"Does something that would limit magazines that could carry 100 rounds, would that infringe on the constitutional right?" host Chris Wallace asked [Senator Ron] Johnson [R-Wisc] on "Fox News Sunday."I come from a family that has used guns for hunting (pheasants and deer), so I'm not anti-gun per se. But I frankly do not understand the mindset expressed here. Perhaps some clear-headed, well-reasoning reader of this blog can offer an explanation.
"I believe so," Johnson replied. "People will talk about unusually lethal weapons, that could be potentially a discussion you could have. But the fact of the matter is there are 30-round magazines that are just common all over the place. You simply can't keep these weapons out of the hands of sick, demented individuals who want to do harm. And when you try and do it, you restrict our freedom."
23 July 2012
"You restrict our freedom"
Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)
It's not about the guns. It's about the glorification of violence in the media. Hasn't anyone else caught the irony of where the shooting took place? Movie theaters are the veritable church of violence normalization. As soon as the media stops normalizing violence, the incidence of people going postal might taper off. When is that going to happen? No time soon. Get ready folks, a massacre is coming to your town soon, first in theaters and news broadcasts, and then maybe in reality. Of course some will use these events to try and disarm the public, if that happens the sh!t will really hit the fan. History has shown that over and over.ReplyDelete
Excellent observation Pete. If instead more such events would conclude with a lethally armed law-abiding citizen who stops the killer well before the PD can even show up, and said citizen were glorified for their heroism and getting involved at great personal peril, that would send the message far faster and more effectively than enacting yet more laws and regulations that never stop the determined criminal. Hollywood is disingenuous at best when they claim they exert no influence over the actions of their audience. BS. If they could not influence their audience, as in to spend dollars to consume their product, then it would be a long obsolete business venture. No, Hollywood wants to claim they have just good influence over the viewers, but noooo bad influence. Deadly hypocrites. --A.Delete
Yeah, violence in films is the obvious culprit here. I've seen the same sort of gunplay happen at opening nights all across Europe and Japan. Oh wait, no I haven't.Delete
And, yeah, too bad none of the other theater goers were packing heat. As soon as those smoke bombs were deployed, they could have drawn their pieces and started shooting into the fog. I'm sure the casualties would have been much more acceptable.
Ok Anony, you're not really interested in an exchange of ideas, you're just being sarcastic out of sheer frustration. Goodnight. --A.Delete
There's a difference a mile wide and as deep as the Marianas Trench between influencing viewers to buy Coke and (unintentionally) influencing viewers to overcome the in-built aversion to killing another person - or 20.
And Anony is making two very very good points, sarcastically or not. A third? It is hard to imagine that omeone who is so far over the edge they are prepared to wade into a crowd, killing indiscriminately, would be dissuaded by the prospect of getting into a firefight. I was surprised that this sick individual didn't end up taking his own life, as so many mass shooters do...and if they're prepared to die, they surely would be prepared to die in a blaze of "glory".
I do not agree with this gentleman in any way, but here is his argument: The Second Amendment is not about the right to shoot soup cans or go duck hunting. It exists to thwart the State's monopoly on violence. Only if the State sees a legitimate threat from its own citizens, will its power be checked.ReplyDelete
You'll also read arguments that if the Jews had been armed there may have been a different outcome during WWII.
So, much like drawing parallels between showing ID to cash a check and showing ID to vote is incorrect, so too is saying that guns should be regulated just like any other dangerous activity (flying a plane, driving a car etc).
Mike, bingo. --A.Delete
@#$%^ gub'ment, takin' 'way our freedom to die in a pool of blood....Delete
I know that the "keep the government in check" argument is what many people believe justifies ownership of higher and higher powered weapons. I would love to see a citation for that purpose from one of our founding fathers.Delete
The founding fathers put together a government that was the antithesis of tyranny. They did not want their government to be overthrown by a group of people with differing beliefs than lawfully elected representatives. Change in the USA comes through the ballot box, not the battlefield.
And yet, no one has seriously proposed that individual citizens should be allowed to own drones or tactical nuclear warheads, so there's some line between "acceptably lethal for private use" and "unacceptably lethal for private use". (This is in spite of the evidence from Waco, TX, (and every drug raid anywhere) that small arms are not enough to keep government forces off personal property.)Delete
I would like to make a couple of points:ReplyDelete
1. Most of these types of crimes are committed by intelligent "loners" who are typically under the radar prior to their crime. They usually have spent some time planning and preparing for their crime. They do not have to use guns, but if they choose to do so, they will find a way to obtain them without regard to the legality. They will not be thwarted by legal obstacles. Tim McVeigh, Ted Kaczynski, and Eric Rudolph are some examples of such personalities that didn't even need guns to accomplish what they sought to do.
2. It is impossible to prevent a criminal from obtaining firearms, as they can easily be modified, fabricated, or stolen. A fully automatic weapon would be no more difficult to make than any other home-shop project. As a society, we should have learned by now that outlawing something to prevent its use is futile. For proof of this just look at the stellar success we have had banning alcohol, heroin, cocaine, explosives, and machine guns.
Such an approach only affects law abiding citizens and serves to generate more animosity toward the government. I suppose if the purpose of passing these laws is to add additional charges when they do commit murders, they would be effective for that, but little else.
For proof of this just look at the stellar success we have had banning alcohol, heroin, cocaine, explosives, and machine gunsDelete
It's not very honest to compare banning assault weapons to booze or drugs. As for the last two, we have been successful at banning them.
Banning anything never works, it merely creates a black market for them. If you really think explosives and machine guns have been successfully banned, may I direct your attention to "Fast and Furious" and the Internet, for starters. Only those who ignore gun laws that stop honest people care to shop black markets, but when honest people feel pushed too far, they will shop there as well. --A.Delete
Jesus H. Christ. "Fast and Furious?" Really? Maybe these bans have been unsuccessful because they don't even exist! The NRA has been fighting to keep the world awash in weapons for 150 years. And they've plenty of tools in that fight.Delete
Jesus H. Christ? Your frustration is all too evident. Perhaps you should step away now. And the NRA will continue to fight to keep citizens armed until shot dead. That. Will. Not. Change. Unless you take up arms to force it down our throats, that is. As a matter of fact, I'm not a member. --A.Delete
I don't see how limiting the size of magazines makes any difference. You just reload. In fact, the shooter's gun jammed and he killed people with a pistol.ReplyDelete
I think both sides of the gun argument are irrational. Gun control didn't stop this guy from buying tons of weapons, and limiting a magazine to 30 rounds is not a real burdensome restriction on having fun with guns.
The debate needs to center on mental health. This grad student clearly went insane! That is the root cause.
Gun control didn't stop this guy from buying tons of weaponsDelete
That's sort of the point. Gun laws are too lax, and he was easily able to obtain assault weapons that have no other purpose than killing people, and killing them well.
I agree that the debate needs to center on mental health. Start by probing the psycho-sexual obsessions of those who cheerfully accept the deaths of 35,000 people per year through gun violence, all so they can live out their sweat-stained, paranoid fantasies of vanquishing their real or imagined enemies. Or maybe they're just compensating for tiny wee-wees.Delete
C'mon now fellow Anonymouser, resorting to ad hominem and insults is not helpful to your side at all. It's so not necessary. Besides, the plight of the mentally unstable really is where we should be concentrating more of our time and money, clearly! Just because they are difficult doesn't mean we should throw our hands up and lunge for the easy out. I do not trust our government to not tyrannize us once we're disarmed, nor should you. Just because our government can't disarm us right now, doesn't mean it wouldn't once it got the first chance. Human nature is human nature. --A.Delete
do not trust our government to not tyrannize us once we're disarmed, nor should you. Just because our government can't disarm us right now, doesn't mean it wouldn't once it got the first chanceDelete
Given that you have no evidence to even back up such a notion, you show that you may have some issues yourself. This obsession with being armed against our society shows a fear and paranoia that certainly lends itself to illness.
At what point do we separate the right to own a gun or several from the right to buy 6000 rounds of ammunition fo a semi-automatic rifle or the body armor or other paraphernalia? We license and register cars with more diligence (chiefly to recoup the costs of roads, etc) and inspect children's toys with greater care. But our obsession with fear, stoked by the manufacturers lobby known as the NRA, keeps us from doing anything that would impact our ease of access to violence.ReplyDelete
I would take the arguments offered above -ReplyDelete
1) Most such crimes are committed by undetected people under the radar
2) The weapons are readily available whether one restricts them or not
3) Acts of insane people cannot be prevented
- to argue that the Patrior Act should be disbanded. In its entirety. Now. Nothing you can do can stop a committed (insane) terrorist. All you're doing with such legislation is imposing hardships (strip searches, additional costs, fear) on the rest of the normal public.
2) The weapons are readily available whether one restricts them or notDelete
That does not have to be the case.
Minnesotastan, agreed. The Patriot Act has gone too far in how it is applied, but I largely fault the ACLU for that--they are who insist that all laws be applied "equally" on everyone, regardless of how stupid it is to do so. That is why grannies in wheelchairs and babies are "randomly selected" for things like pat downs. If instead we would use the same system used in Israel, where the agents are trained to target behaviour regardless of the person's ethnicity, then the Patriot Act could easily be dialed back. But nooooo, we must be equal in how we apply the law or we risk being unfair and litigated, no matter how silly it is to do so that way. --A.Delete
I would certainly support getting rid of the Patriot Act. I wouldn't say there is nothing that one can do to stop an insane terrorist, but that the cost to individual freedom and in fear are much higher than the good of that particular piece of legislation.Delete
"3) Acts of insane people cannot be prevented"Delete
True. However, the structure of our society need not drive so many people to insanity.
M., I agree. If that was reductio ad absurdum, I still agree :)ReplyDelete
Also: In the last century, the world-wide democide rate was between 10 and 100 times the homicide rate (exactly how much depends upon whose stats you use). Crime is not the raison d'être for an armed populace.
People who say that the amount of guns around does not influence the amount of crime need to look at the graph in this post:ReplyDelete
It is not a question that more guns equals more idiots pulling triggers and killing people. It is fact. If you want to stop these insane acts of violence, you have to regulate gun ownership.
It's a fairly simple choice, actually.
What I can't stand is the mindless chatter about it. Actions have consequences. They are known. You can find acceptable, or not. If not, you need to change the rules.
The argument that the US government would be impressed by a few people with guns is laughable considering the size of its military. If you feel that the power of the government needs to be checked by citizens, you should favor massive, massive cuts to the DoD budget, not unlimited gun rights for citizens.
BTW: There is one example of a country with very high gun ownership and few crazy acts: Switzerland.
Well said, I'd respect gun fanatics arguments a lot more if they just admitted the obvious, and simply said they're ok with massive gun violence and frequent rampages and massacres as a trade off for loose gun policy, but they have to engage in these ridiculous arguments (more guns = less violence, or the founders had high tech assault weapons in mind in the 18th century.....)that nobody with the slightest bit of common sense would buy.Delete
The graph you linked to is for all fatal assaults and makes no claims of association with gun control. For it to be used for the purpose you've stated, the gun-only assaults need to be isolated.Delete
I think the most well-reasoned lax anti-gun control argument is that most criminals will get them anyway, so why not be able to arm yourself and decrease your chances of becoming a victim (or at least do more damage to the attacker in the process)?
That being said, I don't think it's necessary for an ordinary citizen to own something as high-powered as a machine gun, nor a good idea to hand a gun to someone who hasn't demonstrated that they have a good knowledge of and can apply gun safety guidelines. Johnson and like-minded individuals have an "all-or-nothing" mindset. They can't or won't think about middle-ground possibilities.
That should read: "association with gun use"Delete
"I think the most well-reasoned lax anti-gun control argument is that most criminals will get them anyway, so why not be able to arm yourself and decrease your chances of becoming a victim (or at least do more damage to the attacker in the process"Delete
If that were true, America would be the safest country in the world, considering the amount of weapons around.
Also, when's the last time someone used their AK-47 to defend themselves?
"Also, when's the last time someone used their AK-47 to defend themselves?"Delete
I take it you have never lived outside the 'nice' suburbs 'where the police aren't'. You *want* it known that your car and house always have someone well armed watching it (police do not come into this). It is exactly like the assured mutual distruction our tax dollars have funded for decades.
Like I said in the following paragraph, Nepkarel, I think there's an upper limit when it comes to how high-powered a civilian's defensive gun is.Delete
And there are plenty of other factors to take into account when determining how safe a country is (look at the previous commenter's example of Switzerland). Gun ownership is not the only thing at play.
If that were true, America would be the safest country in the world, considering the amount of weapons around.Delete
Exactly, and it's easy predict that you'll get no coherent response to this obvious point. Just more lame excuses.
you restrict our freedom.ReplyDelete
So much for the 'freedom' of all the innocent people getting killed and maimed by gun violence constantly in this country.
Here's a freedom we can restrict with far greater salvation of innocent life, without infringing an actual Constitutional right: fewer unskilled and impaired drivers. And a freedom that would be enlarged, enjoyed more liberally, the calm, quiet, safe and delightful enjoyment of the pursuit of happiness by the "least" of us --women, elderly and disabled-- by being armed and impossible to victimize with impunity. How refreshing would that be. --A.Delete
The rest of us then are coerced into owning weapons out of the fear of you guys going postal and killing us. This isn't about "freedom". Gun fanatics want freedoms for themselves but for others. The NRA, gun fanatics, you all took away the freedoms of a bunch of people to watch a film in piece without being murdered by a guy who should not have been able to access such high powered military, assault equipment.Delete
Freedom for me, but not for the!
"Peace" or "Piece", funny mistake...Delete
Oddly enough, when "the least of us" have guns and use them against those who would victimize us, we often get victimized for doing so. (For example: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/05/11/marissa-alexander-sentenced_n_1510113.html )Delete
I think many miss the point altogether. Gun violence and violent crime (all crime really) is lower now than it has been since the late 60's early 70's. Why? Nobody can really pin it down, but it certainly isn't because guns are any harder to get.ReplyDelete
The real point is why do we want the government to come to our rescue for what is an incredibly low probability event? We have been down this road with the war on terror and we are no safer, IMHO. Instead, we have lost freedom and privacy while our police forces continue to militarize, actually making us less safe. Do we really want to continue our slide into a police state? Do we really want to give any more away?
Those are very good questions that more Americans need to ponder. --A.Delete
A low-probability event, huh? Wow.Delete
re: low probability - I agree. -and I've witnessed a drive-by shooting.Delete
The gun is the tool of the common idiot. The best planned and most well armed wackos we've seen of late: The wack job in Norway and now this bozo - both with semi captive targets and well laid out plans - killed less than 100 combined.
Take away this impulsive idiot tool and our enemy will have to THINK and once these adversaries of society begin truly THINKING about how to kill instead of how to fulfil their SuperArmedEnforcer fantasies, 100 won't have enough zeros.
If I walk this earth in fear of anything on a daily basis, it is that someone texting in their car is going to smear me without so much as the courtesy of watching me die at their hands.
Wow? Wow what?Delete
We are all more at risk simply participating in air transport, driving or walking. What part of that is a wow statement. It is a fact.
I know it sounds crackpot and conspiracy theorist, but the point of the 2nd Amendment was not so the public could hunt, but so they could form militias. The right wasn't envisioned merely for self-defense, but in order that the citizens could defend themselves from tyranny. If that is the case, then banning assault weapons takes away part of the heart of the purpose of that amendment. Agree or not, I believe that is the stated purpose of the amendment.ReplyDelete
The right wasn't envisioned merely for self-defense, but in order that the citizens could defend themselves from tyranny.Delete
If the point was to let any private citizens form militias then "well-regulated" makes absolutely no sense in being in the 2nd Am., which it is. Never mind that states do have militias: The state's National Guards.
Absolutely correct. --A.Delete
Hmm, because of the layout of the comments, my just previous comment might look as if I agree with Steve. I agree with Brad.Delete
Replying to Steve, however: National Guards are required to follow orders issued by national command. Forming a "well-regulated" militia contemplated the leadership of a patriot such as a George Washington. In other words, start out as a rag-tag group of freedom fighters and become more and more "regulated" such as to form an increasing force. --A.
2nd Amendment was ratified in, what, 1791? Perhaps gun nuts should only be guaranteed muskets... I sincerely believe this argument will only go on and on, with no resolution, since the NRA has every politician sucking on its barrel.Delete
Maybe those well-regulated militias are just waiting for France to renege on the Louisiana Purchase...
"In other words, start out as a rag-tag group of freedom fighters and become more and more "regulated" such as to form an increasing force. --A."
There's no evidence of that, there is however ample evidence of founders talking about a militia in service of the state (United States) vs. a "common enemy", or insurrection against the state.
He's been paid off by the various gun lobbies to say exactly that, just as he was paid by off to protect pedophile priests by the insurance companies.ReplyDelete
Every politician (from Congressman to Presidents) is terrified to speak, let alone act against the NRA- they help pay their election bills, and they command the mindset of too many voters. The only person speaking out is Mayor Bloomberg of NYC, he's independently wealthy and aint running for anything...
Mayor Bloomberg, with all due respect, is a fool. He is a true believer in the power and wisdom of government and yet has no such belief in the same of The People. Very, very dangerous. The NRA is a representative body, members put their money where their mouth is and the easily just as influential lobbies for pharmaceutical companies, dairy and agribusiness combines, and Wall Street have just as much access to our elected officials, while defending no Constitutional rights of any kind. --A.Delete
Gee, last I heard, The People were mostly opposed the easy availabilty of deadly weapons. As for the NRA, they're entire reason for being is to promote to interests of gun manufacturers. Oh, and to raise as much money as possible from fools who believe some great constitutional issue is at stake.Delete
Well, gee, last you heard was too long ago, because in fact less than half of America wants guns to be harder to get. What? You mean a human endeavor is not pure in motive and purpose, like, say, oh, Bill Clinton? Or Wall Street? Or dairy farmers? Or pharmaceuticals? I don't see anyone else stepping up to keep the Government from disarming it's citizens, so until some group more pure in form for your liking comes along, the NRA will do just fine. Nice try to change the subject by ad hominem (of the NRA), but, not good enough. Please, address with better arguments the points I make. --A.Delete
Well, you're just plain wrong about most American do want to make weapons harder to get. And I'm glad to hear you admit that the NRA is just another corrupt special interest group. As for the disarming of citizens, do you really see that happening? Is Barack Obama going to take your gun away? And if he did, do you really fear that your precious freedoms would be lost? Forgive me, but I've been hearing these kind of arguments for far too many years. The begin to take on the foul stench of propaganda. If you want to tell me that the NRA isn't the source of this propaganda, I'll concede that this foul organization is merely the conduit. And they're being very well funded to do so.Delete
Not falling for it Anony, I made points you continue to dodge. Asking more questions without answering any is not going to work. Try again. --A.Delete
I really wish you Anonymous folks would at least use an Anonymous A, B or C, or even X Y or Z to identify yourselves. Anonymous, your rights and freedoms are already being taken away, even though you are armed. Can you not imagine the extent to which your freedoms would be removed if you were unarmed? The apathy in North America at once astounds and dismays me. We are so thoroughly distracted by professional sports, religions etc, and so misinformed by the media, that we allow ourselves to be trampled and shot by the police for traffic offenses such as jaywalking and protesting injustice! Is it the distraction or the fluoride in the water, what is going on??Delete
So, if the majority of Americans are anti-gun control, would politicians be representing their interests? That seems an odd critique.
My critique is that those with the money control how that message is portrayed and presented, and therefore the mindset of the voter. I don't have a problem with someone owning a firearm for home protection or hunting- I do have a problem with some individual at gun shows selling someone as many guns (number and variety) and as much ammo as they want. I do have a problem with getting unlimited ammo via the internet. The NRA consistently puts out the message that ANY common sense law (eg- a ban of 100 round magazines) that restricts over the top weaponry will have the Feds bulldozing your home the very next morning to take away your hunting rifle. Gun owners actually spout that propaganda over, and over, and over again...Delete
You need a license and registration to legally drive a car- is it so over the top to require a license and a required safety class to own a firearm? That's simple safety, security and sanity. Does the average sportsman really require a fully automatic assault rifle with an extended clip? There are many responsible gun owners, but there a certain number of gun enthusiasts that are like little kids who will not accept any and all parental regulation, their logic is that if every American had an assault rifle, an RPG, and a different handgun for every day of the week (along with limitless ammo on demand), we would all be infinitely safer!
Brad, a very well-funded and vocal minority can easily trump public opinion. It's all about the Benjamins.Delete
Stan, the average sportsman does not and will never have "fully automatic assault rifles with and extended clip" since 1934 under the National Firearms Act. Reinforced under the Gun control Act of 1968 and again in 1984.Delete
Give them time, Will, give them time.Delete
Hey... guess what?Delete
I have many different guns. Even the oh so scary "assault rifle!!1!!"
I also have plenty of hunting rifles. Give me 20 minutes and I can turn one into the other. They are both semiautomatic rifles that take a box magazine for the cartridges. I have a big ole' scary AR-15 that looks like a military grade assault rifle. The kind the people get their panties in a wad about. I also have a hunting or "ranch" rifle that looks like it belongs in the hands of a hunter or sport shooter. This hunting rifle is based off of 100 year old designs. The second gun is the one that most people look at and say "yeah, that's fine, my issue isn't with a hunting rifle". Here is the part that people never seem to understand, both guns shoot the same caliber of bullet, they shoot with very, very similar accuracy, they shoot EXACTLY the same speed as well, as fast as my finger pulls on the trigger. There is no difference in the hypothetical damage these weapons can do.
For those of you who argue that the expanded magazines, I can understand your point. Having a longer time to shoot more rounds without interruption seems more scary. I'll give you that.
Again though, It simply is not, and never will be backed up by logic of any sense. The military uses a standard 30 round magazine for it's M16 rifles, usually the complaints I hear about "high capacity magazines" are for the type over that amount. I can say from a lot of experience that once you start going over 20 rounds your chances of a malfunction go up more each round, high capacity magazines malfunction, or cause the gun to malfunction constantly. That is why all guns designed for suppressing fire, or automatic fire are belt fed.
One more point, I have no idea how long the little aurora freak took between his shots, but i bet it was more than enough time to reload. It takes 2-4 seconds for anyone who even remotely knows how to use a gun.
All of that aside, ban the high capacity clips, I do not care. I never use them they aren't reliable enough (see the jammed rifle of the aurora freak) I'll stick with my 10 round, like I always have.
Hi-cap mags serve no purpose other than to enable longer runs of firing. Remember Jared Laughner was stopped after he reloaded and had a jam. Any mag, even a 30-round mag, creates a necessity to reload, which could save lives depending on the circumstances.ReplyDelete
I'm all for a 100-round mag ban.
You'd be better off if you could get criminals to _only_ use 100 round magazines.Delete
It is my experience that the larger the magazine, the more finicky it is, and the more likely it will cause the firearm to malfunction. I am very much in favor of the criminal's firearm malfunctioning.
I think it's really more about poor understanding of the mechanics and preparation in advance for such an eventuality. The military clean their weapons incessantly for a reason. And they fire their weapons routinely, over an extended period, in order to understand and anticipate. Thank goodness that in this case, he did not do either sufficiently. And at least the response time by PD was 90 seconds, which is extraordinary. --A.Delete
I think it's a disgrace that gun companies can sell defective weapons like that. Maybe the government should establish some sort of consumer protection bureau? Mr. Homes is entitled to a refund at the very least.Delete
It's senseless to make gun policy in the modern world based on a time when the U.S. was a tiny rural collection of colonies, when guns took an eternity to load and fire, and you were worried about kings taking back your little collection of colonies. The Founders weren't perfect, and they couldn't see 221 years into our future. To put things in perspective, looking back 221 years before their time people would still be watching jousts in England, and Queen Elizabeth wouldn't swap bows for muskets for another 25 years.ReplyDelete
But the 1st Amendment was formed during that exact same time period. --A.Delete
I have to agree. Recent legislation has allowed our local police dept to acquire a tank, a truckload of military assault weaponry, etc. If there was any desire to balance the power between the government and the governed, we need new legislation that will allow Joe Public to procure the same level of security: Tanks, drones, cameras, wiretaps for local crime? Something bigger is going on...Delete
The logical end-result of all these arguments that it's necessary (or just a good idea) for the populace to be armed so that spree killers can be confronted with deadly force, is that all Americans including the children will have to take small arms with them every time they leave the house.ReplyDelete
Americans have to ask themselves if this is really what they want.
No, that is not the "logical end-result", it is the "slippery slope" fallacy. If we can limit how young a child can be to drive, we can do the same with carrying. Oh btw, teenagers have lightning fast reflexes while older people have better judgment. Older people can impart wisdom to the younger via mandatory training. And without second guessing and brow-beating by gun haters the next day.Delete
Americans need to ask themselves if they really want to stop the carnage, then they can be there --when the police are 90 seconds away, which is long enough to kill 12 and wound 58 more-- and drop the killer themselves. How is that a bad idea?
I'd be thrilled, delighted, relieved, and grateful to be there and see a fellow citizen save lives by taking out the murderer. Talk about empowering and sending a chill down the spines of anyone thinking to copycat this crime. --A.
Here's one gun owner the NRA wants nothing (NOTHING) to do with!!! And a case of self defense no less- gee, wonder why that is???ReplyDelete
Where's all the love, the outrage, the defense (and the $$$) for a fellow gun owner so obviously wronged!?!?
When a person's exercise of a right causes a violation of another person's right, the former loses their right.Delete
I agree- so please name the one thing that she did that the NRA does not continually espouse and defend ad infinitum...Delete
I believe it has something to do with not giving the government or tyranny the advantage. Restricting the citizens to just the kinds of weapons their simple minded, unserious hearts can handle without so much as a 15 minute talking to by an expert, is condescending, short sighted and insidious. Sure, let the masses have bows and arrows, while We Their Governors wield gatlings.ReplyDelete
Uh, no. The last thing We The People should do is allow any of that, at all. It is vitally important to keep Our Government in check by never allowing ourselves to be disarmed, nor out-armed, or have our 2A right rendered ineffectual by ever-increasingly restrictive rules and regulations enacted by petty municipalities and pompous metropolises alike. It's the people who focus entirely on the still, still, extremely rare, occurrences such as Aurora, who fail to see the forest for the trees. They actually think the American Government could never, ever, turn on its own people, such that its own people would have to cut it down to size and take back the power the people granted it. That is a very dangerous faith to have in any seat of power filled by fellow humans. Humans are clever creatures. We can make a weapon out of anything. Weapons are tools. Any tool can be misapplied. Education is the answer. Raise kids to use weapons correctly, then misusing them in crimes will happen considerably less. Yes, you have to start that young.
If you think conquering and disarming Afghanistan is impossible, just try it with America. And if anyone can protect the 2A for everyone, it is women, the able elderly and able disabled, for they are among the most victimized in our society--except when they are armed.
If the "slippery slope" argument can be used by the left to disarm us, it can be used by the right to re-arm us. The 2A should be just as liberally interpreted in favor of The People as the 1A. The crafters of the Constitution knew full well that the 1A would perish nearly overnight without a robust 2A.
I believe they also envisioned that the government would regulate arms in favor of the people, by providing liberal education in their use, making their acquisition easier, not harder, and making sure every citizen appreciated how powerful a right it is and how they must use their right or lose it. The longer we don't educate our children in the use and appreciation of weapons, the longer we educate them to be needlessly afraid of them, to reject them and to willingly give up their 2A right as if it is actually their idea.
If saving lives is really what gun haters want, then they should lobby vehemently for the removal of cars from the unskilled hands of the citizenry. And driving is not a right.
The actual fact of the matter is if more law-abiding citizens were armed, then one of them would have been able to draw down on the Aurora shooter and take him out before he could unload. But since we're too afraid to try that out, to give it a chance, we assume everyone with a gun is either a rampage shooter, capable of preparing very well in advance of an assault, OR bumbling idiots who will take out other innocents incompetently.
Can people be taught how to drive? See, we are trainable. --A.
"It is vitally important to keep Our Government in check by never allowing ourselves to be disarmed, nor out-armed..."Delete
The latter part of that statement is... fascinating, to say the very least, in that your eye for eye policy demands that the American public should then stockpile their own chemical, biological and nuclear weaponry. Wow!
I'm glad you find my comment fascinating. However, you are using reductio ad absurdum to ridicule my point without offering a logical rebuttal. C'mon now, let's not do that. As Minnesotastan says, we're being quite civil, let's keep it up. However, considering how resourceful people can be, especially in a society where privacy is still valued, as long as you use cash, it is not outside the realm of possibility for someone to do just as you jeeringly suggest. I remember a case in San Diego where a man stockpiled so many explosives and chemicals in his rented house, that the authorities elected to blow the house up rather than risk any more lives to clear it out. Never underestimate The People. Seriously. --A.Delete
I being quite civil, I didn't personally ridicule you- I merely emphasized how ridiculous that part of your argument was.Delete
So you admit you were ridiculing my point of view (it was "ridiculous"). Again, you fail to refute it with a superior argument, you merely laugh. This is not winning your side any points. --A.Delete
Respectfully, I've been making several point(s) above and below your comment. And we do agree on one thing- the need for education. If we had an educated citizenry we would have never allowed a previous president to lie us into a completely unnecessary war that cost us $200,000,000 dollars a day; we wouldn't have a citizenry that actually believes that the earth is 6,000 years old, and Adam and Eve trod the earth riding on the backs of dinosaurs; we'd have a citizenry that would be actively combating the scientifically proven threat of man made global warming; we'd have an educated and enlightened populace who realize that an eye for an eye eventually makes everyone blind.Delete
An eye for an eye renders someone blind *first* and the second someone not. Now, as for the rest of your reply, I'm going to say ok, education is the answer, we agree. It is clear you have other simmering resentments that would change the direction of this comment thread were I or anyone else to indulge with you. That's ok. Education is wonderful for it opens parts of every person's mind that the teacher never anticipated while focused on their lesson plan. --A.Delete
"if more law-abiding citizens were armed, then one of them would have been able to draw down on the Aurora shooter and take him out before he could unload"Delete
so if everyone in the theatre had a gun, they could have successfully taken out the shooter and *only* the shooter through clouds of tear gas and screaming mayhem?
Sad that it seems the shooter was the one with "rights" in the theater.
Oh, I have allergies, so I need to go stockpile 6000 doses of Sudafed, and my garden looks kinda puny, so I need 6000 lbs of fertilizer - oh wait...
"Can people be taught how to drive? See, we are trainable. --A."Delete
Yep. And you have been thoroughly trained to belief that nonsense you utter in your long post.
"It is vitally important to keep Our Government in check by never allowing ourselves to be disarmed, nor out-armed..."
But you are out-armed. By massive orders of magnitude. And you paid for it through your taxes! Furthermore, seeing the trouble that the mighty American military forces have keeping some poorly-armed Afghans and Iraqis under control, there is no reason to think the American military can suppress the American people.
Stating facts is not ridiculing someone's position.
I'd like to step in here and commend everyone on an impressively CIVIL discussion of a traditionally divisive topic; you wouldn't find threads this good on most blogs.ReplyDelete
That said, I doubt that much "convincing" of "others" is taking place, but I do think the value of the comment thread is twofold: to enable people to formulate their own thoughts and get them down in writing and face rebuttals, and to know how the "others" think and allow those viewpoints to season one's own biases.
Carry on. This is most interesting.
I agree! No, minds will not be changed, but the discussion is the thing. One never knows when a nugget of wisdom from the "enemy" will pierce our well guarded veils. --A.Delete
I dunno, Minnesotastan. Civility has its place, but it makes me wonder what the point of it is if at the end of the day all we can come up with is "Well, we'll have to agree to disagree." These issues are very real and I don't think the cloak of civility should be used to allow right-wing cretins to peddle their talking points. I say let 'em be called out on their nonsense--no matter how sincerely they believe it.Delete
How about left-wing cretins? Or 45 degree cretins? --A.Delete
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.Delete
Can I offer some advice to Anon on the Left? Never argue with a fool--onlookers may not be able to tell the difference.Delete
Here, here, Stan.Delete
Infringe as defined by the Free Dictionary:ReplyDelete
"To transgress or exceed the limits of; violate"
Second Amendment (taken verbatim from the US Senate webpage):
"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
My father was a responsible gun owner, he raised his children to be the same. I believe that the Constitution guarantees the right to bear arms, but the key phrase in the Second Amendment is "well-regulated". I see nothing there that would preclude a responsible, reasoned policy for gun ownership that includes safety lessons, background checks, etc. I don't see those types of regulations as infringements. I see them as common sense.
Emotions run high after such a tragedy - why is it we only have this discussion when everyone is still shell-shocked?
My father was also a responsible gun owner and showed us at a young age to respect the tool and to know when to use it and when not to. That training came in very handy later. I think we "discuss" this only after such events because the rest of the time we're not as animated in defense of our festering position. Most people believe what they believe and there's no budging them, but these events give us a reason to voice our beliefs vigorously and righteously. It's not the best time to exchange ideas and reach a common ground, of course, but, humans are humans. --A.Delete
Emotions run high after such a tragedy - why is it we only have this discussion when everyone is still shell-shocked?Delete
When would be a good time? When piles of corpses fade away into a mere abstraction?
Well said, Weaving One.Delete
To second Anon: Think about the advice commonly given about writing angry letters or e-mails: Write it, then put it away. Read it the next day and see if you still feel the same way with as much intensity. Make changes as necessary. Waiting until the emotional high has simmered down allows one to think and discuss more objectively, regardless of stance on the subject.
I don't want to postpone the discussion by any means. I wish we could have had this discussion last week, last month, last year, without it being a reaction to a tragedy, but rather a sincere attempt to bring common sense and a proactive approach to the conversation.Delete
Criminals, by definition, do not follow laws. That's why they're criminals. Pass whatever laws you want, you're only restricting the law abiding citizens that care enough to actually follow the law. The law abiding citizen is also now at a disadvantage to the criminal.ReplyDelete
So... no laws, right? We can't risk putting ourselves at disadvantage.Delete
Will, exactly so. Stan B., exactly so as well. Are you suggesting we should put ourselves at a greater disadvantage than criminals, rather than risk putting ourselves at no disadvantage? Honest citizens need boundaries, criminals need walls. --A.Delete
I'm suggesting that, right now, Somalia is not the greatest place to live because its run by various groups of gun enthusiasts who regard themselves as very honest citizens without any need for law.Delete
Gee, who gets to decide who the real criminals are? The NRA and its blood-soaked membership? Pot, meet kettle.Delete
Stan B., now now, nice try but no cigar. Changing the geographical location, which changes a whole lot of other things, is not persuasive. Stick to America where the event occurred. --A.Delete
Anonymous, you use gee a lot. Got anything better or just more surly hyperbole? --A.
I'm trying to stick to America- but Anonymous people (for reasons I can't specify) keep trying to change it to a country without the need for law, where guns rule (ie- Somalia).Delete
There are 2 people here directly affected by gun control.
Tell me which one benefits from tight gun control, and which individual is put at risk.
In my opinion, the scumbag who would have done harm to Mr. Mutter is squarely at an advantage with tighter gun control. Because not only would he ignore regulations, but also Mr. Mutter is going to be a far easier target in which to prey on if hes further disarmed.
As for the real criminals, that's not a difficult question.
You simply can't keep these weapons out of the hands of sick, demented individuals who want to do harm. And when you try and do it, you restrict our freedom.ReplyDelete
These sick, demented individuals of which the congresstool speaks...
While you guys were arguing abou whether a majority of Americans favor changes in gun control, I tried to look up some actual data. Here's one result, from the Gallup poll in 2011 =ReplyDelete
"A record-low 26% of Americans favor a legal ban on the possession of handguns in the United States other than by police and other authorized people. When Gallup first asked Americans this question in 1959, 60% favored banning handguns. But since 1975, the majority of Americans have opposed such a measure, with opposition around 70% in recent years."
That's for a "ban." The numbers are different for other measures of control (see the link).
"The reasons for the shift do not appear related to reactions to the crime situation, as Gallup's Crime poll shows no major shifts in the trends in Americans' perceptions of crime, fear of crime, or reports of being victimized by crime in recent years. Nor does it appear to be tied to an increase in gun ownership, which has been around 40% since 2000, though it is a slightly higher 45% in this year's update. The 2011 updates on these trends will appear on Gallup.com in the coming days.
Perhaps the trends are a reflection of the American public's acceptance of guns. In 2008, Gallup found widespread agreement with the idea that the Second Amendment of the U.S. Constitution guarantees the right of Americans to own guns. Americans may also be moving toward more libertarian views in some areas, one example of which is greater support for legalizing marijuana use."
So... more guns AND more weed. That's interesting...
That is interesting... hmmm.. less easy to mess with, yet more mellow.. The Gallup is what I was thinking of. I think the SCOTUS ruling in DC v Heller is helping as well. That pesky SCOTUS! ;) --A.Delete
Interesting stats. Sixty percent of the public want no new laws but want stricter enforcement of existing laws. And that's the trouble. There's been a concerted effort over the years to weaken those existing laws. As for the the shift in public opinion, it's no big surprise. Propaganda works, after all, and thanks to the political muscle of the gun lobby, the Dems have completely abandoned the issue. Barack Obama is now to the right of Ronald Reagan. Sad, really.Delete
Gallop is not the most reputable organization. I've seen other polls that show most Americans want more restrictions placed upon gun ownership, although the overall trend shows more acceptance of gun ownership in general. The Gallop poll is somewhat misleading in that it poses questions in a way designed to produce a relatively Manichean answer. They're sort of famous for that.ReplyDelete
The second amendment protects the rest of them.ReplyDelete
Fun Fact: More settlers on The Oregon Trail died from accidental, self inflicted gun shot wounds than from Indian attacks. Yee-Ha!!!ReplyDelete
Eh, that may be because 'indian attacks' were often fabrications. 'Self inflicted gun shot wounds' - does that include suicide? It usually does. I dislike when gun statistics include the uses for suicide or law enforcement or true accidents. Show me the number of willful criminal acts not how many guns went off while bouncing in the back of a covered wagon.Delete
"accidental, self inflicted gun shot wounds"Delete
Our pioneer forefathers could have used some standard safety classes as well.
Stan B., if it's ok with you, I won't rely just on PuffHo for facts, nor Bill Moyers. They are members of the anti-2A media metroplex, after all. But let's say it is true for arguments sake. Does it mean that guns were not as well made back then? Or that the gun owners were incompetent at handling them? Or a little of both? And exactly how does it matter now?Delete
What we need is more education. The anti-2A crowd can learn to handle a gun, learn when to use it and when not to, and then they can speak from an *informed* position. Then they no longer will opine out of uninformed fear. --A.
And if it's OK with whoever it is I'm "conversing" with, I won't rely on the word of NRA propaganda- or their paid henchmen, Democrat and Republican alike (like the one pictured above who was also paid to come to the defense of pedophile priests). That's where "education" comes in.Delete
As for speaking from fear- I don't know your name, and you don't know me.
I come from a country where you are not allowed to own guns for self defence. You may be in possession of a small calibre gun, for use within designated firing ranges. Said gun must also be stored in an approved, secure location not in your home (Usually a secure armory). The only people allowed to carry weapons in public areas are law enforcement and military, and even then, you may only carry guns when you are on official duty. Needless to say, gun deaths are almost unheard of, and armed criminals are almost non-existent.ReplyDelete
I would like to understand from an American perspective why this scenario or environment would be undesirable, as I do not see a flip side, having grown up in this environment. Please do share your thoughts and views with me?
How many rats are crammed in your cage? Is your culture 'dog eat dog'? Are people allowed to brawl to settle an arguement or does a confrontation lead to lifelong enemies and scores that require settling? Do all of your media sources seemingly conspire to market fear?Delete
It's simply too late for the US. Take away the lowely gun and chemical and biological nightmares will follow. We already have people pepperspraying during robberies. Wait till 'they' discover what's under the kitchen sink.
Here in the states, folks scurry around frightened out of their minds: Armed with guns, huge 'intimidating' SUVs, lawyers, life insurance, car insurance, health insurance, numerous alarm systems, 24/7 communication devices, GPSs, access cards and pins to everything, all the while watching powerlessly as their life savings and plans for retirement disappear. This would go over ok if 'everyone is in the same boat' but the middle class is evaporating while telivision keeps displaying the now unobtainable American Dream... lots of unhappy and dare I say, disgruntled people. Their own issues of rage feeds their fear of strangers who surely are as angry. That's about as best as I can describe it from my hip. ;-)
To Anonymous from an unnamed country:Delete
It sounds as if you are describing a country where crime and bad people do not exist. If that were true, America would not be the destination of choice by immigrants from around the world. Humans spawn criminals and tyrants and that will never change. We have to remain vigilant, not paranoid, which can be a difficult balance to strike but not impossible. All countries are the product of their pasts, and railing against history will not change it. We can only change how we handle it.
The vast majority of people killed in America, and probably in your country too, die of disease and all manner of accident. For your own information, please look up the level of crime in America today vs ten years ago and the level of gun ownership and public favor toward 2A rights for the same period. Perhaps you are confident your government would never turn on you, but I wonder why you have that confidence. Based on what? That's an honest question.
Humans do not have a stellar track record, after all. With us, absolute power corrupts absolutely. If all US citizens would actively use their 2A right, educate themselves, train, understand, be less afraid and more thoughtful, then at least one other person in the Aurora theatre would have been armed but for the right reasons. Then that other person could have been right there, ready, willing and able to effectively intercede and save more lives.
As I've said earlier, if every single woman, able elderly and able disabled were armed, the 2A would not be nearly as easy to attack by those afraid of guns (fear is a motivator on both sides of the debate) because they would see graphic evidence of the benefit of the tool in the right hands. The drop in the victimization of those groups would plummet and those numbers would be impossible to ignore. Then the media would stop taking it for granted how powerful and rightful it is for the citizens to be able to successfully, by superior force if necessary, recoup a government keen on oppressing them. --A.
In Bowling for Columbine, Michael Moore tried to answer, and failed, why Americans are almost uniquely hardwired to kill each other off in large numbers with guns. One Canadian came close by speculating it's perhaps our culture of fear that's permeated through our country since 9/11. But what no one to my knowledge has ever speculated is that this could be a self-perpetuating, catalytic thing- The more spree killings and mass murders that happen in this country and the less we sensibly talk about gun control and the more often we forget each mass murder in favor of some shiny news item, the more acceptable the scenario gets to those who would follow in the footsteps of people like Whitman, Starkweather and Holmes.Delete
The sad truth is that for a large segment of the American population the gun has become a religious fetish. People react to even a reasonable restriction, such as the proposed one on drum magazines, the way people would if you proposed outlawing rosaries and Bibles. I have normally rational, intelligent friends who reflexively post to facebook NRA posts that even a little critical thinking or Google research would expose as fallacious.ReplyDelete
Now we have the absurd spectacle of a grown man arguing that people need a 100 round drum magazine for hunting. His friends evidently are very poor shots indeed!
People don't need a Corvette for driving. I enjoy shooting, Corvette owners enjoy driving. If were getting into needs here, get off your computer. I say you don't *need* that. All we need is food, water, and shelter.Delete
The problem is- James Holmes also "enjoyed shooting."Delete
It would be nice if we, as adults, instead of lining up all our "facts" both pro and con, instead of just concentrating on our own selfish self interests, could get together and at least attempt to figure out how to prevent the next massacre two or three months from now without such inanities as having everyone walking about armed.
Stan B, I don't think Holmes "enjoyed" shooting. I haven't read any reports that suggest he was a life long user of his 2A rights, but rather a sudden mass consumer of WMDs purchased for one purpose--murder. What's really insane is how many humans are allowed to drive giant hulks of metal called cars which are far, far more deadly WMD. Think of how many lives could be saved if we would only force everyone to use mass transit. Seriously.
The next massacre two or three months from now? I believe massacres such as this, and let's not forget Norway please, occur with years between them. When they do start happening every 2-3 mos., we'll rightly call it terrorism and then we'll deal with it that way.
In America, if every citizen were in fact armed, which is not currently the case, then everyone, even people like Holmes would stop and think twice before even trying such atrocities. Why? Because they would have to calculate that they would die at the scene because it would be a real possibility. Maybe Holmes thought he'd be taken out, maybe he didn't, but he obviously did not want to die.
I know I'd rather die fighting, making the killer pay with his life right then for killing me, keeping him from killing more, than just sit there and be a helpless target or just try to run away and hope for the best. Clearly, neither of those last two options worked out well for the 70 people in Aurora, did it. --A.
I could just as easily counter that a crowd of people shooting in a thoroughly darkened room could have caused even greater carnage-arguments addressing these individual, episodic scenarios accomplish little. It be nice to "conclude" this thread with some attempts at real, workable solutions to prevent the next gun massacre that may involve any one of our families...Delete
Yeah- I know, I know... no way it's gonna be your family because you're gonna have more and bigger guns with more and bigger bullets.
Sure, we could kick around all the possible scenarios til we die of old age and still not settle it for each other, that's clear Stan. No, you don't "know" because *I'M* the one who does not think that the innocent should sit still and do nothing until enough people die at the hands of a murderer. Me. I think that price is too high to pay. Laws don't stop murderers, they punish them after the fact. No, *I'M* the one who understands that it takes exactly one someone else with matching force to stop an assailant, right then and there. If a police officer, off duty but armed, had been in the theatre and he opened fire on the shooter, would you still be mad? So if a human can be trained to be a police officer, are all the other humans not trainable in just one portion of the same training given to police? Your fear of guns looks a lot like the stuff of "Reefer Madness" if even so much as one other person were present armed for the right reason. Motive matters. Purpose. Matters. You don't trust your fellow man but you trust the men populating the seats of power. My family has already suffered at the hands of a murderer. --A.Delete
So has mine.Delete
In your Hollywood scripted hero scenario you valiantly rise from your seat and take him out with one clean shot, mid forehead. Crowd applauds. In reality, you'd have a buch of yahoos from the front row firing blindly at the yahoos in the back, and vice versa. And when one shooter's girlfriend gets shot by another- it's gonna end there, right? Enough of this nonsense...
I'm still waiting to hear why the NRA hasn't supported Marissa Alexander??? Why the dead silence...
Yes, enough of this nonsense. Are you ready to be serious now? Your family has suffered a murder? What about that tragedy made you think the criminals should be the only ones who have guns? Because they will have guns, no matter how many laws you pass, and the laws will only further disarm the victim pool: everyone else. The killing in my family only proved all the more graphically to me why everyone should have a gun at hand. If you are going to defend yourself and your family, do not reject the best tool for the job, embrace it.Delete
Oh no. You cite a case that would require more time than I have to research (read the court transcripts, review the evidence, etc., etc.). Can't we stick to the four corners of the blog post instead? --A.
A couple of miles back I stated that I have no problem with someone owning a firearm to hunt or protect their home- I don't know how requiring a gun license and a safety course (as with driving a car) would prevent any sane citizen from obtaining a firearm.Delete
And by all means- let's not talk about a case that exposes the NRA for the unabashed hypocrites that they are. No-- let's not go there! What evidence and transcripts did the NRA examine before they rushed to the defense of some pervert in a car who relentlessly stalked a minor until he shot him for having a bag of Skittles?
Stan, you do something a lot of blind haters do: dodge the question. You just change the subject. That tells me that you are operating purely from emotion. I cannot have a rational dialogue using logic with someone who is not playing by the same rules. I have posed several questions to you that you refuse to answer. That's fine, but it does not make your position more persuasive, but rather less. You also keep dragging in subjects that are tangential, without including links or citations to authorities to help me join you where you are, if not logically, at least where I can understand your emotions.Delete
Yes, yes, hypocrisy--and? This is material to this particular issue in what way?
Hypocrisy is a part of the human condition and anyone over the age of 2 will be a hypocrite about something many times over their lifetime, even you. So whining about what you claim is an expose of hypocrisy, without providing zero links or citations supporting your claim, is about as useful as a Spam key. Then you bring up some other allegation with no names, no dates, just angry words.
When you stop being an emotional hazmat spill, you'll sound like it and I'll know you're ready to be serious for a change. But I'm moving on now, hasta. --A.
Sometimes I get "emotional" when I have to REPEAT myself- I provided the link way back at the start of this thread (talk about dodging the question)...Delete
Will: Try to stay on topic here. If you are saying you enjoy having a 100 round magazine when you go hunting and actually went out and bought one and use it when you hunt, or actually know anyone who does, I am prepared to listen to you. Otherwise you are engaged in sophistry and are merely attempting to cloud the issue.ReplyDelete
Stan. Like it or not, (and I don't) we won't be able to change even the availability of drum magazines. This thread has proven that. The NRA has an hard core of single issue voters who will do what they tell them to. The only remaining way to prevent this sort of tragedy is to try to make a society that is less likely to create people who do this sort of thing. Maybe we ought to look at countries that don't have this problem and see what else they do differently.ReplyDelete
I would like to ask how in the world are you going to keep high capacity magazines out of the hands of a criminal? I ask of the people advocating banning high-capacity magazines, have you ever examined a magazine for a semi-automatic rifle or pistol? Do you know what components comprise a magazine? For most such weapons, it is a trivial task to extend a magazine to hold more ammunition. Yes, you could threaten life imprisonment for anyone possessing one, but I'm not convinced that someone like Holmes would be too inhibited by that.ReplyDelete
I'm with Jason Alexander on this one: http://www.twitlonger.com/show/if2nhtReplyDelete
I think this op-ed by a Marine veteran states whom I'm with on this matter, in rebuttal to Mr Alexander: http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Hollywood/2012/07/23/response-jason-alexander-gunsDelete
Hey, if PuffHo, and comedic actors, are going to be cited as supportive and persuasive, then so can Breitbart, so keep your big girl pants cinched on tight, ok. Yes, yes, you always knew I am not of your tribe most of the time, so let the xenophobia and ad hominem be passed over for earnest and respectful dialogue instead. --A.
Paul: At least you are addressing practicality. There is room for reason and discussion there. I am aware magazines are probably easy to fabricate with the right sheet metal working tools. I picked that as my example because there is really no legitimate sporting or self-defense purpose for anyone outside of the military, INCLUDING the police, to have a drum magazine. I was pointing out that if we can't even discuss this rationally, nothing will ever be done.ReplyDelete
Exactly my point with the Corvette. Nobody short of a racecar driver needs one. We should all have a 2000 Toyota Camry to get to work and back. Your accusation of deception is laying it on a bit thick.Delete
I'm not much of a hunter, but I enjoy the shooting range and firearms have been a hobby of mine for years. Now tell me again why my rifles can't have the same capacity magazines as they were designed for, ill jump directly to saying no engines can be over 4 liters in size. I fail to see the difference, aside from maybe the same Bill of Rights that states my freedom to practice whatever religion i choose and to own firearms (these are actually on the same exact document) says nothing about cars.
Will, because there are those who simply cannot focus on the very real possibility that if the government can wield greater fire power than its citizens, it can win any fight with the people trying to throw that government out of town. Those people simply cannot even imagine that their government could ever get close to accomplishing such a thing, nevermind wanting to against the people who empowered it. Just because we have no practical use for a high capacity magazine in every day life as of now does not mean we should be denied access to such an item when we do have a practical use for one. Of course I wish the fools who buy such items now and then go out and mow down a theatre of people or a flock of swans with them would evaporate instantly. But punishing everyone for the acts of a few is not healthy public policy. --A.Delete
News flash: the government *already* has far greater fire power than any individual does. Banning or not banning high-capacity magazines will have no practical effect on this.Delete
Not at all Will. Here's an example that hit facebook from all my friends who are NRA members before the bodies in Colorado were even cool. It states that Switzerland requires every citizen to own a gun and that Switzerland has the lowest gun-involved crime rate in the civilized world. Those are not the precise words, but they are very close and it is the precise meaning.ReplyDelete
The first statement is half-true. Switzerland has universal male conscription and after you are mustered out you remain in the militia for life. Thus it is true if you ignore women citizens.
The second statement is an outright lie. Most of Northern Europe has a lower murder by gun rate than Switzerland, so does Australia. You can't count armed robberies in the list of gun crimes because the statistics for nearly all of the countries don't differentiate by weapon.
Switzerland has had a universal citizens militia for 500 years. Their culture is nothing like America's. In short, "deception" is a mild term. Utter bullshit would be more accurate.
Switzerland also has a notorious problem with gun suicide. Which makes sense that their gun violence is not really crime related because the country is tiny and extremely wealthy.Delete
My response to Jason Alexander's rant:ReplyDelete
Well done. --A.Delete
A Land Without Guns: How Japan Has Virtually Eliminated Shooting DeathsReplyDelete
Suppose there were no guns, but that Knives were the most lethally used weapon. Where would the line be drawn? Knives longer than __________? Double-edged knives banned but single-edged Okey Dokey?ReplyDelete
A person who would do violence would be a criminal. Every kind of such law already exists to stop it, replete with commensurate penalties.
Do the laws work?
Could the proposed law(s) successfully remove all firearms in America?
Can you really build a stone wall against murder by restrictling its untensils?
Breaking the law is breaking the law. Personal defense is ultimately a personal rather than a societal obligation.
Read, "Sheep, Wolves, and Sheepdogs" by David Grossman. http://www.gleamingedge.com/mirrors/onsheepwolvesandsheepdogs.html
A knife can be used to block another person's knife. A gun cannot block another person's gunshot. A knife also cannot stab people who are out of arm's reach. Please think through your analogies...Delete