that, I acknowlege that I haven't got a chance in hell of getting my way in this...there are simply too many guns hidden away already. I do think that a truly STRONG embargo and limitation on ammunition could go a long way toward gradually easing the situation....and perhaps replacing guns for 'personal protection' with some of the non-lethal gadgets now being studied & used could help people feel safer while reducing the number of incidents like this latest. Yeah, we always need training, counseling, and social change to reduce the sort of stresses that make guns way to easy a solution....but I see the problems that lead to social stress increasing. What are we gonna do, give everyone a gun and just let the best shots survive? As has been noted before, guns are NOT a necessity...they USED to be an aid to wilderness survival (and conquering the natives of that wilderness!) but 98% of us now do NOT live in situations where guns are a serious requirement. Guns have simply become a part of our culture and 'image', and whether you like admitting it or not, Mick, WAY too many folks do get emotionally attached to the idea of having them! I'm glad you do not, but don't project your reasonable attitude on the guy down the street. I wish it were all easier..... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Gun control From: Bill D Date: 22 Mar 05 - 08:47 PM ( I see you posted while I was composing) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Gun control From: Big Mick Date: 22 Mar 05 - 08:57 PM Bill, I understand your position, and I find it to be more emotion laden than those you talk about. The fact that they used to be a necessity has nothing to do with the issue. Gun violence is not on the rise. In fact, where the gun laws are the loosest, the violent crime rate is down significantly. I just don't buy into the idea that somehow the changes you recommend would affect the amount of gun CRIME. I reiterate. It isn't the legal gun owners who are perpetrating most of these crimes. Bill, as I have said before. If I thought for one minute, or if anyone could produce any decent, unskewed facts, that your controls would make our country a safer place, I would willingly give up my guns. The simple fact is that it has never been shown to be the case. And most importantly to me is the fact that by making this some kind of litmus test for political support, has allowed the socially conservative crowd to gain control, which just exacerbates the problems which cause the violence in the first place. Social liberals, and I count myself as one of these, just stuck our nose into this friggin trap and have paid the price since. Pretty silly given the fact that decent middle class folks, who are the ones that vote and many own guns, now will go the other way over this and other issues that really don't amount to a hill of beans. Know why? Because they know a bill of goods when it is presented to them. Mick |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Gun control From: Peace Date: 22 Mar 05 - 09:11 PM Canadian Statistics > Justice and crime > Crimes Symbols Homicides by method 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 All methods 538 546 553 582 548 Shooting 165 184 171 152 161 Stabbing 143 149 171 182 142 Beating 125 128 122 125 120 Strangulation 55 38 47 66 63 Fire 11 4 8 8 12 (burns/suffocation) Other methods 31 36 26 26 27 Not known 8 7 8 23 23 |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Gun control From: Peace Date: 22 Mar 05 - 09:15 PM Sorry I tried to do a link and couldn't get it to work. The stats are from Canada. Sorry the rows don't line up. If guns are the problem, then knives (or other tools of that nature) come in a close second. Gonna be a real problem in the kitchen, IMO. Fists and hands come in third. So, maybe guns are not the problem, because it seems people have learned to adapt to the circumstances. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Gun control From: Little Hawk Date: 22 Mar 05 - 10:32 PM Fear is the problem. Now, where are people more fearful on average...in Canada or in the USA? I ask you. I've lived in both countries, and I can tell you that on average there is far more fear in the USA (and not just since 911). It is generally an immediate reaction of fear or anger that causes people to pull a trigger...and anger, as a matter of fact, is a symptom OF fear at some level of the personality. Fear of loss, fear of humiliation, fear of attack, fear of arrest, fear of being dominated, fear of being caught in some act, etc... The more fearful a populace is, the more people will react in a violent fashion to stressful situations. What emotion is the daily News reporting most designed to elicit? Fear. What emotion do politicians most often attempt to stir in people in order to get support for their policies? Fear. With what tool do aggressive people attempt to discipline their children? Fear. What is the intention of a capital punishment system? To instill fear. If your standard means of motivating people and controlling them is Fear, then you can expect plenty of trouble to result from it when those people lose control at some point (just like a frightened animal) and lash out at somebody else (if they're the aggressive type)...or at themselves (if they're the passive type). |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Gun control From: Bill D Date: 22 Mar 05 - 10:57 PM Mick....I tend to make arguments that are on several levels, and it is common for people to simplify what I have said. I really do not think you DO understand my position. I assure you, my opinion is not based on emotion.... well...no more than yours is. We all become a bit 'involved' in our own opinions, once we are sure we are on the right track. You no doubt have 'strong feelings' about the value of the labor movement, though you are sure you can also defend its principles logically. I tried to make the point that *****IF***** (see the emphasis?) we could control certain situations, especially the number of hidden, unregistered guns, and limit the ammunition, and process those who WISH to own guns more carefully, we could seriously reduce the problem without a major hassle to the few legitimate uses of firearms. You state that "I reiterate. It isn't the legal gun owners who are perpetrating most of these crimes." ...well, yeah....sure....but it is careless control BY them and lax laws about who is entitled to become legal owners that allow many thousands of guns...mostly handguns...to slip into the hands of both criminals and unstable personalities every years. Let me phrase it this way.... with controls as lax and variable from state to state as they are, you CANNOT prevent the wrong kinds of guns falling into the wrong hands. In the District of Columbia, they have some of the toughest laws ib the country, yet any kid on the street can tell you where to go buy one, and these kids are arguing that guns are 'the easiest way to settle stuff'..."why go messin' 'round with fightin', when you can just get you a 'piece' and waste the mothah?"..(yes I have heard those interviews!) Guns are WAY more easily available in VA than in DC, and there are more gun runners than there used to be bootleggers. Logic...not emotion, tells me that prosecuting them after the fact is worse than useless when they are viewed as heros for having and using guns! (That is where the 'emotion' is high!) They need to be denied access, and as it now stands, you cannot write a law that will seriously restrict access as long as so many guns are available in so many places. Now, once again...I am aware that we are way past where even the strictest laws, enforcement and prosecution can easily control things. You could make the prices higher, but there would just be more robberies to GET the $$$, just as there are to get more drugs. (yep...that's another link....restricting drugs would make a bit less incentive to have a gun to GET the drugs). Bottom line....even feeling as I do, I do not know how we could easily break the chain of attitude + access + poor education = BIG problems, but unless we reduce the societal pressures OR the gun supply, it will only get worse, and it is my carefully thought out opinion that making inroads into the supply and accessability of firearms is the easier problem to chip away at right now.........You want my opinons about how to reduce the problems of society? How much time do you have? Bring plenty of the foul, black stuff! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Gun control From: GUEST,Clint Keller Date: 22 Mar 05 - 11:49 PM I recall, years ago, reading an interview with a 'fast & fancy' handgun/rifle shooter who gave shows (advertising Colt firearms I believe). It went something like this: The reporter asked if he was as fast and accurate as the Old West gunfighters. He said faster and more accurate, near as he could tell. "Then you would have been the top gun in those days?" He said "No, because I don't have the will to kill." It's the Will to Kill that you need to eradicate. Anything can be a weapon. It's not murders by gun that are the problem, it's any murders. And people - like that reporter - who think killers are glamourous are a contributing problem too. Guns can be made in home shops. Gunpowder can be made as easily as meth & LSD. Hell, I heard a forensic lecturer say that he thought a great many successful murders are committed by automobile because we accept auto accidents, and they are not investigated like other violent deaths. It's people who see killing as a solution that are the problem. clint |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Gun control From: Little Hawk Date: 23 Mar 05 - 12:02 AM Excellent point, Clint. I do not seem to possess the will to kill...nor even the will to, for instance, punch or beat up another person....no matter how angry I get. It's not in my nature. (this doesn't mean that I won't fight if I am FORCED to by an attacker...but I won't initiate the violence). It's the people who DO initiate violence easily who worry me, and I knew plenty like that when I was in school, believe me. They thought nothing of physically attacking anyone else to get what they wanted, even if it was just a sense of momentary sadistic satisfaction. That is the crucial difference. I've lived in spiritual communities where it was completely unthinkable that anyone there would use violence against someone else...right next to neighborhoods where it was taken for granted by a lot of the younger men that violence is a normal way of dealing with other people. To me, it's totally abnormal. Thus I may have had angry fantasies when in school, but there was no danger I would act them out in real life. I had an uncle for whom violence was totally abnormal, and he collected and fired guns all his life. He hunted ducks and other waterfowl at times, but he certainly never considered firing a gun at another human being. Given such an example, I grew up not fearing guns in themselves at all, but fearing out-of-control people...and I met those people mostly at school...occasionally on the street. Such people, of course, are more dangerous when they have a gun in their hands than when they don't. But there is no simple, easy solution to the problem by just passing a law. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Gun control From: Bill D Date: 23 Mar 05 - 12:15 AM aww, c'mon Clint...do you really think that the kids are gonna be down in the basement making gunpowder IF they could make guns? Not in any quantity, and not easily usable. It is mass-produced, easily obtainable, efficient guns that make them so popular with the young hoodlums and wannabe criminals. Of course it would be better to reduce the number of "... people who see killing as a solution..."! Just how do you propose to do this? And while we're waiting for this breakthrough in social conditioning, how about making it a bit harder for the potential murderers to do major damage? That boy in Minnesota was evidently a disaster waiting to happen, and might have hurt a few people anyway with a baseball bat or a knife, but 9 people dead in 3 minutes? The fact is, it is more common for people to be hurt or killed with "guns kept for self-defense" than for people to successfully USE a gun for self-defense! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Gun control From: NH Dave Date: 23 Mar 05 - 01:10 AM A couple of points. Most police folks have their issue gun and another for when they're off duty. The kid may have borrowed that one. My state and several local ones have fairly liberal gun laws. We have the odd hunting accident - some folks WILL shoot at any motion in the brush, before looking to see exactly what caused the motion, but by and large we don't have the problems as two other states, one near byt the other some 200 miles away. Both of these states have tough gun laws and very severe penalties for woning an unregistered pistol. I won't go into some sections of Boston, that city has strict gun laws, and I won't even think about entering New York City, the other area with tough gun laws. n.b. New York and Boston are featured in at least five of the hit TV crime shows this year. As the bumper sticker says, "When guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns. As many I know say, "When you need a gun, you need it right now! No waiting a couple of weeks to apply for a permit, and then another week to buy the gun." Dave |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Gun control From: GUEST,Clint Keller Date: 23 Mar 05 - 02:06 AM Ever hear of the historic "zip guns, " Bill? And it wouldn't be necessarily kids making them in the basement anyway; it'd be the kind of entrepeneurs who make (or import) drugs to sell to kids and upright members of the community. And anyway again, you don't need guns to do this kind of hysterical mass murder. Look up the derivation of "amok." clint I don't know how to get rid of the will to kill -- but you could ask the Swiss. All I meant was, if you have the will to kill you can murder without guns; without the will to kill guns will not force you to murder. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Gun control From: GUEST,Clint Keller Date: 23 Mar 05 - 02:21 AM PS "Of course it would be better to reduce the number of "... people who see killing as a solution..."! Just how do you propose to do this? And while we're waiting for this breakthrough in social conditioning, how about making it a bit harder for the potential murderers to do major damage?" Just how do you propose to prohibit guns? Like we won the War on Drugs? There's way more marijuana use now than there was in the thirties when it first became illegal. And remember Sam Colt's first revolvers were made with early 19th century technology. Paladin Press has several books on home shop gunsmithing. Look them up. "The fact is, it is more common for people to be hurt or killed with "guns kept for self-defense" than for people to successfully USE a gun for self-defense!" I don't think there are any reliable statistics on this. And there are a number of people like me (and my mother!) who have used a pistol to warn the bad guy off and who wouldn't show up on gunfight statistics. Although I think that's the best way to defend yourself with a gun. clint |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Gun control From: GUEST Date: 23 Mar 05 - 04:33 AM Guns make killing easy. By getting rid of them therefore makes killing harder. DO IT NOW. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Gun control From: Terry K Date: 23 Mar 05 - 04:50 AM Brucie's statistics (22 Mar 09.11 pm) regarding methods of murder are interesting, but not at all surprising. What I would now like to see is a similar set of statistics for cases where more than one person was murdered? cheers, Terry |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Gun control From: GUEST Date: 23 Mar 05 - 06:00 AM There are people who are trouble. I visited a native village with a reputation for being unfriendly to white folk, but it was mainly one family with some dangerous men. I did my job and got out of there. Years later and many miles away I met a white man who had been the school principal in that village. I asked him what he'd done about the Smith boys. His immediate respone, "I had to kick the shit out of the biggest one of them." These guys were bad to everyone, but a white person stood out in that place and was a victim to hand for this family. A few years later I read in the paper that the local (native) cop had shot one of them to death during a hostage situation where the bad dude threatened to shoot his own wife. My immediate reaction was "Good, one less problem in the world." The point is: There are folks who are trouble. In our society you can't take 'em out till they do something. And while my story takes place on the reservation, it is not a 'native' thing. It was the small community size and remoteness that brought a common enough situation into sharp relief. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Gun control From: GUEST,guess who Date: 23 Mar 05 - 06:48 AM Yet again, gun violence of the most deeply tragic nature has brought out the mudcat gun nuts to vehemently protest their right to arm themselves to the teeth to "protect their families" (indulge their paranoia, intimidate others, pretend they just want them for hunting, imagine themselves being heroes and killing bad guys). Eventually, this country will come to it's senses and further limit the ownership of guns and therefore their use in tragic situations such as these. All the delusional macho mudcat boys will then have to protect themselves using their wits. Oh wait, that's why they need guns in the first place. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Gun control From: Rapparee Date: 23 Mar 05 - 08:05 AM Consider this: in rural societies weapons are common -- for hunting and, to a lesser extent, for defense (against brigands and wild animals). When a rural society changes to an urban one, weapons are less necessary for the individual and, in some cases, become dangerous to the society as a whole (e.g., shooting a projectile in a crowded city is far more likely to hurt someone than doing so in the countryside). US society, like others around the world, is becoming more and more urbanized and the individual has less and less need for a weapon. The protection of the individual is delegated to the police, and self-defense becomes a second line of defense against the bad guys -- whether human or animal (we call the Animal Control Officer). But we also put too many people in too small an area -- and THAT has long been demonstrated to lead to violence, among other undesirable things. But for many it's a case of starve quickly in the country or slowly in town. As a target shooter (with bow and firearm) I marvel that these sports can be done safely in the crowded UK. Where I live we use the side of a mountain as a backstop for bullets -- having been to the UK I wonder how it's done. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Gun control From: A Wandering Minstrel Date: 23 Mar 05 - 08:38 AM Rapaire In the UK for bow target shooting we are required to only use ranges set up in open spaces designated for sports activities, the ranges must be marked out with warning signs and flags, we have range officers who are responsible for ensuring that no one is shooting while any person is on the range, and wandering people, animals and birds always take right of way. Bows are to be kept in cases when not in use and it is an offense to carry a strung bow in a public place. pistol target shooting is now very rare in the UK as private ownership of pistols is largely banned. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Gun control From: GUEST,Bainbo Date: 23 Mar 05 - 08:46 AM Rapaire - You've never been to Northumberland, then? Or the Yorkshire Dales, or the Derbyshire Peaks, or the Scottish Highlands? I know what you mean - we can give the impression we're living cheek by jowl. But if I'd only visited New York or Chicago, I'd think the same about the U.S. ;0) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Gun control From: Peace Date: 23 Mar 05 - 10:19 AM "Brucie's statistics (22 Mar 09.11 pm) regarding methods of murder are interesting, but not at all surprising. What I would now like to see is a similar set of statistics for cases where more than one person was murdered?" The stats would be skewed by 9/11. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Gun control From: Susu's Hubby Date: 23 Mar 05 - 10:22 AM I'm sure the future Liberal gov't of the US is following this issue very closely....as a matter of fact, I'm pretty much assured of the fact that a future Liberal gov't of the US gov't would very much like to have a country full of unarmed peasants. Hubby |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Gun control From: Wolfgang Date: 23 Mar 05 - 10:32 AM The stats would be skewed by 9/11. (Brucie) Why should Canadian stats be skewed by 9/11? Wolfgang |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Gun control From: Peace Date: 23 Mar 05 - 10:36 AM Was assuming stats for the US, Wolfgang. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Gun control From: Peace Date: 23 Mar 05 - 10:38 AM Gues the point is that anything can be turned into a weapon. However, I would expect most mass murder to have been done with poison or sleeping pills. Then guns. Just a guess, leaving 9/11 outta the picture. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Gun control From: Peace Date: 23 Mar 05 - 10:51 AM Some scary stuff on this link. Worth looking at. Figures for the US. http://www.ichv.org/Statistics.htm |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Gun control From: Peace Date: 23 Mar 05 - 10:56 AM Murder, Types of Weapons Used Percent Distribution by Region, 2003 Region Total all weapons1 Firearms Knives or cutting instruments Unknown or other dangerous weapons Personal weapons (hands, fists, feet, etc.)2 Total 66.9 12.6 13.9 6.6 Northeast 61.9 16.8 14.1 7.2 Midwest 68.1 10.9 14.9 6.2 South 67.7 12.3 13.7 6.4 West 67.8 12.0 13.5 6.7 1 Because of rounding, the percentages may not add to 100.0. The above is from an FBI site. www.fbi.gov/ucr/03cius.htm |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Gun control From: Peace Date: 23 Mar 05 - 11:01 AM However, look at this, too. Absolutely shocking and largely unnoticed. Maybe as somone pointed out up-thread, the 'culture' of violence needs some changin'. Guns ain't helping, but there is a bigger problem than the one that comes outta the end of a barrel. http://www.now.org/issues/violence/stats.html |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Gun control From: Rapparee Date: 23 Mar 05 - 11:36 AM Ah, I've traveled the Highlands, from Glasgow to Glencoe to Ft. William to Kyle of L to Skye to Inverness to Stirling to Balmoral to Dundee to Edinburgh (although not necessarily in that order -- we started in Glasgow and ended in Edinburgh. I've also traveled in East Anglia, and passsed military reservations. I've also traveled fairly widely in Ireland. I'm still amazed that there are places where riflery, shotgunning, and archery can be practiced. As for proper range safety, the stricures on archery ranges in the UK are in place here as well. Ranges for firearms are even more closely controlled, at least the ones I frequent. Problems in the States arise from the fools who simply think that because they can't see anyone or any houses they can let fly with impunity. But deer hunting in Illinois and Indiana, for instance, is limited (for the most part) to shotgun, muzzleloader, and archery because it is felt that the State is too flat and too populated for high powered rifle (.22s are allowed for rabbits and squirrels). Pennsylvania, on the other hand, while more populous, is also more mountainous and deer hunting is permitted there with rifles, as is Kentucky. Out here, with a population of (Census 2000) 1,293,953 on the 53,483,110 acres that make up the State of Idaho, the problem isn't as acute. But compare this to a 2001 population of 58,789,194 on 59,698,189.44 land acres in Great Britain! See why I'm surprised?? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Gun control From: Bill D Date: 23 Mar 05 - 12:14 PM Clint...in case you don't bother to read the link brucie found, here are a couple of clips from it: (in reply to "I don't think there are any reliable statistics on this." FACT: While handguns account for only one-third of all firearms owned in the United States, they account for more than two-thirds of all firearm-related deaths each year. A gun kept in the home is 22 times more likely to be used in a homicide, suicide or unintentional shooting than to be used in self-defense. - Kellerman AL, Lee RK, Mercy JA, et al. "The Epidemiological Basis for the Prevention of Firearm Injuries." Annu. Rev. Public Health. 1991; 12:17-40 FACT: Every two years more Americans die from firearm injuries than the total number of American soldiers killed during the 8-year Vietnam War. In 1999, the total number of people killed by guns in the United States was 28,874,a 6% decrease from 1998 figures. - Based on data from CDC National Center for Health Statistics report "Deaths: Final Data for 1999." Vol. 49, No. 8 You really don't read my posts in depth, I guess.... I said I KNOW it would be hard to reduce the number of guns, given the number hidden away already...but I will say right now that guns would be far harder to import illegally than drugs, and we COULD control it if we cared to. (You just can't hide Ouzis in car tires or have paid 'mules' bring little bags of pistols on flights from Coloumbia!) ...and yeah, I remember zip guns....boy, if that's ALL we had to worry about, I'd jump for joy! ...As to your success in warding off trouble by waving a gun, congratulations. Call me back when you have a database of a hundred or so tries to report on. The statistics seem to indicate that showing a gun often leads to the other guy deciding that he needs a bigger one, and that he will not give you a chance next time. Sorry for being the pessimist, but I continue to be confident that the ultimate BEST way to reduce the problem is to have fewer guns available to those who shouldn't have them. .... and this INCLUDES well-meaning citizens who don't believe in statistics. ---------------------------------------------------- and to Susu's Hubby: " I'm pretty much assured of the fact that a future Liberal gov't of the US gov't would very much like to have a country full of unarmed peasants." that is BS almost beyond the realm of belief! I won't bother to type all the reasonable answers to such contorted nonsense, since anyone who'd say something like that would not listen anyway..... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Gun control From: Wolfgang Date: 23 Mar 05 - 12:26 PM Thanks for the links, Brucie, I love statistics. My summary from several years: There are roughly 14,000 murders per years (increasing) in the USA and 2/3 of them (close to 10,000 in 2003) have been done by using firearms. Of course one can also make some numerically true but nonsensical conclusions from looking at the data, like for instance interracial homicides are rare, Whites kill Whites and Blacks kill Blacks. So it seems relations between the races are fine? Women, BTW, are less likely to be killed than men, so then why is there always 'violence against women' a theme and not 'violence against men'? (I'm still in the section about nonsensical conclusion) Wolfgang |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Gun control From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 23 Mar 05 - 02:42 PM There's a lot to be said for living in a country full of unarmed peasants and sundry others. I wouldn't want to live in any other kind of country myself. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Gun control From: GUEST,Clint Keller Date: 23 Mar 05 - 02:43 PM I should have said "I don't think there is any reliable _interpretation_ of the statistics on this." There was a book out recently claiming that statistics show that more gun ownership decreases crime. I don't know that I believe it, but that's what he said. I hear that gun homicide statistics include suicide and self defense, which are neither crime nor accident. I don't know that I believe that either. I do believe that people in the US are irrational about drugs, guns, and automobiles.[I've heard that automobiles are the major cause of death among children up to five years old. We deal with it by infant seats & airbags, rather like dealing with gunshot deaths by issuing bulletproof vests.] I believe that strict gun laws do not keep homicides down; does Vermont, which has no gun restrictions at all, have a higher crime rate than New York City or Washington DC? I believe that drug usage has increased along with the tough drug laws. "As to your success in warding off trouble by waving a gun, congratulations. Call me back when you have a database of a hundred or so tries to report on. The statistics seem to indicate that showing a gun often leads to the other guy deciding that he needs a bigger one, and that he will not give you a chance next time." Don't be snotty. I didn't wave the revolver; I don't wave weapons. Nor brandish. I pointed it squarely at the midsection of a man who wanted to hit me in the head with a hatchet, in the hope that it would discourage him. I had said nothing to him, and I was in a doorway, making it difficult to turn & run. Neither of us got hurt, but I think if I myself had, say, a hatchet he could have taken it as a challenge, which would have been ugly. "…statistics seem to indicate that showing a gun often leads to the other guy deciding that he needs a bigger one, and that he will not give you a chance next time." I don't think that's a reliable interpretation of the statistics. In any case, it's been 50 years and he hasn't been back yet. Look, I'd be for prohibiting guns if they'd go away; I just don't believe prohibition laws work, judging by history. [And the police are not obliged to protect you, even if you have a restraining order on an ex-husband known to be violent. There've been court cases about it.] clint The database idea is interesting; I wonder how I could go about it? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Gun control From: beardedbruce Date: 23 Mar 05 - 03:05 PM Since it seems that a large number of people here would outlaw guns, can we get rid of freedom of speech, freedom of the press, and freedom of religion, too? That would make it a lot easier to make it "safe" for ... well, somebody. (please look at the bill of rights- do you really want to make an arguement that we would be safer without ANY of it's protections?) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Gun control From: Don Firth Date: 23 Mar 05 - 04:13 PM In the early Seventies I spent a year in the Tri-Cities area in Washington State working for a radio station. On my days off, I drove around a bit to familiarize myself with the area. Also, I do some target shooting. One Sunday I took my pistol with me to an area that the station's program director told me about, south of Kennewick. Lot's of folks, he said, go there to do some plinking. Isolated. Rolling hills, miles from anywhere. In addition to the isolation, there was a hill there that could function as a backstop. Some folks also used it as an unofficial garbage dump, and there were lots of empty soft drink and beer cans laying around to use as targets. I popped away for an hour or so, burning my way through a couple of boxes of .22 LRs. Then I packed up to go back to where I was staying. As I drove, back to town, there were the usual road signs beside the narrow, two-lane road ("Curve," "Soft Shoulder," "No Passing," etc.). They all had bullet holes in them. About a block and a half before the first group of houses, there was a sign saying "Entering Kennewick." This sign also was full of bullet holes. The penetration pattern (direction of the crater made by the bullet passing through it) showed that whoever had used the sign for target practice was firing toward the town! And they were using pretty heavy caliber stuff, possibly a rifle! The only backstops were the houses a block and a half away. Minimum requirement for purchasing a firearm of any kind should be a medical examination to make sure that the applicant possesses a brain. Also, beardedbruce, I don't really see that a bunch of goons playing soldier in eastern Oregon, or northern Idaho, or anywhere else, for that matter—including people who keep guns laying around in desk drawers or on bedside tables all over the country—constitute a "well regulated militia." As long as the individual states have a "well regulated militia" (the National Guard), that need is met. Rational gun laws (that, contrary to the NRA, would constitute "well regulated") would not contradict the Second Amendment, nor would it have any bearing on the rest of the Bill of Rights. Been there. Done that. I used to be a member of the NRA. Until I got totally disgusted by some of their completely spurious arguments against any kind of reasonable regulation. They want no regulation at all! Don Firth |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Gun control From: SINSULL Date: 23 Mar 05 - 05:02 PM Airport security prevented the September 11th hijackers from using guns. They managed quite nicely without them - as will anyone intent on murder. BillD - I would be interested in seeing the statistics on shootings involving illegal weapons vs. legal. I am not disagreeing with you but my problem is that NYC has tough gun ownership laws and still it has one of the highest gun murder rates in the country. If someone is intent on murder, he will find a means. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Gun control From: GUEST,petr Date: 23 Mar 05 - 05:25 PM on a recent documentary about a Canadian professor who studies murder & violence (Ill try to look up the name) one is 10x more likely to be killed by a gun in the US than the UK. And 5x as likely in the US as opposed to Canada. SOme interesting comparisons were between small town in Alabama, and Newfoundland, very similar population in terms of gun ownership, level of education etc. except one had several times the murder rate of the other. Apparently NEwfoundland has one of the lowest in the world, mostly due to history and culture. Since there were no police in the past troublemakers were often ostracized by the community and it seemed to work. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Gun control From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 23 Mar 05 - 05:31 PM We deal with it by infant seats & airbags I believe you also have compulsory driving tests before anyone can get a licence. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Gun control From: Bill D Date: 23 Mar 05 - 05:38 PM bearded bruce: your usual fallacy : "Straw Man"...those other rights have nothing to do with sane gun laws. SINSULL the statistics are mostly there at the place brucie posted. Almost ALL weapons confisicated after local shootings here are illegal...bought 'legally' somewhere else, and then stolen or sold illegally. and, I keep trying to make the point that ONE place having tough laws.(as I said, so does DC) does not help if they can go across a state line and get whatever they want! I-95 is FULL of folks moving illegal guns from state to state and selling them to those who make that murder rate so high. How would lax laws help? There are always guys who are willing to make a buck trafficing, and if they can buy 'em right across the street, they can even lower the price. Yes, sure...someone who is INTENT on committing murder can often find a way, but so many gun deaths are opportunistic incidents that come about when several kids who HAVE guns decide to escalate an argument. I have read a dozen stories aboutn this in DC papers recently. One young girl died when some kids shot wildly at someone else on a porch. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Gun control From: GUEST,munchie Date: 23 Mar 05 - 05:39 PM What country are most mudcatter's from? Amazing how different cultures differ about gun control. I'm from the USA, Mississippi to be exact. We do a LOT of hunting around here. I grew up with guns, and had firearms safety drilled into me from a young age as well as safety courses. To me a gun is a ridiculously simple machine that fires projectiles. I respect them greatly but have never feared them in the least. But thanks to finding forums like this with members in different countries (and, of course, cultures) I now realize that some folks are just scared to death of guns, and in their cultures, few people own them (or are allowed to). So, how far does your belief go? As in, does your country have an army, or some kind of armed forces? You do? Why? To protect yourselves from hostile countries? Ok, that makes sense. So why would it be questioned that as living beings have some right to defend ourselves against hostile forces, either on a national or personal level? I would say, either get rid of your armies and practice what you preach, or realize that people have a right to protect themselves, be it on a personal or a national level. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Gun control From: beardedbruce Date: 23 Mar 05 - 05:49 PM BillD, "those other rights have nothing to do with sane gun laws." They are all in the Bill of Rights. I would rather not bring up the idea that we should change those rights (any of them) because it is "safer".. Your speech or religion might well be a threat to the next person argueing to alter the Bill of Rights to make people "safe". That is my point-hardly a straw-man arguement. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Gun control From: Don Firth Date: 23 Mar 05 - 06:00 PM Poisoning someone takes more than just a sudden loss of temper. It takes planning. And it's pretty obvious that such a murder was premeditated. In a sudden loss of temper, someone may grab a knife and attempt to stab someone else, but that requires close proximity, and may result in a struggle in which the assailant is disarmed or, possibly, ends up the one who's perforated. If a gun is present, a sudden loss of temper—from across the room or across the street—can result in the death of someone; to be immediately regretted by the assailant. But too late. If they have the means at hand, people will often do things in a sudden flash of anger that they would never do after a few seconds of reflection. Guns make impulse-killing easy to do. Don Firth |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Gun control From: GUEST, Clint Keller Date: 23 Mar 05 - 06:00 PM "I believe you also have compulsory driving tests before anyone can get a licence." True, but the infant seats & airbags were particularly aimed at protecting children, at least until some got decapitated by the airbags. Sane driving would be a wonderful thing. And I don't drive because I have no depth perception: no binocular vision. But I could get a driver's license legally. This is bad. It's also bad that for the most part after you pass the first test you don't have to be re-examined for the rest of your life. I think a 'driver's licecnse' for gun owners would be ok. Something to show they are able to operate the device and know the applicable laws. This is essentially what you have to do to get a carry permit here in Idaho. clint |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Gun control From: Bill D Date: 23 Mar 05 - 06:52 PM bbruce...you KNOW that no one is suggesting we repeal ANY of the Bill of Rights! You are simply arguing for a lax interpretation of "keep and bear arms" Remember, that follows "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State,"... When that was written, we didn't have the situation we have now. Now we have a "militia" for the security of our free state, and lots of individuals owning private weapons is not necessary! Let's have "bearing arms" restricted to the situation where they are acting as part of an official "militia". I despair at the notion that after 250 years, people are still trying to defend what they want on the basis of their personal, subjective interpretation of a document whose authors could not possibly forsee AK-47s on street corners! ...It is not necessary to banish all guns in order to have sane gun LAWS which restrict 'some' weapons. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Gun control From: Big Mick Date: 23 Mar 05 - 06:57 PM Bill, I am a bit disappointed in you. That piece was skewed and clearly was put together to demonstrate a point. I note with interest that there was no comment on the FBI stats that showed that there was no greater percentage from guns, in fact less in some cases, than from knives and other instruments. The Canadian stats seem to indicate the same thing, in fact they seem to indicate that if one adds the beating and strangulation together (bare handed murders, in other words) that is about the same. The study you are basing this argument on was done for the purpose of discrediting gun ownership. When you take the raw data, you find that guns are no more dangerous than any other item. Folks that are intent on killing will do so. I would also question the source of your contention Almost ALL weapons confisicated after local shootings here are illegal...bought 'legally' somewhere else, and then stolen or sold illegally. I would like to see some cites on that. While that certainly is a problem, my understanding is that most don't come from the homes of law abiding citizens. I have not seen the first study that indicates that disarming the populace, or increasing the strictness of gun laws, has the desired effect of lowering violent crime. In fact the opposite seems to be true as SINS and several others have pointed out. Mick |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Gun control From: Bill D Date: 23 Mar 05 - 06:58 PM (I think I will invent a new fallacy... the "Domino theory" of threats. "if we allow THIS, THAT could sorta maybe might possibly follow") |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Gun control From: beardedbruce Date: 23 Mar 05 - 07:05 PM And free speech limited to the human voice? I think that one must look at the intent of the founding fathers, which was to provide for the "right of the citizen to keep and bear arms". I have NOT argued against SANE laws- but we may differ on what they are. If you notice, AK-47s are illegal, already. So are ALL fully automatic weapons, including "assult rifles", without a lot of paperwork, and a serious fee- and none of the weapons thus licenced have been used in any crimes. But, it is trivial for anyone to make a functional firearm- the idea that passing laws will stop the ILLEGAL use of anything seems to me to be a little ridicules. "It is not necessary to banish all guns in order to have sane gun LAWS which restrict 'some' weapons. " |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Gun control From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 23 Mar 05 - 07:10 PM One thing I've never been clear about. Does the "right to bear arms" include swords and suchlike? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Gun control From: Bill D Date: 23 Mar 05 - 07:29 PM Mick...when I put bought 'legally' in single quotes, it refers to the practice of an individual 'legally' buying guns in one place with the intent of making money on them by reselling them...very often with no concern as to who gets them! This is a COMMON practice around here! Entire series have been written in the paper about this. It is a constant concern of area law enforcement. Unless laws are both similar AND enforced in all states, it becomes just a matter of how far they have to drive to get the guns. BB.." ...So are ALL fully automatic weapons, including "assult rifles"," and there is a booming business in info and material to make semi-auto weapons full-auto. I'm sure you know that- the guys who buy the 'legal' semis sure do! You just made my point about the founding fathers...You have your interpretation of what you'd like "keep & bear" mean, and gloss over the fact that it is part of a sentence that starts by referring to the militia. No...it is NOT 'trivial' for anyone to make a firearm. As I said before, if homemade guns were all we had to worry about, I'd jump for joy! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Gun control From: MuddleC Date: 23 Mar 05 - 07:38 PM FYI In this peaceful, crime free country of Great Britain where our police are unarmed and naughty pistols/handguns are banned,..... target shooting, pest/varmint control and humane livestock destruction are the pimary allowable reasons for having a firearms certificate... use for self-defence is not allowed unless you are a high ranking politician or ex-govt minister who has pissed off somebody. The only pistols allowed are muzzle loaders cap'n'ball type, and only because they slipped up in the wording of the law. Rifle and shotgun is the predominant legal 'shooters' tool. The criminal fraternity have the choice of gun,knife or club, although there have been some notable cases of the use of semi/auto machine pistols lately and quite a number of City Police Forces are 'suiting-up'as standard. The 'swat' or Armed Response guys here rush about with H&K carbines, having lost favour with handguns. The biggest non-terrorist murder toll so far is by a friendly Doctor called Shipman who took out 215 people between 1975 and 1992 and favoured the hypodermic syringe rather than lead projectile. There are moves afoot now to ban all replica guns, and 'de-acts' whilst CO2 powered pistols are now required to be registered. The killing of 17 people at Dunblane in Scotland resulted in the loss of UK handguns, and a controversial 100-year secrecy ban imposed on police reports dealing with the man responsible for the massacre. That has since been lifted after much campaigning , and revealed a report compiled by Paul Hughes, then a detective sergeant with Central Scotland police, into Hamilton's activities at a summer camp in Loch Lomond in 1991, five years before he carried out the shootings. The report advised that Hamilton should face prosecution over "incidents" at the summer camp and that his gun licence should be revoked. The police took no action and the Chief Constable renewed that firearm permit annually for the next five years... After the incident, the Chief Constable retired.... The only other name I'll mention is that of Tony Martin, the Norfolk farmer who was jailed for 5 years shooting dead a teenage intruder at his remote farm in 2000. It is clearly not reasonable to blast them at close range with a shotgun, even when there are two of them and one of you and it is the middle of the night. Nor is it reasonable to stab them to death, even if they are wielding a jemmy, as Barry Lee-Hastings discovered when jailed for five years at the Old Bailey for killing an intruder. Rigging up a booby-trap shotgun on your Ayrshire smallholding may sound reasonable to a man counting the cost of repeated break-ins, but it will get you seven years behind bars - as Frank Gillingham can testify. The law, however, believes it is perfectly reasonable for a career criminal such as Fearon (only wounded) to sue Martin for £15,000 damages or to be released from prison after serving only five-and-a-half months of an 18-month sentence for heroin dealing. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Gun control From: susu Date: 23 Mar 05 - 07:45 PM Well lets just say that we adopt a policy where the only people who can possess a gun are military and police officers, including game wardens, there are a couple of things that would happen INSHO... 1) to round up all the weapons would be impossible, and would those who have them be compensated? 2) even if we were able to get all of the guns, there are some cops etc that are crooked, so they could sell a weapon to a criminal, then what are you going to defend your family with? Heck, even if they come into your house at night with a knife while you are sleeping, what then? Charles Manson and his followers did a lot of damage with knives. 3) what about some people who hunt for food? Where we live there are several families that use the meat that they get from hunting to feed their families. 4) loss of revenue from the sale of hunting licenses, that won't ever happen, enough said there. Now that being said, so all people who are molested turn into child molesters, and on the other side of that, are all child molesters previous victims? No. I was run over by a car when I was 12 and the kids were extremely cruel to me for the next 6 years because of how my face looked, (I could not have reconstructive surgery until my growth was complete) yet through all of the bullying, and mean comments, did I go on a shooting spree, well yeah but that is beside the point! Before some of you get your panties twisted, no I did not, the thought never entered my mind! I feel that two things attribute to the increase of shootings. 1)Too much violence on T.V. that smaller kids are being exposed to, I mean after all if a 5 year old sees a movie or show in which an actor gets killed then the next week that actor is in another movie without a scratch, there is no finality to the act of the killing. Then as the years progress the child grows up to be desensitized. Learning no remorse, they learn violence as a solution. And we won't even get into rap and violent video games. 2)People do not spend enough time with their kids today, the moral fiber of this country is on a downhill slid, and we are too busy to teach our children to be better people. It is the responsibility of the parents to teach their children, and so many times that does not happen. There you have my opinion, whatever you think of it, I just think we need to work on what our kids see and think, garbage in…garbage out. Susu Besides where I come from, gun control means using both hands so you don't shake. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Gun control From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 23 Mar 05 - 07:46 PM Tony Martin shot the kid in the back. He then failed to do anything about informing the police, so that there could have been a chance of him being picked up and given medical treatment (and being arrested). That was what made it murder. If he'd simply phoned up and said "I've shot a burglar in my house and he's staggered off wounded" there is virtually no possibility he'd have been charged for murder, even if the boy had died. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Gun control From: Bobert Date: 23 Mar 05 - 07:53 PM Well, I ain't said nuthin' on this thread 'cause it would just get me embroiled... ...and I'll be the first to admit that I ain't read this entire thread 'cause with work an' all I don't really have much extra time but... ...has any one brought up the actual language of the 2nd Ammenedment yet? If not, I think it would be very interesting for the *entire* ammendment be printed so that folks could might discuss it in the context of linking gun ownership to the right to maintain a militia... Jus' a sidebar... And, BTW, I've been a gun owner since I was 14 years old and believe very strongly that I should be able, unless I start shooting at people, be allowed to continue to own my 12 guage Remington pump and my 22/410 over under... Ahhhhh, does anyone know just how many handguns there were per capita when the 2nd ammendment was written? And, ahhhhhh, how many of the folks who fought in the War for Independence carried handguns? Bobert |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Gun control From: MuddleC Date: 23 Mar 05 - 08:27 PM Martin's conviction for murder was quashed and replaced by one of manslaughter on the ground of diminished responsibility. Barras and Fearon had gone to Bleak House with another friend, Darren Bark, with the intention of burgling the property. As Bark waited in his car, Barras and Fearon were shot while prowling in the house. Both men escaped back through the window the way they came, Fearon was severely injured but got away and Barras was found dead in the bushes the following afternoon. I don't know how long it took the Police to arrive, they were called by a nearby houseowner who answererd Fearon's knock at the door for medical help. Brendan Fearon, 29, was jailed for three years at Norwich crown court. Darren Bark, 33, was jailed for 30 months. He was also ordered to serve an extra 12 months for an unrelated burglary. Fearon and Bark asked for seven other offences to be taken into consideration. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Gun control From: Rapparee Date: 23 Mar 05 - 10:09 PM Looking at what there is about the debates in the Congress regarding the Bill of Rights and specifically the Second Amendment: 1. Yes, Kevin, swords are included. In fact, they are specifically mentioned as something that "belongs" to an American citizen. 2. The idea seems to be that citizens should be able to possess arms to a) protect the country during wartime and, b) insure that the government did not destroy the Rights of citizens (i.e., to allow the citizens to be able to overthrow the government if it became "destructive of these ends" as the Declaration of Independence says). But most of the debate seems to have centered around 3. The idea that a standing army in peacetime was something not to be tolerated by a free people. In fact, the notions discussed seem to be that the US military was to be something like Switzerland's. As a side note, there was also much discussion about including in the Second Amendment language that would exempt those who, for religious reasons, would not carry arms from serving in the militia or any form of the military. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Gun control From: beardedbruce Date: 23 Mar 05 - 10:18 PM BillD, " and there is a booming business in info and material to make semi-auto weapons full-auto. I'm sure you know that- the guys who buy the 'legal' semis sure do!" And that is highly illegal- so how would more laws alter it? "You just made my point about the founding fathers...You have your interpretation of what you'd like "keep & bear" mean, and gloss over the fact that it is part of a sentence that starts by referring to the militia." Please look at the discussions of the founding fathers before you put a modern interpretation on the "militia" "No...it is NOT 'trivial' for anyone to make a firearm. As I said before, if homemade guns were all we had to worry about, I'd jump for joy! " Since the level of responsibility here is not what I would like, I will refrain fron giving directions- but it takes two pipes, a nail, and a (short) piece of wood.... The US made thousands and dropped them behind the lines in WWII for use by partisens. Single shot, but that gets you a weapon from whoever you shoot- like the police or army you have stated should be allowed to have guns. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Gun control From: harpgirl Date: 23 Mar 05 - 10:34 PM Here's some news for the gun nuts:http://www.gunguys.com/ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Gun control From: Bill D Date: 24 Mar 05 - 12:16 AM BB.."so how would more laws alter it?" *sigh* ask me something hard...if they can't GET the guns, they can't mess with them. It STILL doesn't require a semi-automatic gadget to go after Bambi. sorry, but whether or not we agree about the finer points of what the founding fathers might have meant by 'militia' and 'keep', this society today does not NEED unlimited freedom to own private guns. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Gun control From: beardedbruce Date: 24 Mar 05 - 12:23 AM Nor do we NEED unlimited freedom of speech, but some of us would prefer to have it regardless. Nor is the freedom to own guns unlimited. It is greatly restricted ( no felons, no insane people: no fully automatic weapons, nothing above a certain caliber, no explosive bullets, no barrels shorter than a fixed limit ( for rifles), ....) Hardly unlimited. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Gun control From: GUEST,Clint Keller Date: 24 Mar 05 - 02:15 AM "if they can't GET the guns, they can't mess with them. " Listen carefully. You. Can't. Keep. Them. From. Getting. Guns. There is an innocent middle class faith in this country that passing a law is equivalent to enforcing it. I'm not trying to be mean, but honestly, some laws cannot be enforced. There is an equally innocent faith in the efficacy of passing laws against objects instead of against actions. But it ain't the bottle of whisky, it's the driving under the influence. The influence of anything: alcohol, cold medicine, or a high fever. Or a hot temper. But it really would be nice to have a law against crime on Sundays so the cops could have a day off. clint |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Gun control From: HuwG Date: 24 Mar 05 - 05:30 AM Just my two pence worth ... Years ago, when I was in the UK armed forces, my unit was sharing some rifle ranges with a local firearms club. At one point, the range staff ordered firing to cease so that the butt parties (i.e. those behind embankments under the targets, who raised and lowered targets and pasted over holes) could march off for lunch. Everything waited for the best part of five minutes while one of the club shooters fired off one last shot (at a miserable 100 yards). Then with all safety flags raised and the butt parties in the open and marching off, another of them fired off another shot. I don't know where it went or where it was aimed; the intention was clearly to annoy or scare the butt parties (most of whom were very young recruits). Even as the rooks took flight and the echoes of the shot were fading, the culprit was calling, "Sorry ! Didn't see the flags going up !", in the manner of a soccer player raising his hands to say "Accident, ref !" before cutting an opponent's feet from underneath him with a vicious studs-first tackle. I was very tempted indeed to march over and give him a toecap sandwich. However, several senior officers and SNCOs were present, and seemed to make light of the incident. In hindsight, I find their attitude rather improper. The soldiers they were responsible for were subject to draconian penalties for negligently discharging a weapon, or mishandling one. However, they seemed to take the view, "He's not a soldier, he doesn't have to cringe when I shout at him, he's not my responsiblity. I can't be a*sed." Gun "control" in the UK, prior to the Dunblane shootings, seemed to be similarly laxly controlled by the Police etc. In the aftermath of that incident, the Government seemed to take the view that all the legislation necessary to prevent the incident was in place, but not properly enforced. The alternatives were continuing as before and hope, on no evidence, that the existing controls would be properly applied; or impose a draconian ban. I was pleased that they took the latter course. I agree that adopting a similar course in the US. would be very difficult. However, it should be noted that firearms crimes in the UK now attract the most severe jail sentences (as in the case of the minimum 35-year sentences passed recently on four men who shot two innocent girls in a Birmingham gangland feud). The attitude of the judiciary is clearly that anyone who plays with weapons intended purely to kill others, deserves little mercy. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Gun control From: Rapparee Date: 24 Mar 05 - 08:45 AM HuwG, if such an incident happened on the range here the responsible party would have been banned (for life) from the range AND very likely arrested for reckless endangerment. "Cease Fire" orders on the civilian range here and on ALL military ranges I have been familiar with were done with 1) a loudspeaker (tannoy) setup AND 2) range officers running around screaming "Cease Fire!" AND 3) the absolute requirement that EVERYONE put down their weapon on the ground, magazine out and bolt locked open and STAND UP. I have not only experienced this, but have seen it down at competitions ranging from the extremely local to national competitions. The only example I know of similar to what you described occured some years ago when three drunken 20-year-old males, living together in a mobile home, shot a .22 at a bunch of Cub Scouts hiking along a road. My nephew was in the Scouts. My brother didn't report it -- he paid a visit to the young males, and after lifting two of them off the ground and throwing them into the third, promised them that if they ever did such a thing again it would be the last time. THEY called the Sheriff, who talked to my bro. The Sheriff said, "You know, if something does happen I'll have to come looking for you." Bro said, "Okay. But you'll never find the bodies." The young males were later arrested for running a meth lab (yes, my brother, who works for the Illinois State Police DID help to break that case!) and are now locked up. Oh, yeah. They threatened to shoot my brother as he walked away. He replied, rather scornfully, "You ain't got the the balls" and left. He was right -- they didn't. There is NO excuse for either ignoring range commands or for what those young punks did. None. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Gun control From: Peace Date: 24 Mar 05 - 11:17 AM The notion of keeping people from getting guns is a non-starter. I would bet that within a few hours of getting to any medium to large city in North America, I could get guns via black market. It's just a matter of askin' the right folks. It is today more difficult to get guns legally in Canada than it is illegally. The legal purchase of guns requires a Firearms Acquisition Certificate, and that is a whole procedure involving passing a test and being acceptable to the law. Illegal purchase? "Hey, I need __________. What will it cost?" "Two fifty for the weapon and another $250 for me to forget you." |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Gun control From: Rapparee Date: 24 Mar 05 - 11:38 AM Guns can be made from a piece of pipe and a nipple to close the end. Gunpowder can be made from charcoal, sulphur and saltpeter. Saltpeter can be extracted from the soil of a barnyard using means and chemicals available to anyone -- it was for centuries. Projectiles can be rocks, as they were for centuries. But guns don't even need powder as a propellant; just an overpressure of some gas contained within a space with one way easier for the gas to escape (and push something in front of it) than the rest of the walls of the space. In fact, you can make a projectile thrower which uses centripedal force and bypass the compressed gas completely. The principle is the same as a sling. If people want to harm someone badly enough, they'll find a way to do so. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Gun control From: Peace Date: 24 Mar 05 - 11:51 AM Incidentally, I have had guns pointed at me a few times: Once I disrupted a drug deal in front of an ol' girlfriend's place; 'nother time it involved circumstance I won't go into, but I got a few scars as a result--not from the gun. Neither of the aforementioned weapons were acquired legally. There were a few more occasions, but no point going into them. Members of the National Guard in California pointed guns at me as did a few police officers in NYC. One of my better friends has about twenty guns. He is what some folks call a 'gun nut'. He has never pointed a gun at anyone. In fact, he teaches range safety, and his daughter is an excellent pistol shot. She doesn't point guns at people either. So, why would any country want only duly authorized authorities and criminals to have guns? Because when you take guns away from honest people, they're the only two left with weapons. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Gun control From: Wolfgang Date: 24 Mar 05 - 12:04 PM There are a lot of things that might be useful in some circumstances that criminals have and I don't: wrong passports, false money, heroin, things to open closed doors, devices to listen to my conversation when I think noone can It's an unjust world, I never would abuse all those things like any criminal would, just the listening devices perhaps once or a few times, and I don't have them, only the criminals have them. I think I should be allowed to have everything a criminal might have, just in case. Wolfgang |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Gun control From: Rapparee Date: 24 Mar 05 - 12:07 PM I don't have a gun and I want to overthrow the government. Cops and soldiers have guns, but the government won't let me have one. So I have to kill a cop or cops (or soldiers) to get the guns I need. No problem. Wait until a patrol car is on a lonely road and wreck it. Use a spear to kill a guard, or a "booby trap" or cut his throat some dark night -- even sharpened wood will work for these. Now I have a gun and bullets. The knowledge of how to do these things is not secret. Unfortunately, the bad guys know it as well as the good guys -- as was amply demonstrated in the Fulton Coounty Courthouse recently. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Gun control From: Wolfgang Date: 24 Mar 05 - 12:13 PM Capital Punishment and Homicide That's more an article about methodology. How different methods lead to different results. For those looking for support for one point of view the article has no unambiguous response. Wolfgang |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Gun control From: Bill D Date: 24 Mar 05 - 12:53 PM I guess I should quit banging my head on the wall.....several of you are missing the point of my argument. ( I think you are also making a mistake in judgement, but that is a different issue). There are TWO issues..some of you are using one to argue for the other. 1) SHOULD ordinary people who are not felons or insane be able to buy 'most' classes of firearms? Note..this would include those who are not YET felons or insane, including those who intend to break the law. 2) Could we prevent them from obtaining guns if we tried? I have agreed that we could not totally prevent illegal traffic, and I have stipulated that there are so many guns already out there, that finding and confiscating them all would be impractical. We could, however, slowly reduce the totals, just as we are slowly reducing the number of smokers. In such matters, ANY improvement is a plus. It is poor logic to claim that because it is hard, ("You. Can't. Keep. Them. From. Getting. Guns."), you shouldn't try.) You CAN keep most of them from easily getting the worst types of guns!!!!! My claim is, that this is a VERY dangerous and regretable situation, and that we should restrict MORE ownership of most types of guns , restrict many types of ammunition, make the various state laws more uniform, enforce the laws strictly and begin an educational process similar to the ongoing one about tobacco, so that the DESIRE for guns is gradually reduced. The mentality that sees violence as a solution needs to be changed, as difficult as that is. I have said almost all I can about this....but I will add this. I did not always have such a strong position. I actually owned a pistol once...(just a .22 5 shot revolver...I fired it ONCE, way out in the wilderness. I loaned to a lady who lived alone, and it was stolen from her house by a kid!) I lived with a gun nut for a year, and learned to open and load a shotgun, and watched him play with a .45 can carry it around in his hip pocket. I was dubious, but guns were common, and I didn't make a big issue of it. (This was Kansas in the early 1960s)......Gradually, over the years, I have seen more & more problems as street gangs became bolder and more organized and the spread of serious drugs fuel the desire for guns to 'protect' the dealers. I have seen the types of weapons become more sophisticated and powerful. I have seen the methods of distribution become sneakier. I have seen more & more incidents of previously 'innocent' people, most of whom got their weapons perfectly legally, do horrible things with them. Howard Unruh, Charles Whitman...etc...school shootings by kids....accidental deaths by kids playing....you know the stories.....Yet you keep saying those were just carelessness or sad cases of flawed individuals, and that education and enforcement are all we need. Right there is where we differ....I believe that as long as society has this many careless and flawed people mixed with this many guns, we DO need more than a set of rules posted. I don't care if it's hard and slow to control, I don't care if guns are fascinating and deeply ingrained in our culture, I don't care if you think some meeting 250 years ago wrote a rule that allows YOU to override common sense. That rule needs to be examined and the ambiguities removed. This is my position, belief, analysis, thought, judgement...and yes, 'feeling'.....but the emotion comes a RESULT of the thought in my case, it does not drive my reasoning. I did not begin with an irrational fear or hatred of guns. I do not favor making hunters turn in their deer rifles. I do not suggest making collecting of antique firearms illegal. I just want people to quit saying, "Oh, you can't stop illegal guns and illegal use of them...why try?" do I think all this typing is gonna make much difference? Hey, I'm an idealist, but I'm not totally stupid! I know who has clout and who has political power right now. Now....I guess I HAVE said about all I can on the subject. I expected disagreement, and I didn't expect to 'win'... I just didn't expect so much distortion of the points I was making. further, deponent sayeth not |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Gun control From: robomatic Date: 24 Mar 05 - 01:29 PM I've already talked about this in more detail on another gun thread. There were a lot of burglaries in a low populated community north of Anchorage, Alaska. A local minister came into his church when the burglers were in the basement loading up on stuff. No other folks around. He plugged them both on their way past him out the door. I believe the wounds were in their backs. He was arrested by local constabulary and put on trial. It split the community and many letters to the paper were sent. He was put on trial before a jury of his peers and testified he was afraid for his life. Do I need to tell you the determination? So the system works. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Gun control From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 24 Mar 05 - 01:39 PM Of course if they were to put out on the street large quantities of ammunition designed to explode in a way that destroyed the gun, and endangered the person firing it, but looked in evewry way similar to the ordinary stuff, perhaps that might make people more reluctant to use their guns... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Gun control From: Bill D Date: 24 Mar 05 - 03:43 PM ooooh, McGrath..interesting idea, but even I wouldn't support such a thing.......... now if it burst and sprayed them with cheap perfume....hmmmmmmm..... *grin* |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Gun control From: Don Firth Date: 24 Mar 05 - 05:48 PM Technologically beyond us yet, but it would seem that the Star Trek "hand phaser" permanently set on "stun" would be the ideal weapon for self-defense and law enforcement. The nearest thing we have to that so far is the taser, but even these are controversial. The claim is that, in some people, the electric shock they impart could precipitate a heart attack. But it strikes me that a possible heart attack is preferable to a bullet through the vitals. Don Firth |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Gun control From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 24 Mar 05 - 06:13 PM The other criticism that has been levelled at the taser is that in the hands of the wrong kind of people in official positions, it can be used as a means of torture and punishment in circumstances where shooting would not be permitted. That is probabaly a rather stronger point in the case of police forces which are required to make relatively minimal use of firearms, as in the UK. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Gun control From: Big Mick Date: 24 Mar 05 - 06:50 PM Bill, I think you just don't get it that I do understand your position. I just disagree on a very fundamental level. I think I am with you. We have beat this to death.......again. Mick |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Gun control From: Rapparee Date: 24 Mar 05 - 06:57 PM Using a firearms inside a house isn't usually a good idea. Bullets tear up furniture and the woodwork, bloodstains are hard to remove from carpets -- all in all, a lot of hassle. More importantly, most modern bullets can penetrate the walls of a house and injure people outside, especially bullets from high-powered rifles and high-powered handguns. (I've shattered a concrete block with a single round from a .357 magnum pistol. I hasten to say that this was on a range, and done as part of a safety demonstration. It's not something I do as a regular thing.) I have said elsewhere, and I stand by it, that I would far rather have my hardwood nightstick for self-defense inside my home than a pistol. I know how to use it, and if I have it and you point a gun at me, you'll end up with at least one badly broken wrist. And yes, if need be I could kill you with it. And while I would have little hesitation about shooting someone who was threatening death or serious injury to me or mine, I would have NO hesitation about using the nightstick. Of course, you have to learn to use it properly.... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Gun control From: kendall Date: 24 Mar 05 - 08:19 PM When the bad gus have AK 47 assault rifles, to suggest the cops should use a taser is silly. When I was in law enforcement, all I had was a .38 S&W while the bad guys had 30.06 automatic rifles. I think I was right in feeling undergunned. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Gun control From: Don Firth Date: 24 Mar 05 - 09:24 PM Kendall, I wasn't suggesting that the police use tasers to go after someone armed with a bazooka and/or a Mack-10. I mentioned it mainly because Seattle police have recently been armed with tasers in addition to their service pistols (I think most of them carry Glocks). For most civilian self-defense, a taser would probably be adequate for just about anything that one might run into in terms of burglars, muggers, and such. Don Firth |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Gun control From: beardedbruce Date: 24 Mar 05 - 09:34 PM Don, As to tasers, they would be useful against someone who was not expecting it- there are effective countermeasures available, which I will not discuss in a public forum. There was a story during the last century.... The end line was "All men are created equal- Samual Colt made em that way." The original idea of personal firearms was to equalize the weak and strong, giving the weak a chance to compete instead of being forced to go along with whatever the strongest wanted. The number of handguns used in colonial times seems to be about 10 % the number of longarms, from the known production of gunsmiths of the period. One might suspect that after the British made it illegal to have a firearm, the number of (concealable) handguns became a larger percentage of available guns. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Gun control From: beardedbruce Date: 24 Mar 05 - 09:39 PM Rapaire, Anyone who uses other than frangible bullets inside of a dwelling is either incompetent or desperate. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Gun control From: GUEST Date: 24 Mar 05 - 09:44 PM People who try and justify having children AND guns in their homes are worrying beyond belief. Doesn't matter how often we hear about the gun being under lock and key and the ammo being stored elsewhere. Accidents do and will happen. They are the very same people who look for safety tested cots and car seats. Their brains wouldn't merit a kitemark. They say they want society's thinking to change? They should start the process in their own homes. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Gun control From: GUEST,Clint Keller Date: 25 Mar 05 - 12:56 AM "I believe that as long as society has this many careless and flawed people mixed with this many guns, we DO need more than a set of rules posted." And the many careless and flawed people mixed with this many automobiles? I believe they kill more than the gun owners. I'd support a 45 mph speed limit. Seriously. Would you? I didn't say do nothing about guns. I do say education is better than prohibition laws. I don't think the 18th amendment& the Volstead Act cured any alcoholics. Do you? clint |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Gun control From: kendall Date: 25 Mar 05 - 06:56 AM Does speed really cause accidents? Seems to me that driver inattention, and aggression causes the smashups |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Gun control From: Rapparee Date: 25 Mar 05 - 09:43 AM BB, I'd venture to guess that damned few (<2%) of those who keep a gun by the bed "for defense" even know what a frangible bullet is. Now, if I REALLY wanted to use firearm inside for self-defense (and as I said, I would if I had to, though I'd prefer not to) I'd load my side-by-side double 12 gauge with either #4 or double-ought buckshot and tear 'em in half ("Buckshot means buryin'", as the old saying goes). Back when cops were under-armed with 9mm pistols, the Illinois State Police had to go up against a guy who was murderously high on PCP. Two cops fired 30 bullets and hit him 28 times -- and he still kept coming. Finally, they "put him down" with one shot from a 12 guage -- and the ISP recalled and re-gunsmithed all the 9mm pistols that had just been issued, jacking their "power" up to +P+. They no longer carry them, using .40 caliber Sigs instead. "How would you clear a room in which a shooter was?" the Deputy Sheriff asked me once in conversation. "Toss in a grenade and...." "No, no -- you can't DO that!" he said. "I'm a peaceful guy," I responded, "and I don't like violence AT ALL. But if it's me or him, I'd rather it was me." And I most sincerely hope that the Seattle Police are NOT carrying Glocks, for reasons I won't go into in public. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Gun control From: Don Firth Date: 25 Mar 05 - 01:11 PM I don't know that for sure, Rapaire. I think the individual officers can have a choice of sidearms, within certain guidelines. I know a few of them carry Glocks. One I know carries a Sig-Sauer and another a Beretta. So I think the SPD recommends, but there is a certain level of personal choice allowed. Most of them have been issued tasers, however. In addition to the sidearm. Don Firth |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Gun control From: GUEST,Clint Keller Date: 25 Mar 05 - 01:56 PM "Does speed really cause accidents? Seems to me that driver inattention, and aggression causes the smashups" True. But the more speed the longer & farther it takes to stop when you get in trouble, and the harder you hit. Of course, excessive speed is usually due to driver inattention, aggression, and stupidity, so we're back to the need for education. I was trying, clumsily, I guess, to draw a parallel with gun restrictions & point out that deaths by car are somehow more forgivable than deaths by firearm. Teddy Kennedy's Chappaquiddick adventure got him in trouble, but if he'd killed Mary Jo Kopechne while demonstrating his quickdraw we wouldn't be seeing as much of him now. No difference to Mary Jo, though. clint |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Gun control From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 25 Mar 05 - 05:26 PM So if there's an inalienable right for Americans to walk round wearing swords, how come you never see people doing that these days? Or is it just that this is hushed up by the media? Because it never seems to happen on the telly. (Alright, from time to time you get some nutter on the news who's gone ape with a samurai sword, but I mean as a normal part of daily life, as a kind of fashion statement.) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Gun control From: Don(Wyziwyg)T Date: 25 Mar 05 - 06:42 PM Bruce, It's worth pointing out that guns in the hands of ordinary cops over here in the UK did not start until the IRA terrorist campaign on the British mainland in the 70s. Back in the 50s our police were armed with an eighteen inc wooden truncheon, and gun crime was so rare that the shooting of a policeman in West London, was front page headline news for a couple of months, and caused a storm of public outrage. The killer was hanged. During that decade, the average number of murders in the whole UK was about 200 a year, and guns featured in a tiny percentage of that. I think I'm right in saying that that figure was less than the number in New York City for the same period. Having armed our police, we now have a gun crime situation that is rapidly approaching American proportions. I don't expect any pro gun US citizens will admit it, but I know what I make of those facts. DT |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Gun control From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 25 Mar 05 - 07:06 PM "...we now have a gun crime situation that is rapidly approaching American proportions." That really is pushing it a little, Don. The official Home Office statistics give the overall level of gun crime in this country as less than half of 1 percent of all crime recorded by the police – and in the year ending 31 March 2004, there was a 15 per cent reduction in homicides involving firearms, and a 13 per cent reduction in robberies involving firearms. If we get the impression from the media that the reverse is the case, that's largely because shootings make good news stories. But if we stop a little and think it shouldn't take long to realise that the level of media attention given to horrible shootings, like the one for which four young men have recently been jailed for life, reflects the fact that these things are still pretty uncommon. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Gun control From: susu Date: 25 Mar 05 - 08:03 PM Don I agree with you that police being armed with tasers is a good idea, and several police officers that I know feel the same way. They would rather use a taser in leiu of a gun in any circumstances that warrant it. As for heart attacks, a majoriy of those occur because of several (usually unknown) factors: 1) heart condition in the person being tased 2) drug use in the suspect 3) a combination of the first two 4) the improper training of police when using tasers (can be solved) Tasers are a better choice than stun guns because you have to be in close proximity with a subject with the use ofa stun gun while the taser can be used from a relatively safer distance using darts that will penetrate several layers of clothing, yet if they miss, it can still be used as a stun gun. Stun guns are virtually ineffective through layers of clothing. Now back to the drug user, people on PCP tend to be superhuman, and unfortunately mace doesn't even phase them and usually tasers don't either. But at least they have a better chance of subduing the person and then getting them into custody without causing their death instead of shooting to kill. Just ask the mother of a 16 year old who just got in with the wrong crowd which she would rather have, a phone call from the jailhouse, or one from the M.E.s office. You have no chance of helping the one that died. Just MHO. I could be wrong. Susu |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Gun control From: GUEST,Clint Keller Date: 25 Mar 05 - 09:11 PM "So if there's an inalienable right for Americans to walk round wearing swords, how come you never see people doing that these days?" People don't walk around carrying visible guns much either; it's considered gauche, I guess. There aren't even many sword-weilding nutters. There's more nutters who drive cars into crowds. And it's hard to get in a car or walk through a crowded mall when you wear a sword. People do wear swords to "Renaissance Faires" but thtey are generally required to be peace-banded. But there are some who have a sword on the wall for fantasy defense against an intruder, & I knew a storekeeper who kept a very large Bowie knife on a shelf under his cash register. Swords, within their range, are probably more deadly than pistols but they need skill, and space, and they're not much good for target practice or hunting. Pistols aren't always weapons but swords don't have any use except as weapons aside from cutting wedding cakes. clint As I recall Winston Churchill carried a pistol in the cavalry when most were carrying sabers because he thought it worked better. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Gun control From: Amos Date: 26 Apr 07 - 10:13 AM Bob Herbert, writing in the NY Times, says among other things on this topic: " I had coffee the other day with Marian Wright Edelman, president of the Children's Defense Fund, and she mentioned that since the murders of Robert Kennedy and the Rev. Martin Luther King Jr. in 1968, well over a million Americans have been killed by firearms in the United States. That's more than the combined U.S. combat deaths in all the wars in all of American history. "We're losing eight children and teenagers a day to gun violence," she said. "As far as young people are concerned, we lose the equivalent of the massacre at Virginia Tech about every four days." The first step in overcoming an addiction is to acknowledge it. Americans are addicted to violence, specifically gun violence. We profess to be appalled at every gruesome outbreak of mass murder (it's no big deal when just two, three or four people are killed at a time), but there's no evidence that we have the will to pull the guns out of circulation, or even to register the weapons and properly screen and train their owners. On the day after Christmas in 2000, an employee of Edgewater Technology, a private company in Wakefield, Mass., showed up at work with an assault rifle and a .12-gauge shotgun. Around 11 a.m. he began methodically killing co-workers. He didn't stop until seven were dead. An employee who had not been at work that day spoke movingly to a reporter from The Boston Globe about the men and women who lost their lives. "They were some of the sweetest, smartest people I've ever had the chance to work with," he said. "The cream of the crop." The continuing carnage has roused at least one group of public officials to action: mayors. "We see the violence that is happening in America today," said Mayor Thomas Menino of Boston. "Illegal guns are rampant. Go into almost any classroom in Boston — sixth and seventh grade, eighth grade, high school — and 50 percent of those kids know somebody who had a gun." The mayor noted that since the beginning of the year, more than 100 people have already been killed in Philadelphia, and nearly 80 in Baltimore. Most of the victims were shot to death. Last year Mayor Menino and Mayor Michael Bloomberg of New York, at a meeting they hosted at Gracie Mansion, organized a group of mayors committed to fighting against illegal firearms in the U.S. "It is time for national leadership in the war on gun violence," Mr. Bloomberg said at the time. "And if that leadership won't come from Congress or come from the White House, then it has to come from us." The campaign has grown. There were 15 mayors at that first gathering. Now more than 200 mayors from cities in 46 states have signed on. When asked why Mayor Bloomberg had become so militant about the gun issue, John Feinblatt, the city's criminal justice coordinator, mentioned the "human element." He said: "I think it's because he's watched eight police officers be shot. And because, like all mayors, he's the one who gets awakened, along with the police commissioner, at 3 in the morning and 4 in the morning, and has to rush to the hospital and break the news that can break somebody's heart." Those who are interested in the safety and well-being of children should keep in mind that only motor vehicle accidents and cancer kill more children in the U.S. than firearms. A study released a few years ago by the Harvard School of Public Health compared firearm mortality rates among youngsters 5 to 14 years old in the five states with the highest rates of gun ownership with those in the five states with the lowest rates. The results were chilling. Children in the states with the highest rates of gun ownership were 16 times as likely to die from an accidental gunshot wound, nearly seven times as likely to commit suicide with a gun, and more than three times as likely to be murdered with a firearm...." I greatly respect many people who keep weapons. But I submit that the culture of violence, and its dramatization by firepower, must be cured. A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Gun control From: Bill D Date: 26 Apr 07 - 12:50 PM I am getting old....I didn't remember this thread, even though I made SUCH well phrased arguments in it...*wry smile* I think I'll just trace it and post a link from now on instead of typing a lot. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Gun control From: Dickey Date: 26 Apr 07 - 01:06 PM Amos: first of all, I don't own a gun. Now that you are discussing gun deaths going back in history as far as the JFK assasination, why not go a little farther or is 1963 your cut off date for anything that matters today? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Gun control From: beardedbruce Date: 26 Apr 07 - 01:15 PM causes of death |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Gun control From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 26 Apr 07 - 01:32 PM "going back in history as far as the JFK assassination" - that's ancient history to you, Dickey? Set against a million killings it's a pretty short time, it seems to me. In fact Amos said Robert Kennedy and not John - but then all these old-time things get mixed up, don't they - Genghis Khan and Attila, the Beatles and the Rolling Stones, Bob Dylan and Dylan Thomas... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Gun control From: Dickey Date: 26 Apr 07 - 03:29 PM I stand corrected. Is 1968 the cut off date for anything revelant Amos? The reason I am asking is because Amos immediately claims my postings about are irrevelant because they cite things in the past. Also percentages, deaths per 1000 or per capita should be cited instead of total number of deaths. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Gun control From: Dickey Date: 26 Apr 07 - 03:30 PM "...Asked the primary cause of gun violence, far more Americans blamed the effects of popular culture (40 percent) or the way parents raise their children (35 percent) than the availability of guns (18 percent). In no population group does more than about a fourth cite the availability of guns as the chief cause of gun violence..." http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/story?id=3068449&page=3 |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Gun control From: beardedbruce Date: 26 Apr 07 - 03:35 PM "...Asked the primary cause of gun violence, far more Americans blamed the effects of popular culture (40 percent) or the way parents raise their children (35 percent) than the availability of guns (18 percent)." So, Hillary was right. It takes a village, or maybe a gulag... Lets take the kids away from their parents, put them into government camps and control what they learn, and raise them as the government determines will make them good citizens. THEN the gun violence can be reduced, I betcha. Can't complain about rights if it makes us safer, you know. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Gun control From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 26 Apr 07 - 04:03 PM The implication of "it takes a village" (which of course Ms Clinton didn't invent herself) is that even the best parents in the world are still quite likely to end up with kids going really badly wrong, if other parts of the rest of the environment are rotten - and that certainly seems to be borne out by experience. Every day we read about it happening, and I'm sure a lot of us know second hand, or even first hand. I find it very strange that anyone should object to that expression. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Gun control From: saulgoldie Date: 27 Apr 07 - 12:51 PM http://www.alternet.org/rights/50697/?page=2 |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Gun control From: Stringsinger Date: 27 Apr 07 - 04:57 PM The proponents of gun ownership who yell the loudest at gun control are those who are actively supporting the greedy gun lobby and gun industry. Those who feel it is necessary to have a weapon for protection are drinking the Kool-aid of the NRA and the affiliate gun runners who are making a big profit off of gun ownership. The net result of lack of gun control are more guns. In the US, gun owners are comparitively irresponsible to Canada, Switzerland or other countries wh are more rational about this issue. The US has one of the largest homicide rates in gun violence in the world. There is a procedure for obtaining a driver's license involving testing, showing that the applicant is capable of being responsible for this license. Nothing like that exists in the US today for guns. Anyone can have a gun easilly. The the argument that guns will always be with us and there's nothing anyone can do to stop their misuse is a "self-fulfilling prophecy". It is a form of denial and apathy. Those who buy weapons to protect themselves can show no real evidence that this protection works. Most who purchase this kind of weapon do not know how to even use it. Any seasoned criminal who does know how to use it can disarm those who attempt to protect themselves with it. There are instances of those who have used guns to protect themselves who have been shot and sometimes killed. BTW, the article on the World Health Organization does not mention gun violence as a major cause of disease. Frank Hamilton |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Gun control From: katlaughing Date: 27 Apr 07 - 05:24 PM saulgoldie, thanks for the link to the excellent op/ed piece. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Gun control From: GUEST,whassisname Date: 28 Apr 07 - 01:25 AM You want to SEE the best reason to own guns, watch this video clip: http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/april2007/160407Jam.htm Taped by a group that shows up at Ground Zero in New York City every month on the 11th. They just hold up banners that say 9/11 was an inside job. On this day, thugs who work for Larry Silverstein (owner of the only 3 bldgs to come down in the WTC complex on 9/11, who made between 5-7 billion in insurance on the deal), his thugs and the NYPD confront these guys. In the ensuing exchange you can hear the police JOKING about one of the young men having a "bomb" in his backpack. He calls the man a "terrorist." The keep trying to get the camera shut off so they can beat the crap out of the guys. Americans who want to entrust their safety to cops are I-N-S-A-N-E. The founding fathers just went through this with the Brits, and now you want to let it happen AGAIN? You women...watch this video. You want THE COPS in this film to be the only ones on the streets carrying guns? Even if criminals COULDN'T get guns, how safe would you feel with these thugs treating YOU like this? Several years ago a man drove a pickup into a restaurant here in Texas and opened up with his firearms. Killed a couple dozen unarmed people. The state immediately passed a concealed handgun law. People can now eat with peace of mind in public places. Violent crime has dropped over 20% since that shooting. Carjacking was skyrocketing, but it CEASED the day the new law went into effect. Carjackers suddenly didn't know who did and did not have guns. Then, a couple of years ago, the legislature passed a law allowing people to carry concealed handguns in their cars (without going through the registration, training process). The reasoning is that when you're in your car, it's more or less an extension of your home, and you have the right to protect yourself at home. Only one additional shooting has happened on the zillion miles of roads in Texas because of this change in law, and that one was ruled justifiable. Quit buying in to the brainwashing. Criminals will always have guns, cops rarely get there in time, and if they do, more and more are like the ones in the video. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Gun control From: Dickey Date: 28 Apr 07 - 02:44 AM "There are instances of those who have used guns to protect themselves who have been shot and sometimes killed." There are even more instances of those who have not used a gun to protect themsleves who have been shot and killed. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Gun control From: Strollin' Johnny Date: 28 Apr 07 - 03:26 AM What a shitty place the USA must be, when everyone needs a gun to protect themselves from everyone else. Thank f**k I live in a peaceful country. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Gun control From: GUEST,whassisname Date: 28 Apr 07 - 12:21 PM Protecting yourself if the price of freedom. Dictatorships usually ARE peaceful, most of the time. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Gun control From: Strollin' Johnny Date: 28 Apr 07 - 02:18 PM Dictatorship? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Gun control From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 28 Apr 07 - 02:40 PM USA, Afghanistan - in some countries people seem just to be set up that way. No point arguing about it really from outside. Is there a word meaning negative role model? Very useful people. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Gun control From: Strollin' Johnny Date: 28 Apr 07 - 03:03 PM American Gun-Freak? (Sorry McG, I realise that's three words) :-) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Gun control From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 28 Apr 07 - 06:55 PM I meant in general terms - actually role model can mean positive role model or negative role model, I just read - it's just that when the qualifier "positive" or negative" is left out it tends to be assumed that positive role model is intended. But that's just an assumption that can be wrong. So it really is true to say that the USA gun laws do at any rate provide the rest of the world with a very valuable role model. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Gun control From: kendall Date: 28 Apr 07 - 07:40 PM America is NOT a shitty place to live. I can't quote a figure offhand, but I know that the overwhelming numbers of killings by guns here are done by people who know each other. And, when you say "America" keep in mind that there are many Americas, and there are dangerous places, just like in England, and there are safe places just as there are in England. In India, if you don't like your wife you set her afire. Here, we shoot her. If you had to choose, which would it be? Just for the sake of balance, I have to admit that there are too many guns here, and if we could eliminate all of them, it would be safer for all of us. I've never heard of a "drive by stabbing." |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Gun control From: Strollin' Johnny Date: 29 Apr 07 - 02:38 AM Hi Kendall. I know that of course, been there several times and loved every minute (and coming back for more in June). My words were simply a way of saying "I don't believe you people over there REALLY DO need to protect yourselves from everyone else - the danger's only there BECAUSE a lot of you have guns". I intended the irony to be self-evident, guess I failed dismally. Apologies for the generalisation 'Americans' - you know us Brits well enough to understand that's a term reserved here for 'Citizens of the United States of America' - even though there are indeed many Americas we mean 'US Citizens' when we say 'Americans'. For the sake of balance also, I didn't like my first wife, but I didn't choose either to burn or shoot her, I took the peaceful route and divorced her! That's what we generally do here! :-) S:0) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Gun control From: Dickey Date: 29 Apr 07 - 03:37 AM Yanks mate, Yanks |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Gun control From: kendall Date: 29 Apr 07 - 08:26 AM Gottcha Johnnie. Sorry for the over reaction. The real problem is not so much that everyone here has a gun, but rather that too many nut cases have guns. If they became illegal to own, the law abiding citizen would turn in his weapon but you know the criminal and the nutters wouldn't. What would that do? it would make the law abiding citizen vulnerable to the crooks. A few years ago in Florida, there was a rash of robberies and shootings. It got so bad that tourists stopped going there. I was one of them. Then, the state legislature passed a "right to carry" law, and the crime rate went into the cellar. The bad guys knew that his "victim" might well be armed too, and they don't like an even playing field. Without that advantage of a weapon, they are nothing. In NYC the Sullivan Law forbids carrying a gun, yet they have a very high crime rate. Why? because the crooks couldn't care less abut the law! They are law breakers anyway. Added to the problem is the fact that anyone can walk into a gun store in Georgia and buy a gun, or a dozen guns, and you don't have to prove that you are sane or don't have a criminal record. Many of those guns find their way to NYC in spite of the law.(Witness the recent massacre in Virginia) Guns are also against the law in Washington DC, the city with the highest murder rate in the whole country. Again, guns travel well. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Gun control From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 29 Apr 07 - 02:19 PM True enough, having tight gun control in one part of a country and not in others is a bit like having a section of a swimming pool where pissing isn't allowed. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Gun control From: Strollin' Johnny Date: 29 Apr 07 - 02:21 PM No problem Kendall - I have occasionally been known to over-react myself! LOL! I truly do understand the arguments for allowing guns, and I can see that there's a certain comfort-blanket value to having one, I just believe that being 'safer' packing a gun is a matter of perception rather than fact - 12,000 homicides by shooting per annum are pretty strong proof of that. In truth, EVERYBODY (that's emphasis, not shouting BTW!) would be far 'safer' if there were NO guns. And yes, I'm sure you're right that the bad-guys will hold on to their weapons while the good-guys hand 'em in, but I just can't help feeling that 'we have to start somewhere'. It's difficult but, if people in days gone by had allowed difficulty to prevent them taking great steps, Columbus would never have discovered America, and man would not have walked on the moon! :-) Cheers fella, and good wishes to your lady. S:0) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Gun control From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 29 Apr 07 - 02:27 PM My impression is that it isn't primarily the bad guys you have to worry about - it's the people who'd previously been good-enough-guys who, for some reason or no reason anyone understands, turn killers. Family, friends, workmates, fellow students... "I know that the overwhelming numbers of killings by guns here are done by people who know each other. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Gun control From: kendall Date: 29 Apr 07 - 03:05 PM We have to start somewhere. Ok, good, I agree, but we don't start with the good guys. Bad guys are the reason the good guys have guns. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Gun control From: Midchuck Date: 29 Apr 07 - 04:55 PM Bad gyus are the reason the good guys have guns. Gyus? Oh well, he's from Maine... The point is well taken, though. Everytime you point out that the slogan, "If guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns" is perfect, simple, truth, someone says, "Yes, but look at the rednecks who have it on their bumpers! Those people didn't even go to college! How can they possibly be right?" They appear to think that that shows it's not so. Actually, it's even worse than that. As Edward Abbey pointed out, if guns are outlawed, only outlaws and the government will have guns. We'll get it from both sides! Peter |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Gun control From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 29 Apr 07 - 05:24 PM But the people who are most likely to shoot you aren't the bad guys or the government. They are too busy shooting other bad guys or other governments, more often than not. Bad guys and the government, touch wood, I can live with. The danger comes from the people you thought were good guys, but, for some reason or other, they have taken it into your head that you are a bad guy. Fortunately, where I live, they are very unlikely to have a gun. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Gun control From: Strollin' Johnny Date: 30 Apr 07 - 07:53 AM Exactly. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Gun control From: kendall Date: 30 Apr 07 - 03:03 PM We now have a law that says if you beat up your wife, and you are convicted of domestic violence, you can not legally own a gun. How do you like them apples? I say BULLY! Any man who beats up on a woman is not a man in my opinion, and if he has that much trouble controlling his temper, he damn well shouldn't have a gun. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Gun control From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 30 Apr 07 - 05:09 PM Shouldn't let the bastards drive either, given the likelihood of road rage in anyone without self control. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Gun control From: Sorcha Date: 30 Apr 07 - 05:20 PM Saw a bumper sticker the other day GUN CONTROL: Using both hands I know, I know, not funny for some of you. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Gun control From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 30 Apr 07 - 05:41 PM GUN CONTROL: Using both hands While driving? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Gun control From: Don Firth Date: 30 Apr 07 - 05:44 PM Talking on a cell phone while drive may be safer. But not much. Don Firth |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Gun control From: Donuel Date: 30 Apr 07 - 08:10 PM Another "gunman" targeted a Target Store today and killed 2 in the store while wounding two others. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Gun control From: kendall Date: 30 Apr 07 - 10:15 PM Jacqui and I were in a Target store today! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Gun control From: GUEST,whassisname Date: 14 May 07 - 09:20 PM In case anyone wonders how gun control is taught in our public schools in America, here are some reassuring stories: ...Many of the 69 pupils, aged about 11, were reduced to tears when they were told to hide under tables and keep quiet as a gunman was on the loose.... ...The incident lasted about five minutes and was intended to be a learning experience, said the school's assistant principal, Don Bartch, who led the trip.... http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/6653167.stm ...For nine minutes, the classrooms and offices of Hudson High School were locked down, while a sheriff's deputy posed as an intruder with a gun, roaming the halls.... http://www.sptimes.com/News/082300/Pasco/School_drill_tests_cr.shtml ATLANTA -- A mixed response by parents at a middle Georgia high school after learning a pistol was fired inside the school as part of an emergency drill. Students didn't know the gun was firing blanks.... http://www.wsbtv.com/news/9852407/detail.html BURLINGTON, NJ, April 3, 2007 – On Thursday, March 22, officials at Burlington Township High School enlisted the help of two local policemen to carry out a mock 'hostage situation' drill at their school. The drill invoked disapproval from Christian students as the student body was told that the alleged gunmen were "members of a right-wing fundamentalist group called the 'New Crusaders' who don't believe in separation of church and state." http://www.lifesite.net/ldn/2007/apr/07040301.html These are just random situations pulled up in no particular order. Just search for 'school gun drill' and you'll find hundreds. How can you public school teachers go along with this stuff? All these drills are funded with federal money, so your school districts have to go along with it to get the money, but how do you, as an individual, abide this? This is SEVERE torture. Trauma-based mind control. How can you work in a public school system that does this? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Gun control From: fumblefingers Date: 15 May 07 - 12:24 AM I'll just hang onto my three pistols and you guys can argue until your tongues get tired. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Gun control From: kendall Date: 15 May 07 - 09:18 AM I find that ONE is enough. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Gun control From: JohnInKansas Date: 15 May 07 - 04:52 PM if you beat up your wife, and you are convicted of domestic violence, you can not legally own a gun. In most places a conviction is not necessary. If any complaint of "domestic violence" has ever been made in which you were involved, and you were taken into custody, in most jurisdictions it will be nearly impossible for you to legally own or posses a gun. A "domestic violence" complaint does not mean that there was violence of any kind, but could just be a couple yelling at each other loud enough for the neighbors to hear. Coupled with the policy in many places that on any call in which police respond to a "domestic disturbance" at least one party must be taken into custody (often whichever one is most willing to leave to de-fuse the situation) there are quite a few people who likely are innocently affected. The law also was made retroactive, so an old record for submitting to "custody" when it was just the "convenient thing to do" could now prevent you from legally owning or possessing. This "new provision" resulted in at least 3 officers on my local police force being forced to leave the force, despite what appeared to be perfectly respectable histories of performance as police officers and no charges or convictions in any of the cases. John |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Gun control From: Bobert Date: 15 May 07 - 09:14 PM Hmmmm??? Now we have a bunch of George Mason University students in Fairfax, Va. who want to be able to strap on their handguns and wear them to class... Ahhhhh, am I missin' something or has the United States been completely taken over by lunitics??? Bobert |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Gun control From: katlaughing Date: 04 Sep 07 - 12:09 AM I did not want to start another thread on guns, so am posting this here. Have any of you heard of Kenneth Royce aka Boston T. Party who wrote a novel called "Molon Labe?" You may read about it and some reviews of it on amazon HERE. From what I was told by a person who has read it and from what I have read at Amazon, it is a blueprint for "freedom-loving" gun owners to take over the state of Wyoming and free it from "big government." Though what kind of freedom they mean is questionable as apparently everyone would have to go to church and be chaste. I read about things like this, from someone who used to be a good friend of my Rog, and figure it is no wonder some gun owners leave us all concerned as to what their real goals are in owning guns. I am NOT talking about folks like Mick, Sorcha, and others who own them for hunting or work, etc. It makes me realise for all of our past work on human rights and keeping the northwest from being taken over by the white supremacists, there are still wing-nuts out there who want to "free" themselves and create their own tyrannical state. I hope the folks in Wyoming are canny about this. It makes me angry and sad. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Gun control From: Riginslinger Date: 04 Sep 07 - 07:50 AM So Wyoming would end up something like Utah, huh? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Gun control From: kendall Date: 04 Sep 07 - 07:56 AM Bottom line here is; it's all England's fault. The government of King George 3 was so awful that when the constitution was drafted, the founding fathers made damn sure the Americans would be able to legally defend themselves. So there. Maine has one million people. Men, women and children. We also have 10,000 concealed weapons permits out there. I'm not aware of one incident where a person with a concealed weapons permit shot someone. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Gun control From: Big Phil Date: 04 Sep 07 - 08:35 AM We have banned all handguns here in the UK, thanks to the Government thinking it would reduce gun crime, guess what,since the ban, handgun crime has gone through the roof. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Gun control From: Rapparee Date: 04 Sep 07 - 09:02 AM Oh, God. More crap to fuel the lunatic fringe, like the "Turner Diaries." Just what is needed to help ethical, responsible gun owners. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Gun control From: GUEST,jfnjnbvavo Date: 04 Sep 07 - 09:30 AM England gave up gun ownership and is now treated to spectacles like cops executing a man on the 'tube.' 4 bullets to the head, wasn't it? How safe you people must feel. At least in America we can protect ourselves against the thugs of government. That's what our constitution did for us--it left us the means to protect ourselves against abusive government. 100 million gun owners in America, too. Groups like Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership. JPFO.org. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Gun control From: Rapparee Date: 04 Sep 07 - 09:47 AM Shoot a cop, see what happens. Even shoot AT a cop.... GUEST whatever, I happen to BE a gun owner (as folks here know). I have been using guns, out of and inside the military, for the past 51 years. And I firmly believe in the "alter or abolish" part of the Declaration of Independence and the Second Amendment. I am a fairly good shot with rifle, shotgun and pistol (bother revolvers and otherwise) -- that is to say, with a rifle I could kill a man-sized target at 325 meters using iron sights; and using a pistol I can consistently hit a Coke can at 35 meters. You, on the other hand, talk like a wannabe. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Gun control From: Q (Frank Staplin) Date: 04 Sep 07 - 10:02 AM Some years ago Canada enacted a law requiring registry of firearms. It has been a costly joke; the money could have been better spent on education. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Gun control From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 04 Sep 07 - 10:20 AM How does it cone about you never seem to have motorists organisations that want to abolish driving tests? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Gun control From: GUEST,Black Hawk Date: 04 Sep 07 - 10:31 AM Whats a driving test got to do with gun control? OH! I see. You're worried about drive-by shootings ........ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Gun control From: katlaughing Date: 04 Sep 07 - 10:42 AM Christ, did any of you read the stuff at the link I posted? I didn't mean to start the whole acrimonious bullshit, again. I wanted the comments of my fellow Mudcatters on the book and its ideas, so to speak. Rog's friend is completely serious about what it espouses. This is alarming. He is not a nut. He just retired from a distinguished career in the military, some of it spooky-do stuff of which he will not speak. I would not consider him "fringe" element. Oh, well, I guess you all will argue back and forth no matter. Thanks for nothing. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Gun control From: Stringsinger Date: 04 Sep 07 - 10:46 AM Micheal Moore got it right. Can't separate Martin Marietta from Columbine. I have no sympathy for Charlton Heston who was a spokesman for the NRA. He can't blame that on Alzheimers. Frank |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Gun control From: Q (Frank Staplin) Date: 04 Sep 07 - 11:05 AM McGrath, Canada's gun registry has no provision for teaching firearms safety. It is just a register of serial numbers and owners' names. It does not affect criminals or gangs in any way, not surprisingly they ignore it. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Gun control From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 04 Sep 07 - 12:54 PM So would I be right to assume Canadian gun-lovers are campaigning to get the law strengthened to include stuff like passing a test firearms safety and so forth before anyone is allowed to have a gun? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Gun control From: Rapparee Date: 04 Sep 07 - 12:57 PM Kat, I find ANY such book disturbing. It seems like the authors are usually the sort of people who feel that "it's MY way or no way" -- and ex-military officers (and higher-ranking NCOs) have in the past been among the worst (e.g., Bo Gritz). I respect their right to their opinions and ideas, but I need not espouse them. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Gun control From: Big Mick Date: 04 Sep 07 - 01:03 PM This is the wrong thread for this discussion, kat. This isn't about gun control. It is about a book that is a blueprint for action for people of a certain viewpoint. McGrath has already chosen to ignore your desires on the direction of the discussion. I would start another thread. Mick |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Gun control From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 04 Sep 07 - 01:32 PM I hardly started any drift away from discussing this dodgy character and his ideas. The fact that someone is has a distinguished career in the military is hardly a safe indication that they are trustworthy members of a democratic society. Goering comes to mind, and I am sure there are lots of American examples. I suppose the question is, how do you best deal with this kind of incitement. In principle I imagine there might be something in your all embracing Patriot Act which could be brought to bear, but I doubt if that'd really be likely to help. Maybe the good guys could move to Wyoming first instead. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Gun control From: Big Mick Date: 04 Sep 07 - 01:37 PM This character is, indeed, dodgy. And I would like to clarify one point. It, emphatically, is NOT my Patriot Act. I find many of its provisions clearly in violation of the priniciples that I believe this country and its government should stand for. The way you deal with this type of stuff is to let it die a natural death. That is the way of it in this country. Ideas are allowed, and will fly, or not, on their own merits. I am not sure who the good guys are, btw. Mick |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Gun control From: GUEST,jfnjnbvavo Date: 04 Sep 07 - 01:59 PM As to the book in question, we've been swallowing serious brainwashing crap about 'global government' for a hundred years now, and 'liberals' seem to think that's okay. America's being dismantled so it can be absorbed into a tyrannical global government, and that's okay. Sovereignty is bad. And as for individualism, well the American Psychiatric Assoc now says you're CRAZY if you have any independent traits. So someone wrote a book about separatism and self-reliance. So what? If you want a totalitarian big brother society, well, it's growing up all around you. Can't you even freaking READ about individualism in a piece of escapist writing? Let's just censor EVERYTHING that doesn't follow the communist line. And maybe lobotomize the writers too. I mean, what business do writers have speaking against the status quo? The is AMERICA dammit, and freedom of expression has GOT to be controlled. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Gun control From: katlaughing Date: 04 Sep 07 - 03:33 PM Thank you, MCGrath, Q, Mick, Frank, and Rapaire. I appreciate your comments. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Gun control From: Rapparee Date: 04 Sep 07 - 03:34 PM Yeah. People like Thoreau, and Jefferson, and Paine, and Voltaire, and Hobbes, and Heinlein, and Twain, and all those other members of the lobotomized walking dead. Only reading them requires you to think for yourself. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Gun control From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 04 Sep 07 - 03:44 PM Hobbes against the status quo? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Gun control From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 04 Sep 07 - 04:37 PM No, that was thread drift too. But while I think Big Mick is quite right about how leaving this kind of thing to die a natural death is probably the best way to deal with it, I can imagine that it might feel a bit scary out in Wyoming thinking about the implications if the message encouraged the kind of nuts it appears to be directed at to try to act it out. Still I'd have thought that incomers like that wouldn't be too welcome in any rural community. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Gun control From: Rapparee Date: 04 Sep 07 - 05:55 PM Yes, Hobbes. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Gun control From: Q (Frank Staplin) Date: 04 Sep 07 - 06:19 PM I know little about the situation in Wyoming and Idaho.Occasionally there is an article about extreme right-wing groups, but I think most of us consider it inconsequential and go on to other things. "Rural community" has an odd twist in states like Wyoming, which have a small population concentrated in a few small towns but large areas considered ranchland but not controlled by serious ranchers and farmers. These properties may contain many acres and may be bought by any one or any group with sufficient money. They do not really constitute a part of the rural community as we generally think of it. It is here that these odd groups are growing, not in the small towns and successful ranching and farming areas. They gain control of a large piece of property and what they do on it is not known or questioned by law enforcement and local governments. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Gun control From: Riginslinger Date: 04 Sep 07 - 07:36 PM Q - It was commonly known that these groups were growing in those areas before the Timothy McVay thing, but then we were given to think they'd died down. Are you saying that they are growing again now? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Gun control From: katlaughing Date: 04 Sep 07 - 08:04 PM That is exactly right, Q, though I don't know if they are growing in numbers or not. There is a lot of anonymity and autonomy that goes on because of the huge spaces of uninhabited land. I remember one such outfit that was down near Laramie; it was in the news when Matthew Shepard was murdered. I cannot remember the name of it. I think another thing which alarmed me is Rog's friend is seriously considering moving to WY for the reasons outlined in this and other books, etc. of its type. My friends and I worked really hard and for many years to ensure ALL WY citizens would be safe and treated equally. Much of our educational efforts and publicity was in direct response to the white supremacists who had a plan to take over the entire northwest. Sounds as if they are still active. I'd like to believe it will die down from lack of attention, but I seriously doubt that will be an effective way to respond. I think the more folks know about this so-called "blueprint" the better. WY may seem a very conservative state, but when push comes to shove about personal rights, the ones who hate gun control laws will back freedom of choice without fail as evidenced several times when propositions to restrict that freedom were brought to the voters. It's a kind of schizo place that way. Thanks for letting me vent. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Gun control From: Rapparee Date: 04 Sep 07 - 09:25 PM They pick up a few nutsoes around Idaho every now and then, but ever since they closed down that bunch up north and sold the compound there hasn't been much activity at all. No more than, say, Indiana. Yeah, there are still Birchers and such, and compared to the bunch currently in Washington the Libertarian message seems more and more attractive, but as I said, the real nuts don't seem to be any more than when I lived in Ohio or Indiana or Kentucky. As for the gun control issue -- this seems to me to be an urban-vs.-rural problem: there is a LOT of open land here, in WY and MT, many farms and ranches, and a population that has traditionally used firearms for hunting and, yes, family and personal protection (as I've said before, I'd use a sword and do up the baddies en brouchette). But I think that the author of such books as the one under discussion, those who want a "free state" (whatever that is) such as some are or were trying to establish in New Hampshire, are seriously deluding themselves about a lot of things. Remember: most people interact with people who believe the same things. This leads to the incorrect assumption that because "my friends all believe this" everyone believes it. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Gun control From: Riginslinger Date: 04 Sep 07 - 10:30 PM Yeah, that's right. Wasn't Neal Boortz (or however he spells his name) heading up a movement to try to have Libertarians take over either Wyoming or Vermont by simpy moving in in large numbers? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Gun control From: Rapparee Date: 04 Sep 07 - 10:38 PM It was back east somewhere -- VT or NH. The general feeling in Idaho was "Please God, send 'em someplace else! We're still trying to recover from that other bunch of idiots!" |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Gun control From: GUEST,jfnjnbvavo Date: 05 Sep 07 - 02:49 AM Welfare-state fascists (liberals) are starting to bitch and snort about the "evil right wingers" now because they need an enemy for the future. Liberals think they're about to take over the U.S. government, and when that happens, well you need an enemy to fight a war. So the drones on the left are suddenly being told by Billary and Uncle Obama that the war is GOOD, dammit. Can't cut and run! We've got to come together on this! It takes a village! And anyone who creates a fuss in the village needs to be DEALT with. That's why Halliburton BUILT those concentration camps, dammit, so HATE those Christians. HATE those constitutionalists. They threaten the WELFARE STATE. Look up the ten planks of the communist manifesto. They've all been implemented in America to one degree or another, but that's not enough, is it? People can't be allowed to get away from the tyranny in real life OR in fiction. Man...the leftists think they're so individual, and they don't even know that the form of government they endorse is state fascism. They say they're individual and tolerant, but if you judge them by their actions you see conformism, intolerance...fascism. They tune in to government-funded NPR and do not give the steady leakage of anti-American vomit a second thought as it dribbles into their ears. Only difference between NPR and Limbaugh is that NPR leads with the left jackboot and Limbaugh with the right, but together they manage to forward the cause of statism a bit more with each deceptive broadcast. We live under the "rule of law" but our rulers are lawless. Secession and revolt are inevitable. Dick Cheney has ordered Fox News to start the hard sell on the Iran War this week, so the shit's about to hit the fan. And you Democrats are going to end up LOVING the state of war because it'll be handed over to you. The whole mess. And then any challenge to the government will be a challenge to YOU, and you can't abide that, can you? But then you know all this. Government indoctrination has taught you to hate your kids, and you want to feed them to a meat grinder. So be it. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Gun control From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 05 Sep 07 - 09:05 AM As I said: "Still I'd have thought that incomers like that wouldn't be too welcome..." |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Gun control From: Rapparee Date: 05 Sep 07 - 09:11 AM Go away, boy. Ya bother me. No, wait. I'll go away. Bye. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Gun control From: GUEST,jfnjnbvavo Date: 05 Sep 07 - 11:15 AM Yeah, well, I wasn't the one who dragged up a "gun control" thread to squawk about a work of fiction. Liberals are so house-broken that every time they see a threat to the welfare state they think FIRST of guns. I find that amazing. You people have been taught by the terrorists in charge of the government that the tools which keep you free are bad. Amazing. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Gun control From: Big Mick Date: 05 Sep 07 - 12:44 PM I have done a little investigation, using my magical powers. It appears to me that GUEST,jfnjnbvavo is just one of our same old trolls. I believe that the purpose of these posts is primarily to get a rise, and also to try and paint gun owners in a certain light. To those who are reading these posts, attempting to get an understanding of what motivates those of us in the US who own legally, use responsibly, and defend our right to own these, please don't take these posts as anything more than trolling and an example of a lunatic fringe. I believe that there is very likely an agenda in these posts that are not what this troll is attempting to make folks see. In other words, ignore this person. Mick |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Gun control From: GUEST,jfnjnbvavo Date: 05 Sep 07 - 03:13 PM Yes, listen to Mick. Meanwhile, back to the "liberals," I find it hard to believe that people who are generally well educated and articulate can find it so hard to articulate the truth. They shower degrees and academic laurels on themselves, yet they're so bad at articulating truth that I have to wonder whether they even KNOW the truth. For example... My father pointed out to me once that affirmative action is bad. And not for the reactionary reasons you might think (evil right winger). He said that giving someone economic advantage based on race has been PROVEN bad. It was tried before and didn't work. He was talking about slavery. Think about it. Why would you support preferential treatment based on race? And why should what used to be bad (race/class divisions reinforced by economics) now be considered good? I've talked to third-graders who understand this simple concept, yet most liberals go into a short circuit when they are confronted with the paradox. They try to rationalize and justify, but bad is bad, white, black or blue. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Gun control From: Big Mick Date: 05 Sep 07 - 03:17 PM Careful there.... your agenda is showing |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Gun control From: GUEST,jfnjnbvavo Date: 05 Sep 07 - 04:03 PM Yes, truth is an agenda. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Gun control From: Big Mick Date: 05 Sep 07 - 04:13 PM OK, just for a short moment I will engage on this issue. Please be aware that I am doing so, even though it is part of your larger agenda and has little if nothing to do with the topic, and especially with your assertion that you have the corner on truth. In a lab setting, your father's silly (and racist apologism) would have some veracity. But when the system has been gerrymandered by systematic racism, followed by artificially induced, systematic and social racist discrimination, resulting in the lack of opportunity economically and socially, then society must attempt to reverse engineer the problem and fix the evils. Denial that racism exists and is at the root of the problems among inner city youth, and among various non white groups is an evil unto itself. Whites only came up with silly terms like "reverse racism" when it was their ox getting gored. When it was just a bunch of blacks (and you know how "they" are), the problem wasn't a problem. And, I might add, the various non-white groups handled the problem for hundreds of years with a helluva lot of grace. So now this thread can really spin out of control. But not with me. I am out of this one. Continue on......troll. Mick |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Gun control From: GUEST,jfnjnbvavo Date: 05 Sep 07 - 07:27 PM So how to simplify this for the brainiacs... If you support favoritism for a group based on race now, then you can't criticize the support of favoritism based on race back then. Or, you can, but it makes you out a hypocrite. Like I say, third graders understand this simple concept. It's common sense. Favoritism for a group based on race is bad. It's divisive. It's what liberals thrive on. And some people are just tired of the hypocrisy and the divisiveness. Lots of people are. Someone wrote a book on the subject and someone here reactivates a "Gun control" thread. One thing the liberals DO produce is superior comedians. In my experience, liberals are more racist than conservatives. Conservatives squawk about something racial from time to time, but liberals LIVE THEIR LIVES looking through a filter of race. They interact according to skin color. How much smile to give a black man? Did I just use the word "boy" when talking about that black man's infant son? Omigod! lol. Anyway, because they consider race first in all their interactions, liberals are technically more "racist" than conservatives. And that fawning slavishness to people of color isn't doing them any good. They hate you for treating them like children. Don't let the door hit you in the ass on the way out Mick. The truth sure clears a room. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Gun control From: artbrooks Date: 05 Sep 07 - 07:58 PM As usual, someone is using the term "liberal" to define what he/she/it dislikes, without any clear understanding of what the word means. Once again, according to Webster's New World College Dictionary (the one I happen to have on my desk): "Liberal - tolerant of views differing from one's own; broad-minded; specif. not orthodox; favoring reforms or progress, as in religion, education, etc.; specif. favoring political reforms leading toward democracy and personal freedom for the individual." |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Gun control From: GUEST,jfnjnbvavo Date: 05 Sep 07 - 08:58 PM The bit about 'personal freedom for the individual' is interesting. The liberals (Democrats) in America blame all things bad on G.W. Bush, yet when they take over congress they make no move to repeal things like the PATRIOT Act, restore habeas corpus, etc. If they're so big on personal freedom, why aren't they repealing these things? Answer is because the Democratic congress is in favor of the social control legislation. And what about the Real I.D. Act? Senate voted 100-0 to issue tracking cards to American citizens...won't be able to work, raise kids, buy food, etc. without one. How does that serve 'personal freedom?' Every 'liberal' in the Senate voted for that one. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Gun control From: Jeri Date: 05 Sep 07 - 09:25 PM Shame you don't have anything to say about gun control, or maybe the concept of a thread subject is too difficult for you. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Gun control From: GUEST,jfnjnbvavo Date: 06 Sep 07 - 12:52 AM Fine. Gun control works. Hitler, Stalin and Mao made great use of it. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Gun control From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 06 Sep 07 - 04:05 AM They also made use of railway trains and typewriters. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Gun control From: 3refs Date: 06 Sep 07 - 09:19 AM Osho said he loved to disturb people – only by disturbing them could he make them think. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Gun control From: GUEST,jfnjnbvavo Date: 06 Sep 07 - 09:24 AM So, how come such highly-educated people go into brain-lock when simple but unpleasant truths are presented to them? Dictators confiscate guns before purges. Why, then, would you support 'gun control?' And if Democrats (liberals) are believers in individual freedom, why aren't they working to repeal legislation that says you can kidnap American citizens and torture them to death without ever telling a judge? Call me a lunatic fringer, a racist, etc. all you want, but why can't you people answer these simple questions? Is it cowardice, or is simply that the liberal 'higher learning' institutions have taught you certain rote responses? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Gun control From: artbrooks Date: 06 Sep 07 - 09:52 AM Well, let's see... Dictators confiscate guns before purges. Why, then, would you support 'gun control?' Is this a reference back to the earlier comment that gun control works. Hitler, Stalin and Mao made great use of it.? Anyone who knows anything at all about history is very aware that gun ownership was highly restricted in the Kaiser's Germany, Tsarist Russia and Imperial China. Why aren't Democrats (liberals)...working to repeal legislation that says you can kidnap American citizens and torture them to death without ever telling a judge? Now, that's a new one on me. Please provide a legal cite to that legislation. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Gun control From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 06 Sep 07 - 11:21 AM Gun control can mean different things. One is that certain weapons should be outlawed in private hands. I think anyone but a total nut would accept that was a good idea, though there's lots of room for disagreement about what weapons should be covered. I doubt if there are many advocates of weapons of mass destruction in private hands, and I doubt if there are all that many advocates of private possession of heavy machine guns or artillery. When it comes to handguns I'm very glad to live in a country where it's a crime to possess them, and most people here are agreed about that. But if most people in some other countries see it differently, that is their right. The other thing gun control can mean is that there should be rules about people having to undergo training before they are allowed to have a gun licence, and disqualifications for some people - the same system, essentially, as applies with drivers. And just as you would never expect to have motorists' organisations opposing to this kind of thing for cars, I'd expect that any responsible organisation representing gun users would see things the same way, and be strongly in favour of firm gun controls of this sort. Stuff about needing guns in case the government needs overthrowing should be recognised as irrelevant fantasies. If it ever comes to a situation of armed insurrection there is never any problem in getting hold of the required weapons, as has been demonstrated time and time again. Timothy McVeigh didn't need legally held weapons to murder those kids in Oklahoma. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Gun control From: Big Mick Date: 06 Sep 07 - 12:12 PM Kevin, with great respect, I must disagree with many of your contentions. And I would suggest to you that the reason it is hard for you to understand the positions of folks here is cultural. I would point out that there are many positions that you and I have agreed on over the years here. I respect your view, and you are one of those Mudcatters for whom I will open a thread I am otherwise not interested in just to see what you have to say. I would hope that the general respect would go both ways. And so how can a couple of people who, I think, respect one anothers views, be so apart on one like this. You see the idea of protection from ones own government as an irrelevant fantasy. But in this country, that was one of the cornerstones of the establishment of our form of government. And that was only a bit over 200 years ago. That right, to keep and bear arms, for a great many of us, is ingrained in our sense of of who and what we are. It is something for which there must be a reason, and a very good one, to justify taking it away. Other than the fact that some don't see any reason for me to own my weapons, I have not heard a good one yet. It is not good enough that others don't think I should be allowed. I already am, and one must justify why they want to remove my right. Let's look at some reasons why folks want to "control" guns: - To conrol gun violence. This is very nebulous. Are we talking about high crime area, gang style, violence? Gun control raises these types of crime. And the weapons used are virtually all illegally obtained. - To control domestic violence. While these types of crimes get a lot of attention, most empirical data I have seen indicates that these types of crimes make up such a small portion of the total number as to be neglible. - school shootings. See previous point. And in the two most notorious recent cases, Columbine and Virginia Tech, the weapons were obtained illegally. Your point about training is one I happen to agree with. I believe that, in the case of obtaining a permit to carry a concealed weapon, but not to own weapons, the training standard is wholly inadequate. As to the point about McVeigh, you actually make my point with that one. I believe that we must focus on the crimes, and enforcement of existing laws, even strengthening of existing laws, as opposed to the implements that have legal uses, as well as illegal uses. Thanks for a reasoned post on the matter. Mick |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Gun control From: GUEST,jfnjnbvavo Date: 06 Sep 07 - 01:47 PM No time to read the 3 posts in detail, but time for 1. artbrooks... Controls were in place in those countries, but confiscation followed the rise of those men to power. Hitler first registered the guns, then he seized them. Ask the Jews who were...oh yeah, they're dead. And the stuff about citing the laws. You are a piece of work. Not only were the laws passed, they were codified, and a legal precedent has upheld them (Jose Padilla). You know better than that. You're adopting the denial approach of the Republican neo-cons. Rumsfeld was taped 80+ times for television saying Iraq had weapons of mass destruction, then one day he just announced that he never made any such claim. And Democrats think the same will work for them? Afraid not. Everyone who's been following current events knows about the torture and "disappearing" legislation. I thought you were above such childishness. Is this the kind of evasive behavior America can look forward to under the Democrats? They'll just deny the laws the hated Republicans passed even EXIST? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Gun control From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 06 Sep 07 - 02:14 PM Strikes me we basically agree on the main things, Mick - there ought to be some limits on the types of weapons which people should be allowed to hold, there ought to be a requirement for proper training before people are able to use guns, and there are some people who oughtn't to be allowed to use guns at all. "You see the idea of protection from one's own government as an irrelevant fantasy." Not so. My point isn't that circumstances might not arise in which people will feel obliged to take up arms against their government. After all, that's what my father did back in the 20s in Ireland. But I don't see the prior possession of arms as too significant in that situation. In those circumstances the weaponry that matters gets obtained in other ways, and the legal status of gun possession just isn't a significant matter. That's what I mean by it being irrelevant. I don't believe it's really a significant reason for gun ownership among the many sensible people who own guns. Where we disagree, I think, is on where to draw the line when it comes to which kinds of weapons are acceptable in private hands, and perhaps on whether the training and such should be required before the weapons are obtained or before they are used, as with a car. And I think you also see the matter as one of inherent rights, whereas I would see it as something that should be dependent on the majority's wishes, either way. I don't see stringent gun controls as a surefire (!) way to end gun violence. (It hasn't done that in the UK, though what we see here as a horrifying level of gun killings is what would count as an enviably low level in some places). And I don't see gun possession in a society as inevitably leading to widespread gun violence - Switzerland being a case in point. However, when you have a society where there is widespread gun ownership together with a pretty high level of gun violence there is a good prima facie case for linking those two things together. One thing I am sure we agree on is preferring that discussions about these things should avoid turning into shouting matches. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Gun control From: 3refs Date: 06 Sep 07 - 02:17 PM I just had my firearms licence upgraded. In a two part exam, I received scores of 96% and 92%. I had to receive a score of at least 80% in both to pass. I did not take the Canadian Firearms Safety Course, as it was not required, but did read the training text book from cover to cover. Having passed I will have to renew the licence after 5 years. Now, as an on-ice-official with my credentials coming from Hockey Canada, I have to attend a recertification clinic every year. The course lasts about 8 hrs and I have to pass a test that requires me to achieve a score of 90%. I also get supervised at least twice a year to show that I can still skate, know my positioning and call a game properly. Go figure! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Gun control From: artbrooks Date: 06 Sep 07 - 02:58 PM Ms. Jfnjnbvavo: Mr. Padilla's whereabouts have always been known, and he has received a trial in open court for the crimes for which he was charged, less the more ridiculous ones that were dropped. I am not sure how that constitutes legal precedent for the propriety of "legislation that says you can kidnap American citizens and torture them to death without ever telling a judge", or even the existence of it. I await your cite for the statue referenced. Firearms, by the way, remained in private hands in Germany, to the extent that they ever were, throughout World War II. These were, as they still are, primarily small-caliber hunting rifles and shotguns. Hitler first registered the guns, then he seized them is a myth. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Gun control From: gnu Date: 06 Sep 07 - 03:20 PM 3refs.... You shoot, you score? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Gun control From: 3refs Date: 06 Sep 07 - 04:18 PM Il lance! Il count! using my baton' d'hockey |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Gun control From: Riginslinger Date: 06 Sep 07 - 10:02 PM "Hitler first registered the guns, then he seized them is a myth." There are probably a number myths about Hitler that will come to light as time passes. By the way, I see where Taurus is making a pistol that shoots .410 shotgun rounds. Isn't that illegal almost everywhere? Isn't that what started the whole thing about Randy Weaver? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Gun control From: GUEST,Perspective Date: 07 Sep 07 - 10:15 AM After having occupied Russian territory Hitler said: "Der größte Unsinn, den man in den besetzen Ostgebieten machen könnte, sei der, den unterworfenen Völkern Waffen zu geben. Die Geschicte lehre, daß alle Herrenvölker untergegangen seien, nachdem sie den von ihnen unterworfenen Volkern Waffen bewilligt hatten". [The most foolish mistake we could possibly make would be to permit the conquered Eastern peoples to have arms. History teaches that all conquerors who have allowed their subject races to carry arms have prepared their own downfall by doing so.] --- Adolf Hitler (1889-1945), April 11, 1942, quoted in Hitlers Tischegesprache Im Fuhrerhauptquartier 1941-1942. [Hitler's Table-Talk at the Fuhrer's Headquarters 1941-1942], Dr. Henry Picker, ed. (Athenaum-Verlag, Bonn, 1951) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Gun control From: GUEST,jfnjnbvavo Date: 07 Sep 07 - 09:03 PM Okay, now I have some time. Revisionist history is hard to pull off when you have living witnesses, and one of the best I've come across lately is Kitty Werthmann. She was in Germany when Hitler registered and then confiscated guns. She lectures on it and has written a book on it. She lost family in Germany, came to the U.S. and is now rather upset to see Americans being led down the same path, point by point, that Hitler used. Werthmann says Hitler's German government first announced that there were too many child-related accidents with guns, so they had to be registered. When that didn't affect the # of injuries/deaths, they moved to confiscation. She saw it. She was there. Some were allowed to keep their guns, and I've seen photos of people hunting with Goering, so guns were around, but not for the people who weren't on the "approved" list. That Germany sounds a lot like today's Canada. You need to have a "permit" to use guns? That's a shame. In the U.S., gun ownership is a right. A constitutional right. When the government issues permits, gun ownership is a privilege. Big difference between a right and a privilege. Anyway, Werthmann says Americans should not give up guns. In fact, it is our duty to protect the Second Amendment against those who would deny it. It is our duty to protect our Constitution. So that means that when they come to collect your guns, you need to put those guns to use. To do otherwise would be to capitulate to an oppressive government, and the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution say you can't do that. And if you think "laws" have been passed to make you give up your rights, the only court decision you need to refer to is Marbury vs. Madison (1805): a law repugnant to the constitution is void. Period. Same ruling mentions court decisions that violate the constitution. They are not legal. Let's see...NRA. Shill group. Wayne LaPierre is a sellout. After Virginia Tech, the US congress passed and Bush signed a law which denies you gun ownership if you've had "mental problems." Because the shooter at Virginia Tech had "mental problems." So now, your mental history is on file in a huge database, and if you try to buy a gun, you may be denied. And the Nazi American Psychiatric Association has expanded the list of things qualifying as "psychiatric disorders" to include things like "pain following an injury," so if your hospital or doctor's records show you've taken painkillers, sorry, no gun. And LaPierre supported this. Tens of millions of dues paying members think he's looking after their right to own firearms, but he's not. Gun Owners of America and Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership are TRUE gun-rights groups. What else...artbrooks and the denial of the obvious. I listened to a bit of Rush Limbaugh today and a bit of the "liberal" National Public Radio. Identical messages on both, regarding the Iraq war. Limbaugh says Republicans support it, and NPR says Democrats (a timeline, not a deadline) support it. I bring that up only because artbrooks is prickly about the Bush torture state. I've noticed more and more that Democrats are now supporting the things they once decried in the Bush Administration. War, torture, etc. What we have now in America is a system where you can be "denationalized" if you're "suspected" of being a terrorist. Because of the USA PATRIOT Act, the John Warner Defense Authorization Act of 2007, and provisions of the Domestic Security Enhancement Act, you can now be declared a suspected terrorist and be remanded to military custody. The president or his "designate" can make this determination, and you can be stripped of your American citizenship by a military tribunal. Once you are no longer a citizen, the new laws that apply to foreign "enemy combatants" can be used against you. You can be flown to Egypt, Syria, etc., and be tortured to death. If your arrest was initiated with a "secret warrant," no information need be given about your case. Codified into law and supported by directives from Attorney General Ashcroft and Attorney General Gonzales. Presidential Executive Orders and signing statements reinforce this new torture mentality, too. Tons of analyses of the situation written by legal experts are on the web. What else...McVeigh. A patsy. He was working for the government and infiltrated a white supremacist site. Then the Oklahoma City bombing, but the government didn't pursue the "angry white men" angle. Odd. I think they dropped it because they knew it wouldn't hold water. There's lots of video on the web of the first half-hour after the bombing. Reporters are reporting other bombs being seen in the building, and you can see government bomb disposal units backing up to the building and removing unexploded devices. A TOW missile was in the FBI office directly over the daycare center, missile pointed down. Jane Graham of HUD was on her way to work and saw men putting "sticks of gray butter" on columns in the basement. BATF men were on the scene in full bomb gear one minute after the blast, and it takes 15 minutes to get suited up. Numerous explosive experts have pointed out the Ryder truck bomb couldn't possibly do the damage that was observed. The man who coordinated the government operation lied about his arrival time in OKC. He said he drove like hell that morning to get there, but a hotel receipt showed he arrived the night before. So the government got only partial detonations and left behind too much forensic evidence. They had to call off the purge of white men. But they sure learned about destroying evidence by the time 9/11/01 rolled around, didn't they? Gun ownership is good. It keeps America free. It is your duty as an American to fight all assaults on the Second Amendment. A government that would blow up the Murrah building will kill you and your family. Don't depend on the government to protect you. Buy a gun and learn how to use it. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Gun control From: artbrooks Date: 07 Sep 07 - 09:43 PM I am still waiting for your citation to the specific "legislation that says you can kidnap American citizens and torture them to death without ever telling a judge". And please lets not refer to "The USA Patriot Act, the John Warner Defense Authorization Act of 2007, and provisions of the Domestic Security Enhancement Act". Tell us what the law actually says, and provide a link to the legal citation. Inability to do so really indicates that you are babbling. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Gun control From: Riginslinger Date: 07 Sep 07 - 10:49 PM "What we have now in America is a system where you can be "denationalized" if you're "suspected" of being a terrorist..." But where will George W. Bush go when he is no longer an American? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Gun control From: Teribus Date: 08 Sep 07 - 06:08 PM Intersting article in the "Times" http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/guest_contributors/article2409817.ece |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Gun control From: gnu Date: 08 Sep 07 - 06:17 PM Guns don't kill peole. Governments do. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Gun control From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 08 Sep 07 - 06:27 PM Well, Teribus, if the likes of Richard Manday can persuade most people in the UK they'd be safer if legal guns were readily available, the law can always be changed to allow that. Not until then. And I think and hope it'll be a long time before that happens. Changing the constitution in the USA would be a lot harder of course, even if most people wanted to do so. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Gun control From: gnu Date: 08 Sep 07 - 06:40 PM Ya know... that there US constitution thing has been debated to a frazzle and I just think one thing... if it was not there to debate, would there be a debate? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Gun control From: Riginslinger Date: 08 Sep 07 - 11:49 PM Teribus - As the Brits experience increasing numbers of immigrants with different values and attitudes about violence, their collective view on gun control might change. It seems to me that prohibition has never worked. It didn't work with alcohol, it isn't working with the war on drugs, and it doesn't seem to work with guns either. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Gun control From: katlaughing Date: 09 Sep 07 - 01:11 AM That seems a facetious article in that populations have changed dramatically from the "good old days" he cites and it is no good comparing Vermont to urban population centers as a contrast on gun crime. Less people, virtually no urban centers, not compared to NYC or Washington DC, means less crime, regardless of whether there are gun laws or not. Same as for other states with low population. Also, attitudes towards guns and use of fatal violence-as-conflict-resolution are MUCH different nowadays from those olden times, heck even from when I was growing up. We had a healthy respect for guns and NEVER used one in anger. We knew they were meant to kill and cautioned to never point a gun unless that was our intention. Today, it seems the first thing a lot of folks think of when confronted with whatever. Pop culture is full of them, use of them is shown indiscriminately during television viewing times of children, as well as on video games, even ones made for children. I know my grandson has some and I am not happy about it. The day you can guarantee some innocent child will NOT die by "accident" from someone's gun being too accessible is the day we won't need Those of you who fear the government taking them away...it's YOUR government, probably the one a lot of you voted for. You are buying into the fear-mongering by the shrub and the rest of them. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Gun control From: Riginslinger Date: 09 Sep 07 - 11:18 AM Kat - I think most people would agree that some form of gun laws are necessary. I have a neighbor who would make me very nervous if he came home from work some day driving a Sherman Tank. But attitudes about guns aren't the only thing that's changed. If you go into a super market and look at the magazine rack, you will see that magazines--like "Guns & Ammo," for instance--that used to portray bolt action rifles and shotguns, now display full automatic assault rifles and automatic pistols. One can only assume that those are the guns that are selling. Still, to ban them would, I think, just take guns out of the people who never would have done anything criminal with them in the first place, while having no effect on the people who shouldn't be trusted with them. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Gun control From: Midchuck Date: 09 Sep 07 - 11:38 AM I tend to be on the side of the opponents of "gun control" in these perpetual debates. But I don't really oppose gun control at all. I would like to see guns taken away from people who are emotionally unstable, ignorant of their proper use, just plain evil, or just plain stupid. The problem is, that the conventional approach to "gun control" is "If we take guns away from everyone, then we'll take them away from all those people who shouldn't have them, in the process." Only it doesn't work that way. The ones who shouldn't have the guns are the ones who will ignore the gun laws and get them on the black market. Then the ones who should have them to defend themselves against the ones who shouldn't, don't have them. You see that in Great Britain now. (I assure you that I am more careful in my use of guns than I am in my syntax.) To paraphrase Edward Abbey, the slogan, "If guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns," is not quite correct. It should be, "If guns are outlawed, only outlaws and the government will have guns." That's worse. Peter. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Gun control From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 09 Sep 07 - 12:32 PM I would think it a lot more likely that newcomers to this country will come to share the aversion of most locals to guns, rather than that locals will start picking up an appetite for gun possession from newcomers, even given that rather questionable assumption that newcomers will have those kinds of attitudes. Which in my experience is not generally the case. It's very sad that in a very few places illegal gun possession and use has grown in recent years. However the numbers killed in some parts of some of our big cities as a consequence would still count as incredibly low if they were translated to equivalent big cities in some countries where legal gun possession is widespread. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Gun control From: Riginslinger Date: 09 Sep 07 - 11:03 PM McGrath - Is it your possition that newcomers will become gun owners more readily than natives, or avoid guns in larger numbers than natives? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Gun control From: Big Mick Date: 09 Sep 07 - 11:13 PM .....incredibly low if they were translated to equivalent big cities in some countries where legal gun possession is widespread. McGrath of Harlow. But what does that mean, Kevin. By implication you seem to think that legal gun ownership is the cause of the high crime. That is a simplistic view and not a correct comparison. For example, it doesn't answer why areas of high legal gun ownership per capita seem to have the lowest violent crime rates. It is the areas that have the high amounts of illegally obtained guns that have high crime. Mick |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Gun control From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 10 Sep 07 - 04:11 AM I wasn't implying that direct connection, Mick. I think my previous post indicated that. It's pretty clear that other factors are also involved. However I think it is important to avoid getting or giving the impression that gun crime in the UK is at a level comparable to equivalent communities in the USA. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Gun control From: Big Mick Date: 10 Sep 07 - 09:49 PM No argument there, Kevin. But the trend is certainly upward and, to me, that is a very important indicator of the same cause/effect relationship we see here in the States. The States with the strictest gun laws have much higher incidence of violent crime than the States with the most liberal laws. Mick |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Gun control From: Midchuck Date: 11 Sep 07 - 07:26 AM Around here, the most typical murder is not a street crime thing, it's someone coming home drunk and killing his/her own spouse. We already know prohibition of alcohol doesn't work. Maybe we could try outlawing marriage? It would also shut down the whole fight over same-sex marriage and let people think about something else. Peter |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Gun control From: Riginslinger Date: 11 Sep 07 - 10:07 AM "Around here, the most typical murder is not a street crime thing, it's someone coming home drunk and killing his/her own spouse." I guess you have to assume they had to get drunk to get up the nerve to kill the spouse. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Gun control From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 11 Sep 07 - 06:04 PM The States with the strictest gun laws have much higher incidence of violent crime than the States with the most liberal laws. Well one reason for that might be that a high rate of violent crime could be a factor leading to stricter gun laws, while a low rate ofg violent crime could have the reverse effect. I'd imagine there'd be a lot of other possible factors involved. People are too ready to pick up a statistic and an interpretation of a statistic to bolster a pre-determined position. As often as not a statistic can be interpreted in diametrically opposed ways. One reason I prefer our system is that when there aren't legal guns in private hands there is a lot less scope for them to be misused in domestic or neighbourly quarrels and so forth. The other is that guns in private hands are an additional potential source of guns for people who want them for criminal purposes. Not the only source, but an additional source, and I'd sooner see that source removed. But as I said, it's our choice, either way. My feeling is that it should be your choice in the States, either way; but the fact that it is treated as a matter of human rights rather than pragmatic democratic decision somewhat clouds the issue. But then in the long run, that's your choice too. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Gun control From: GUEST,.gargoyle Date: 19 Sep 07 - 02:10 AM I was leaning towards the newer GLOCK with above barrel compensation.
A good friend pointed out, "You do not want to reach for your goggles everytime you fire - partularly in short in-house-conditions.
So I went with regular GLUCK 37 (45) and added lazersight for better control. A wild missed sholder or a leg hit with a soft 45mm will lay the perpetrator down. Keep them soft for the neighborhood. (Sometimes just having a lazerlight on the perpetrator's mid-section is enough for them to raise their arms and lie down.)
|
|
Subject: RE: BS: Gun control From: GUEST,.gargoyle Date: 19 Sep 07 - 02:15 AM The day you can guarantee a lazy person will NOT take over parking priviages because they are not too accessible.... is the day we need some kind of handicapped parking.
Sincerely, |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Gun control From: rangeroger Date: 19 Sep 07 - 11:37 PM I am impressed Mr.Golgart. If you have a 45mm handgun you're one hell of man. Let's see, an M-40 grenade launcher is 40mm. An antiaircraft gun is 40mm. And your Gluck is 45mm. Hmm, trailer mounted? rr |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Gun control From: gnu Date: 26 Sep 07 - 08:04 PM Well, there ya go eh? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Gun control From: gnu Date: 26 Sep 07 - 08:30 PM Ya know... I prefer a camera security sytem... they are getting cheaper than guns... not cheaper than balaclavas, but... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Gun control From: GUEST,Hitlary Date: 28 Sep 07 - 02:18 PM A vision of an unarmed populace living where only the police are armed. Poor guy with a crowbar: "These guys [the AFP's Operational Response Group] came flying down the driveway at full speed, right towards the crowd. There were two or possibly three Land-cruisers full with all the kit: bullet-proof vests, big shields, lots of weapons. The crowd just scattered. That was the first turning point. The second one was when they cleared the driveway, they started manhandling people. The first physical contact was made by the AFP officers. They weren't brutal, but they were shoving and pushing, and that's when people got cranky," Johnston told the magazine. "Then they [the police] tried to bust the PM out. They rushed him out to the car under guard of the riot squad, and that's when the first stone came. The police began firing stuff, and that really set the crowd abuzz, because it sounds and looks like guns. They started freaking, shouting 'you're shooting us'. They went mad, just hysterical, and they trashed every vehicle, and they ran down the hill and started burning things down," he said. The police then withdrew and seemed to allow the burning and looting to proceed. "So I had to stand on my verandah for two nights with a crowbar with the whole town abandoned to these mobs, which just grew and grew, and watch as [the police] dealt with the situation from the air. They put the helicopter over the house and they were firing tear gas out of the helicopter." http://www.wsws.org/articles/2007/sep2007/afp2-s28.shtml |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Gun control From: Lonesome EJ Date: 28 Sep 07 - 02:27 PM Man's got a holster the size of a watermelon. Has to strap a mattress on his back and stand in front of a telephone pole to keep the recoil from knocking him out of his shoes. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Gun control From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 28 Sep 07 - 05:48 PM "an unarmed populace living where only the police are armed." It's always worked pretty well where I live. Of course we don't have cops like that. |
