I have been resisting the urge to blog about the recent events in Connecticut, in the school shooting. You've heard more than enough by now without my two cents. But, since the gun control issue has again reared it's ugly head, maybe a comment on that won't be out of order.
First, let me say I am well aware what the opinions of most of you who read this blog are concerning guns in America. My position hasn't changed on that either. As long as you keep blaming guns instead of killers, then you are not going to see true improvement.
Almost all - if not 100% - of the perpetrators of these mass shootings are mentally disturbed, unbalanced, crazy, misfits. loons -- whatever term you care to use. Therefore, the key seems obvious to me: you keep loons from going on the rampage and killing other people, whether with guns, as has happened recently, or with big truck bombs like what happened in Oklahoma. Or drowning children in bathtubs, or gas attacks, or whatever.
Notice I didn't say "keep the guns out of the hands of loons" but rather "keep the loons from going on the rampage." By this I mean identify the loons and keep them away not only from guns but away from society in general. Lock them up. Bring back the looney bins. Commit them. Forget this stupid civil rights attitude that gives loons the right to walk our streets; the right to buy guns with no psycho evaluation and waiting period and no complete background history check; the right to kill people. Nobody can get them all off the street, but we can sure do a better job than we are doing now.
And, while we are at it, let's kill all the lawyers.
Stop the CULTURE of violence: on TV, in movies, in video games. You are willing to take the guns out of the hands of tens of millions of sane people to stop a few loons from going berserk, so why are you reluctant to stop the uncaring corporations from producing TV shows, movies and video games that glorify murder and mayhem?
Can not the majority of kids sort those things out and live a sane life? Sure. But the loons will be influenced. The ones living in a twilight dream world will be enabled and encouraged. What is wrong with keeping our kids and teens minds from being saturated by all manner of bloody violence? We used to censor. Stuff that is commonplace for 11 year olds would never have been allowed in earlier times.
Teachers know which of their students are crazy and at risk and antisocial. SAY SOMETHING! How many of these people (including the Connecticut shooter and the Colorado theater shooter) were known to be "weirdoes" by their peers, antisocial psychopaths? ALL OF THEM! So say something. SAY SOMETHING. Before, not after. And don't expect to not reap the whirlwind if you allow children's minds to be saturated every waking moment with unspeakable violence and the glorification thereof.
Although I am not in favor of unrestricted sales of all types of guns without any safeguards, I also say we should go after the ones who create psychopaths at least as earnestly as you go after the makers and sellers of guns.
If we know that we need to do in order to make changes in our culture and refuse to make those changes, to the detriment of future generations, we are the enemy of those future generations.
I said the other..."why isn't mental healthcare as easy to get as guns are?"
ReplyDeleteWe've become a society of "look the other way-ers"; no one wants to become involved.
I won't get into a gun control debate...all I'm going to say is...I can see no reason why a private citizen...like you or me...have the need for assault weapons. That just doesn't make any sense to me. I'm talking about "assault weapons"...not about a hand gun..a Kimber Pro, Smith & Wesson or Glock or similar...but assault weapons! That's something I don't understand. Why would Lanza's mother have assault weapons??? If no one else noticed her son was a whack, surely to God she did!
Hello, Lee.
DeleteYou don't have to get into a gun control debate. :)
I am so sorry. For the electro-shock treatments appear to be no longer working. On the other hand, this started off so well. Could it be that you just lost your charge?
ReplyDeleteWhy, Jerry has reappeared! A reminder of why we DO need to keep weapons in our homes. :) :)
DeleteI speak for myself of course, but I think those of us who are for gun control don't believe for one minute that killing will stop by limiting the availability of guns. But it will be reduced. The reasoning is damage limitation, that it makes it more difficult for the killers. There is a major psychological barrier to be overcome when killing with a knife up close and personal that isn't there when you are at a distance with a gun.
ReplyDeleteI agree wholeheartedly that the culture of violence should be addressed. Without it, "tens of millions of sane people" wouldn't need or want them, now would they?
'Cause they are fun to shoot on weekends, and because people break into your home at night here and kill your children.
DeleteI respect your view too.
Neither of those are part of the culture of violence?
DeleteSo sorry, I thought it was up for discussion. Silly me.
DeleteAnything's up for discussion as far as I'm concerned. My side of the discussion is that I believe most of the violence in America, gun violence and other violence, takes place because we soak the minds of our young in a never-ending cesspool of murder and mayhem while not giving them any parental guidance to speak of. The result is they begin to think such things are acceptable, and, if they want to be a superhero, they need to kill people. After seeing people killed on TV and in the movies all their lives, and after doing it themselves every day by proxy on video games, perspective is lost without someone to tell them that is wrong and someone to make them stay home and do their school work. That is my definition of a culture of violence, this steeping and marinating youthful minds in vile filth. I see guns as tools and objects, controlled by the brains of the owners. Take away the guns if that will help the bigger issue (violence) but also take away the root, which is our money-grubbing "entertainment" industry. Tobacco was bad for us. The government taxed it mostly out of existence. Do the same for video games. Automobiles and alcohol kill thousands. Don't remove them. Educate. That is my side of the story.
DeleteWell, there you go, I wouldn't disagree with any of that. I remember the days when they thought Tom and Jerry was too violent. I rather wish the people who said that weren't laughed out out of court. A good many years ago when my sons were small I was dismayed when they took some programme I thought would have been scary in their stride. Desensitisation starts early.
DeleteTobacco has been taxed out of existence?
DeleteNot from where I'm sitting.
Yeah. Practically. You should have been alive when everyone smoked. If you had, you would know what I mean.
DeleteBut that's all changed now and very few people smoke now. Comparatively speaking. And those that do have to go out into the desert or find a cave to light up. Can't smoke after your meal in a restaurant anymore. :)
Watch some old b&w movies on Turner Classics sometime if you want to see what smoking used to look like.
Not from where you're sitting? I guarantee if you are sitting in an office or an airport or a bus or a supermarket or ..... anywhere else, you don't see anyone smoking near you. ANYONE! Nor do you see ads for cigarettes on tv or even in magazines mostly. None on billboards either.
Your memory is limited, so I forgive you for thinking - apparently honestly - that tobacco hasn't been taxed (and persecuted) out of existence.
On the plus side, people don't die in their 40s and 50s in huge numbers from lung cancer and emphysema anymore, so we get to pay more pensions.
I'd say none of us "blame guns and not killers". Just that we believe that without the guns there'd be a lot fewer killers.
ReplyDeleteIt's true that after the event, we call the perpetrators crazies and loons, but that's a bit too simplistic a way of looking at it. Just as the majority of gun owners do not commit murders, nor do the majority of crazies and loons. It's hard to define who is a crazy, or a loon.
For instance, I'd include any supporter of the Westboro Baptist Church, anybody who believes that dinosaurs never existed...
I can think of any number of crazies and loons who are, apparently, accepted in society. Like anybody who thinks gangsta rappers are a good thing, like anybody who could contemplate Sarah Palin as vice-president.
Oh. And anybody who thinks they need an array of military-style rapid-fire weaponry.
I agree absolutely that the movie industry, the video-games industry, the comic-book industry, and the music industry have a lot to answer for, in their glorification of violence. It says much that one of the most popular genres of video game are known as "first-person shooter games"
But you know, lots of people can play them and not become mass-murderers. Lots of people watched Rambo and never felt the need to emulate the central character.
Crazies?
Where a person loses their temper, and has no weapon, their danger to their fellows is somewhat limited.
When that person's so mad they're punching the wall, well, the likely outcome is that they'll break bones in their hand.
Put a firearm in reach, and the outcome might change, suddenly and fatally.
If weapons don't kill, but people do, then why is the united states so concerned about other countries developing weapons. Because more powerful weapons escalate danger.
By the same token, might not less powerful weapons be said to reduce risk?
There is NO justification whatsoever for any citizen to hold an arsenal of rapid-fire weapons. Nobody in the U.S. needs a multi-mode assault weapon. Nobody needs a little buzz-gun that can spit out rounds as fast as the teeth of a chainsaw. Nobody needs a pump-action shotgun. If you believe the second amendment had that in mind, then you probably believe there's a zionist u.n. islamic conspiracy where black helicopters will soon be herding citizens into internment camps.
Actually, that whole amendment thing is a mess. Who defines a well regulated militia? It clearly, to me, intends that the armed civilians be part of a well-regulated militia, but who is to be the regulator? The individual states? or the federal government? or a bunch of crazies?
As it stands, America has a serious problem. A proportion of gun related deaths vastly greater than any other comparable country. Now you say, it's not the guns that are to blame.
If you're right, then that means you have a much higher proportion of crazies and loons than pretty much anywhere else.
Is it time to edit 'Home of the Brave, Land of the Free' to read 'Home of the Crazed, Land of the Random Massacre'?
Oh, but you do blame guns. Take away the guns and people will be good.
DeleteThere is only one thing that will protect you from a bad man with a gun, and that's a good man with a gun. That good man could be yourself, or it could be someone you hope will show up in time to protect you. And there is no way bad men are not going to have guns, regardless of the laws. The U.S. might magically change in the future, but that's the reality today.
Let me ask you... a U.S. kind of question... if you were lying on the floor of a theater and a madman was walking around shooting people who were lying on the floor, would you not feel better if you had a gun in your hand as you lay there, rather than holding onto only simple hope? When you are in danger in your house, are you content to wait for the police to arrive and hope they do? Or would you not rather be more proactive where your life and the lives of your loved ones is concerned?
The U.S. is different than Britain, and my comments are a result of the reality I live in.
Incidentally, who has an array of rapid-fire military weapons? These are outlawed in the U.S. Anyway, no one needs them, as you say. None of the recent mass shooters had those kinds of weapons. Even the drug cartels get their weapons mostly from regular gun shops, either buying them or breaking in and stealing them, and those shops don't carry military automatic weapons. Not like the ones Al Capone used to use. They need to break into a military arsenal for those. Calm down. :)
A well-regulated militia? That's a whole 'nother subject. I know I'm not going to convince you about any subject that has as its basis personal liberty and the thought that you own your government and not the other way around. No, you are used to believing your government is benign and knows what's best. As long as they let you move around freely, more or less, that will make you folks happy. The U.S. is right behind and soon will be the same. Pity. But, again, that is simply a difference between life in the two countries.
Incidentally, do you know why the recent Portland mall shooter stopped after he killed "only" two people? Do you think it was because the police arrived quickly on white horses? No, it was because a citizen with a carry permit drew down on the shooter and would have killed him had there not been innocent people standing behind the shooter. As it was, the shooter shit his pants in the face of the citizen's drawn weapon and shot himself.
The point? Well, there would have been no mall shooter in England because he would have had no access to a gun. Criminals have no guns in England, right?
This isn't about guns, Soubriquet, and I think you know it. It's about the right to protect yourself in this world because the government sure isn't going to protect you. They will investigate your murder.
I may be the lone voice doing so but I totally agree with you in regards to taking the mentally unbalanced people and placing them where they cannot do any harm to themselves or others. I have always felt that closing down all of the mental health institutions and mainstreaming people who have issues was a big mistake - not necessarily to society itself but to the folks who really needed help and who did much better in a controlled environment.
ReplyDeleteThere certainly would be no need for electro-shock treatment or lobotomies or any of the other archaic methods that doctors attempted to help people but when you take people who truly need help, dump them out into the world at large, and don't provide them with the help and direction that they so desperately need - you have problems.
As for gun control itself - certain types of guns do not need to be owned by the general public, they should be reserved strictly for the military or law enforcement but beyond that, I will stand by the old adage of "guns don't kill people, people kill people". There have been guns in this country longer than there has been a country and these sorts of mass killings never used to happen. Granted, automatic weapons weren't available but you also didn't have a 24-hour news media willing to devote hours and hours and hours of broadcasting to make the killer's name a household word. Maybe these jackasses aren't around to hear it but they die knowing that their names will be legend. And that crap needs to stop.
There - 'nuff said, thanks for letting me vent!
Hello, Linda. Merry Christmas!
DeleteYou can vent here anytime. :)
The problem is people can be disturbed without being dangerous to anyone else. You can't lock 'em up just 'cause they scare you or because they *might* do something bad.
ReplyDeleteOr have you decided freedom and "presumption of innocence" only apply to people who are completely and demonstrably "sane?" Assuming we can define that in a way that means anything.
One of the things we do to protect the innocent is wait until after they've actually committed a crime to lock 'em up. That's why we can't prevent crime other than making sure criminals can't do it again. One reason I'm pro capital punishment.
I wish I knew the answer but I don't think what you're proposing is it.
You're right.
DeleteI do think that, as for the recent shooters, the younger ones, that teachers can see the misfits and so can their class peers and certain ly their parents, by the time they are in late high school. And I would like them to identify them to authorities like good citizens rather than say later, "Oh, I knew he was going to explode some day. He just wasn't right." That has been said about all the shooters lately that I can remember.
Hindsight is a wonderful thing.
DeleteWith all due respect Max, I'm certain at some point in your life a fellow citizen has labeled you a misfit and reported you to authorities like the good citizen she is :)
DeleteYou could serve time on the island of misfit toys with Rudolph. Of course, we will all be whispering behind your back, "Oh, I knew he was going to explode some day. Did you see how violently his spring sprang? He just wasn't right."
It makes us average misfits feel better and more unified when we can point our finger at misfits who are more misfit than we.
xxx
I'd say none of us "blame guns and not killers". Just that we believe that without the guns there'd be a lot fewer killers.
ReplyDeleteIt's true that after the event, we call the perpetrators crazies and loons, but that's a bit too simplistic a way of looking at it. Just as the majority of gun owners do not commit murders, nor do the majority of crazies and loons. It's hard to define who is a crazy, or a loon.
For instance, I'd include any supporter of the Westboro Baptist Church, anybody who believes that dinosaurs never existed...
I can think of any number of crazies and loons who are, apparently, accepted in society. Like anybody who thinks gangsta rappers are a good thing, like anybody who could contemplate Sarah Palin as vice-president.
Oh. And anybody who thinks they need an array of military-style rapid-fire weaponry.
I agree absolutely that the movie industry, the video-games industry, the comic-book industry, and the music industry have a lot to answer for, in their glorification of violence. It says much that one of the most popular genres of video game are known as "first-person shooter games"
But you know, lots of people can play them and not become mass-murderers. Lots of people watched Rambo and never felt the need to emulate the central character.
Crazies?
Where a person loses their temper, and has no weapon, their danger to their fellows is somewhat limited.
When that person's so mad they're punching the wall, well, the likely outcome is that they'll break bones in their hand.
Put a firearm in reach, and the outcome might change, suddenly and fatally.
If weapons don't kill, but people do, then why is the united states so concerned about other countries developing weapons. Because more powerful weapons escalate danger.
By the same token, might not less powerful weapons be said to reduce risk?
There is NO justification whatsoever for any citizen to hold an arsenal of rapid-fire weapons. Nobody in the U.S. needs a multi-mode assault weapon. Nobody needs a little buzz-gun that can spit out rounds as fast as the teeth of a chainsaw. Nobody needs a pump-action shotgun. If you believe the second amendment had that in mind, then you probably believe there's a zionist u.n. islamic conspiracy where black helicopters will soon be herding citizens into internment camps.
Actually, that whole amendment thing is a mess. Who defines a well regulated militia? It clearly, to me, intends that the armed civilians be part of a well-regulated militia, but who is to be the regulator? The individual states? or the federal government? or a bunch of crazies?
As it stands, America has a serious problem. A proportion of gun related deaths vastly greater than any other comparable country. Now you say, it's not the guns that are to blame.
If you're right, then that means you have a much higher proportion of crazies and loons than pretty much anywhere else.
Is it time to edit 'Home of the Brave, Land of the Free' to read 'Home of the Crazed, Land of the Random Massacre'?
I see my earlier comment, submitted twice, was unacceptable.
ReplyDeleteHere's another.
"Thoughtcrime"
Many writers have mused, as George Orwell did, in his novel '1984', on regimes where people could be imprisoned, or even executed, on the grounds that their profile suggested they might perhaps commit a crime.
Stalinist Russia did. Hitler's Germany did. The shape of your skull might be enough to secure your fate.
Mental disturbance, instability? Who has it? Often the nation's heroes do.
It's easy to say the crazy should have been locked up after the event, not so easy to predict before.
To you, and Sheila above, I admit to going off, um, half-cocked on the issue of profiling misfits and crazies who want to make a name for themselves because they are nobodies. Wishful thinking on my part. maybe, but I have no desire to live in a society that takes citizens into custody without due process because they "might" go crazy and shoot someone someday. On the other hand, I have no desire to live in a society like Singapore, either. So, I guess the answer is to put up with a few bad guys instead of profiling them and picking them up. Yet, I still maintain there are signs that people (teachers, parents, peers) can pick up on and report for observation. A person shouldn't be "committed" without due process even then.
DeleteI don't know what these mass killers did before there were guns available, because I can't remember a time when there weren't guns available.
I apologize to all of you for not posting comments more timely. It's Christmas and I am experiencing blogging lapse.
DeleteContradictory though it will sound, I agree with you that 'guns don't kill, people do'.
ReplyDeletePeople who have the desire to kill, are many magnitudes more dangerous if they have access to guns.
I am a well balanced and really nice guy.
And, I'd quite like a gun or two. I've often fantasised about having a couple of 30mm cannon tucked away behind my car's headlights, especially when some f@ckwit pulls out of a junction in front of me without looking. I fantasise occasionally about having a couple of cruise missiles at my disposal. Like when the loud party up the road was royaly pissing me off, a few months back at early o'clock.
And who hasn't wanted to blow away the person who steals the parking space?
Luckily, I've got pretty good impulse-control, and was taught from birth that temper tantrums are not acceptable.
Even after a few beers too many, I've never been a hair-triggered agressive.
But out there, there are many with the opposite traits. People who will pick a fight over any imagined slight, people for whom a grudge becomes something to be settled through violence. I'd prefer those people don't have access to guns.
Your movie-theatre analogy, well, of course, if I'm lying on the floor with a gun-equipped shooter killing all around, then of course I want a gun. Or a remote-controlled grizzly bear. (I'd probably kill a few bystanders, and get shot myself rather than bring down the shooter though).
I'd far rather the person doing the shooting had never had access to a gun in the first place.
As for the military style weapons, well, I know that you're not generally permitted to have guns capable of full automatic fire, I think that subject came up once before...
But you can have guns with big magazines and the ability to shoot as fast as your trigger finger can manage, which is a more efficient way than full auto, which is somewhat wasteful on ammo.
Oh. But I just did a quick googling, My military arsenal analogy stands unbroken. I found out that you can, in many states, legally own full auto weapons.
And there are lots to buy! Oh, look at those ads... Schmeisser, 1942... Vickers water-cooled 30 cal on a tripod.
Grease guns.
Just like Al Capone used to use. -I could have a nice 1921 Thompson, with a hundred round drum.
Or a belt-fed M60? Or a Uzi, Mac10, Heckler MP5 oh my. An MP5 is a pricy deal, $20k!
An M11A1 (1400 round per minute). Hm. stitch you up faster than a sewing machine. Mag empty in about two seconds though. About $5k.
Sten/Stirling. I shot one, once. Very popular WWII british commando weapon, also supplied to various european resistance groups. They blap up and to the right, you really have to push left and down as you shoot. More effective as a threat than anything else, given their diabolical lack of aim.
I'm particularly tempted, though, by the Barrett light-fifty (M82A1), with scope and suppressor. Back in the day when I did play shoot-em-up computer games against my pal, Ken, he was the one who waltzed in, spraying lead, and getting splashed. Me? I'd be in the long grass, on a hilltop, far away, picking people off with aimed single shots.
He got so frustrated, trying to figure out where I was hiding, he'd be shooting up every window. But I'd have him in my sights, from a mile out, waiting for him to stand still for a moment.
So. Should I ever run amok, look for a clump of grass near the horizon.
Sigh. Well, I suppose you are technically right about being able to obtain certain fully automatic weapons. And "technically" is really all you care about in this exchange, right? I mean, this discussion is only in the theoretical INTP realm, I'm assuming.
DeleteSo... if you are willing to pay $10,000 and up for a weapon that was manufactured before 1986, it's easy to get one. Here's all you have to do:
1. Find a class III arms dealer in a state that allows allows you to possess such qualified weapons.
2. Write said authorized class 3 dealer a check for ten grand or so.
3. The dealer will then apply to the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms for permission to begin a transfer of ownership of the old weapon. Once the BATF approves the dealer's application for transfer of ownership, about 2 weeks or so, then the dealer will contact you and let you know you can now make application to own an old fully-automatic firearm.
4. You go in to the authorized dealer who has the approval to begin the transfer, and fill out the form 4 paperwork. Warning: you really have to be able to read and write at this stage. If you are lucky (and you probably will be for $10 grand) the dealer will help you do this.
5. Take the completed and signed application to your local police authority. Get the highest ranking police authorityh (Police Chief or County Sheriff) to sign the application that he agrees you should be a person he thinks should own an automatic weapon. Get fingerprinted on the FBI's official form by a person trained and licensed to do official fingerprinting, and mail the growing stack of papers to the FBI in Washington. Be sure to include two passport style photos (recent), citizenship authorization, and another check for $200 made payable to the BATF.
6. Wait.
7. Wait some more.
8. If the FBI likes what they see after checking out your life history from the day you were born, you'll be approved to receive a transfer from your gun dealer. If they don't like what they see, you will be rejected. And probably arrested.
9. Once approved, you can now go pick up your gun. If it is of a unique nature, you will then have the pleasure of searching for old ammunition for it that will probably blow up in your face. If it is is common, modern ammunition usually may be obtained with little difficulty.
At this point you are probably wondering why you can only buy an automatic weapon manufactured before May of 1986, right? Well, that was when the "ban" began. Let me quote from the instruction booklet:
"In 1986 Ronald Reagan signed the executive order that no military style firearms could be imported into the US, and that full automatic weapons produced from the day of signing this order could not be sold to civilians. This however did not include silencers.
"From this order on you had two different types of class III weapons: Pre-ban and Post-ban.
"Please don't mix this up with the Clinton assault weapon ban from 1994.
"Pre-ban class III weapons can be sold and bought with approval of the NFA and cost $200 tax per item, and may take 3-4 months to process the approval. Because there is a limited amount of these pre-ban weapons, their prices are high.
"Post-ban weapons are available to law enforcement (and military) only. This does not include individual officers. Only departments can buy and own them."
---------
Most of your theater and mall mass murderers don't have the money and inclination to go through the above procedure, nor do they have the patience to wait or desire to deal intimately with the FBI. Hence the more common use by such shooters of semi-automatic weapons which tend to jam quickly in their sweaty little hands. Hence the carrying of 3 or 4 weapons by such psychos in the performance of their dream.
You are misleading the 2 or 3 readers of this blog when you represent that it is easy to obtain automatic firearms in the U.S. by civilians.
Filling in a few forms and handing over some money does not, so far as I can see, make too big a barrier. And whilst the H&K was a bit pricy, not all the full-auto weapons are.
DeleteAmmo? quite a few are 9mm, some 7.62, and a lot are 5.56, what you know as.223.
Not, I think, too hard to find.
Yes, I fully understand that by comparison to buying a semi-auto carbine from wal-mart, it's a bit more expensive and a little more complex. I think I'd feel happier if owners of full-auto weapons could handle complexity.
As for cost vs mall-shooters, well, lets take the most recent case, the school-shooter. Cost and complexity was no barrier to him, because his parents were relatively affluent, and mommy conveniently kept her guns where he had access to them. It's a good thing she never hankered after a mac-10.
Interestingly, on one of the sites I looked at, the source of the thompsons was the police departement of Berkeley, California. Oh, and Waco, Texas, I think.
Your reply might indeed be awesome, but it does not refute the fact that full auto military weapons are indeed still available to pretty much any citizen who wants to buy, and though the price for some is a bit high, for others it's less than a small second-hand car.
I hope you-all have a very MERRY CHRISTMAS! By the way, your last reply to Soubriquet was absolutely awesome. Oh I wish you could educate some of our newscasters on the difference between full-auto and semi-auto, along with the fact that many very practical hunting rifles and shotguns are semi-auto.
ReplyDeleteJerry, the buzzword lately on the news is "assault rifle" or "assault weapon" but not one in a hundred can define what that phrase means. I think most people think if shiny wood is replaced by ugly and mean looking black plastic, suddenly the hunting rifle has become an "assault weapon." Anything black and "military looking" is an assault rifle, they say, and the same people blithely call them "automatic weapons" or go on about how easy it is to obtain true automatic weapons in the U.S. and talk as if it were common to use automatic weapons in crimes. Here is a short video which explains a bit of the real truth:
Deletehttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yATeti5GmI8
The video was moderately interesting. My quote, you recall, was "arsenal of rapid-fire weapons. Nobody in the U.S. needs a multi-mode assault weapon. Nobody needs a little buzz-gun that can spit out rounds as fast as the teeth of a chainsaw."
DeleteNothing said here refutes that.
The AR15, its manufacturers state, can sustain 45 rounds per minute,which allows you to shoot, say two rounds at a deer, before you no longer have any targets.
Is it military-style? Of course.
And, if used in a mall or school, to hunt humans, i'm not sure you can quibble about the term "Assault".
But lets not get hung up on buzzwords. Lets just ask ourselves why americans have such a love-affair with guns.
Do they make you safer?
The numbers say not.
Gun owners are far more likely to be shot by their own weapon than anybody else's. And more likely to shoot family members, whether on purpose or by accident.
The argument that guns protect is nonsense. If the bad guy confronts you, then if your gun is not already in your hand, then it's no good to you. Wear kevlar at all times. That would be slightly more effective.
Or move to a country where there are few guns, or where there are lots of guns, but they're seen as tools, not fetishes.
It amuses me, by the way, that after submitting, it says "your comment will be visible after approval".
DeleteI'm certain that you'll disapprove, even though the comment may appear.
What I'd like to see, is a reasoned argument explaining just why it is a good thing for every american to carry a firearm, and have lots more at home.
Please explain to me just why and how citizens might rise against the government that they themselves have elected, in accordance with the laws their elected representatives have enacted. It seems to me that the second amendment fails to explain the whole well regulated militia thing, and that without it, and without the need to hunt ones supper, there is precious little justification for anyone who does not regularly come into contact with dangerous animals to carry a gun, other than a law-enforcement officer, and I'd hope he'd use a tazer first.
"Nobody in the U.S. needs a multi-mode assault weapon. Nobody needs a little buzz-gun that can spit out rounds as fast as the teeth of a chainsaw."
DeleteNothing said here refutes that. "
I think you are perhaps getting "need" and "want" mixed up. That distinction is usually important in any discussion with an American, especially if the discussion is about the government reducing the individual's authority over his government. But, I deny many Americans have "a little buzz-gun that can spit out rounds as fast as the teeth of a chainsaw." I deny they are easy to obtain. I DO believe I refuted that. You can choose to believe what you want about full-automatic weapons in America. Facts and stats aren't going to change your mind about that. I also don't believe you can define an "assault" rifle/weapon, any better than anyone else - especially the newspapers - have done so far. It is simply hysterics. If it is black and ugly and mean looking, why, it's an assault weapon, right? A single-shot .22 target rifle is an assault rifle if it is pointed at ME. I can only assume that you, in your frightened hysteria and desire to pass more laws, envision an "assault" weapon as something only the military has, but has somehow fallen into the hands of the owners of the country. So be it. Think what you want. Do some more googling and see how many civilian Americans have been killed by automatic weapons since 1934 in civilian life. Most of us have only been able to document 3 cases since that date, and two of those were at the hands of police officers.
Your contention that semiautomatic weapons or large magazine capacities should be kept out of the hands of law-abiding Americans is simply ludicrous. Please stop and think about that overreaction.
A reasoned argument explaining why it is a good thing for every American to carry a firearm? I can't do that because it is an absurdity. How can you rationally reason the absurd? I DO think all law abiding Americans who WANT to own a firearm should have that right. Carrying it in one's daily life is a completely different situation. I carry a handgun when I go into potentially dangerous situations, but not ALWAYS. Not to the grocery store. Others may want to at all times. I have no problem with them doing that if they've passed the tests. I know you find that shocking.
I don't really NEED to own a third vehicle. I am aware that owning it makes me a third more likely to kill someone with it (certainly more likely than killing someone with my gun). But I WANT to have a third vehicle.
I don't WANT to convince you and no evidence or truth is going to refute you. You have this all figured out, so how could I do that?
Happy to amuse you with the comment moderation. I'm currently experiencing someone interfering in my personal life and giving out information about my family, so the moderation precaution will continue until that threat is passed.
I'm feeling quite beaten down here.
DeleteI'll concede that "assault weapon" and "automatic" are not germane to the debate. The simple question is "does it make sense to arm the public?" I say no, you say yes.
I concede, that for the most part, you appear sane and not too great a threat to the populace.
But then you say things that don't make a lot of sense. Having thre vehicles, rather than two, makes you no more of a threat. I assume you can only drive one at a time.
A single shot gun? well, of course, better to me than a semi-auto, not as good as no gun at all.
Word verification I have no problem with. I just find its language amusing.
And I use it because I hate spammers.
Did you know that I'm perfectly legally permitted to buy and use a light tank, here in England? Well, the guns are de-activated, and I have to sign a raft of papers promising not to export it to any one of the countries we don't trust.
Main Battle tanks, of course, are too wide and heavy for everyday road use. but an abbot self-propelled gun? okay here.
I couldn't shoot anyone, but I could squish them.
If I could afford the fuel.
In thinking back on my purpose for making this post, I'm pretty sure the reason was to consider ways to reduce mass shootings, prompted by the most recent one in Connecticut. My solution was twofold: to profile people likely to commit such shootings (later discussion showed this was impractical) and, second, to regulate the entertainment industry so that children today will understand all their life that killing is wrong and movies are make believe. At the beginning, I said I was aware that the sentiments of most of my readers would be different than mine; that they would lean toward a third solution to the problem, namely to take guns away from all people so that a handful wouldn't use them to commit mass murder. Still, I hadn't intended this to be a post about gun control, which we have done to death in previous posts. I see now that pretending gun control, or prohibiting guns, can't really be left out as a possible solution if you are going to make a post about stopping mass shootings. As is always the case, I disagree that confiscation of objects is preferable to insisting on people having personal responsibility for their actions. I haven't changed my mind. Neither have any of you.
ReplyDeleteI've thought a lot about this and come to the conclusion that there is little chance of there being any solution that will make everyone, or even anyone, happy.
ReplyDeleteLet's hop back in time for a minute or two. That whole second amendment thing was written when flint locks were the state of the art and there was a good chance of an enemy solider crawling in your window at any moment. The Minute Men fought a war with their guns against people who were armed in similar fashion. One of my Twitter buddies said she wasn't just worried about self defense, she was worried about Tyrants. I'm not sure even a good old H&K 50 cal would do much good against a well aimed Drone.
I agree that the crazies need to be locked up, but also agree that most people can't tell a mental patient from an honor student-until the pick up a gun and start shooting.
I agree that Media is a problem. I was watching The B in Apartment 23 the other day-not sure why-and she made a joke about taking the morning after pill. Sex and violence just ain't it used to be.
But I wonder about that whole notion that an 11 now is exposed to worse things than they were in the past. Go back and hundred years-and all years before-and see what being 11 was like for most kids. Not a pretty picture.