Jubb Jubb
Well-known
With all the incredibly sad news coming out of the United States at the moment and all the loss of young life, it's hard to believe that a State Representative has made it public that he believes teachers should carry guns or have access to a gun in their classroom, and that by carrying such a weapon you are going to ensure the children are safe.
There is nothing safe about guns. Period.
I just can't get around why people feel that by carrying a lethal weapon, they are safe. It is an object that has been designed to end life. That is it's primary purpose, not protection.
I've started reading news sites comments, articles, the National Rifle Associations facebook page (and comments from people that have liked it) and it completely frightens the sh*t out of me that a lot of people still will not act on banning guns. They believe that if a civilian was armed when a shooting like this happened, they'd jump in there and "protect" everybody.
This mentality is just crazy.
It isn't the late 1700's anymore, there is no civil war anymore. it's time to change. I really hope Obama can get a bill through banning guns, as seeing this news is just heart breaking. R.I.P. to all those that lost their young precious lives.
Shoot a camera, not a gun.
There is nothing safe about guns. Period.
I just can't get around why people feel that by carrying a lethal weapon, they are safe. It is an object that has been designed to end life. That is it's primary purpose, not protection.
I've started reading news sites comments, articles, the National Rifle Associations facebook page (and comments from people that have liked it) and it completely frightens the sh*t out of me that a lot of people still will not act on banning guns. They believe that if a civilian was armed when a shooting like this happened, they'd jump in there and "protect" everybody.
This mentality is just crazy.
It isn't the late 1700's anymore, there is no civil war anymore. it's time to change. I really hope Obama can get a bill through banning guns, as seeing this news is just heart breaking. R.I.P. to all those that lost their young precious lives.
Shoot a camera, not a gun.
Frontman
Well-known
At the moment there are about 300,000,000 people in the US. It is estimated that there upwards of 200,000,000 guns. Banning guns would be about as effective as banning water. Added to this is the fact that owning a gun in America is a right, not a privilege, and as such, not even President Obama can do much about it.
On the other side, violent crime in America has been decreasing steadily over the decades. Unfortunately, in the days of multiple 24 hour news networks, the amount of news coverage on violent crime has increased nearly 10-fold.
I have not read or watched the news about the shootings, I don't to hear the empty heads with empty hearts in the newsrooms asking "why", when they couldn't really care less. Blood is news, and news is money for their type. I don't want to know the name of the shooter, about his difficult childhood, or about why he might have done it. He doesn't merit a moment of my thought, and he shouldn't merit a moment of yours. Do yourselves a favor and switch off the news.
Had he thought his rampage would not have raised a media uproar, he might have ended only one life, his own.
On the other side, violent crime in America has been decreasing steadily over the decades. Unfortunately, in the days of multiple 24 hour news networks, the amount of news coverage on violent crime has increased nearly 10-fold.
I have not read or watched the news about the shootings, I don't to hear the empty heads with empty hearts in the newsrooms asking "why", when they couldn't really care less. Blood is news, and news is money for their type. I don't want to know the name of the shooter, about his difficult childhood, or about why he might have done it. He doesn't merit a moment of my thought, and he shouldn't merit a moment of yours. Do yourselves a favor and switch off the news.
Had he thought his rampage would not have raised a media uproar, he might have ended only one life, his own.
thegman
Veteran
I think it's wasted brain cycles to attempt to get the USA to implement any sort of effective gun control. With the lobbyists etc. the way they are, it's not going to happen, we should probably just accept it. Even if the USA did have some kind of effective gun control, it would only affect those following the law.
My instinct is to ban guns, but instinct is not the same as reason, and this is a problem which needs to be thought about. Putting guns in the hands of teachers makes many of us recoil, including me, but what needs to be thought about is *what works*, not my liberal principles, or someone else's conservative principles.
That will not happen though, in most countries, and especially the United States, arguments are made on point of principle. If you shout long enough about climate change not being real, or Iraq having WMDs, there are enough people who will believe you. Probably best to accept that the USA will not get any meaningful (or any) change in the law, and think about what they *can* do. They answer is likely nothing, I doubt you can legislate against the occasional psychopath.
My instinct is to ban guns, but instinct is not the same as reason, and this is a problem which needs to be thought about. Putting guns in the hands of teachers makes many of us recoil, including me, but what needs to be thought about is *what works*, not my liberal principles, or someone else's conservative principles.
That will not happen though, in most countries, and especially the United States, arguments are made on point of principle. If you shout long enough about climate change not being real, or Iraq having WMDs, there are enough people who will believe you. Probably best to accept that the USA will not get any meaningful (or any) change in the law, and think about what they *can* do. They answer is likely nothing, I doubt you can legislate against the occasional psychopath.
Bille
Well-known
Roger Hicks
Veteran
It's at least as much a problem of untreated mental illness and a sick society (the two are of course related) as of gun ownership. Frontman is almost certainly right in all he says, but most especially that with 200,000,000 guns in circulation in the USA, there's not a lot you can do. Yes, there are some things you can do -- make it harder to buy ammunition, for example -- but it's a culture, not the availability of guns. Also, in a very big country there are going to be more massacres than in a small one.
I own guns; I have never pointed a gun at anyone, except toy guns when I was a child; I enjoy target shooting; if I could be bothered, I'd probably get a hunting license. But then, I was trained to use guns in the Cadet Force at school: I didn't pick up all that I know from Hollywood, music, or partially-informed phobics.
The OP is absolutely right that the idea of 'protection' from carrying a gun is 99.9% empty fantasy from firearms apologists with no idea of what thy are doing, and I suspect that the vast majority even those among those who do know how to handle guns would be useless in such a crisis too, so it might be 99.999999%. But I'll never find out for myself because I don't go around tooled up: my guns are at home or on the range. THAT'S the dangerous part: large numbers of guns in everyday social situations.
Cheers,
R.
I own guns; I have never pointed a gun at anyone, except toy guns when I was a child; I enjoy target shooting; if I could be bothered, I'd probably get a hunting license. But then, I was trained to use guns in the Cadet Force at school: I didn't pick up all that I know from Hollywood, music, or partially-informed phobics.
The OP is absolutely right that the idea of 'protection' from carrying a gun is 99.9% empty fantasy from firearms apologists with no idea of what thy are doing, and I suspect that the vast majority even those among those who do know how to handle guns would be useless in such a crisis too, so it might be 99.999999%. But I'll never find out for myself because I don't go around tooled up: my guns are at home or on the range. THAT'S the dangerous part: large numbers of guns in everyday social situations.
Cheers,
R.
Bille
Well-known
"The right of the people to keep and bear Arms" ...
It is beyond me why a large group of US citizens take this literally, 200 years after it was postulated. "Arms" in late 1700 were muskets at worst. Correct me, if I am wrong. Not assault rifles firing 800 rounds/min. What kind of society is that, where you have to have access to weapons of war to "protect yourself"?
Roger Hicks
Veteran
The intriguing argument here is that if 'a well-regulated militia' is REALLY what it's about, the ONLY weapon you can't ban is an assault rifle, as it's the only rational militia weapon. The Second Amendment itself is, as you suggest, substantially irrelevant in the context of modern state security. Good luck trying to get it repealed! And, as you suggest, it is very little to do with 'self protection', but then, that wasn't really what the Second Amendment was about. The whole thing has been hijacked by the hard of thinking (on both sides -- both pro-gun and anti-gun).
Cheers,
R.
Jubb Jubb
Well-known
The amount of guns in the U.S. is no longer an excuse for not getting rid of them. If there are too many to get rid of now, then in the future this number will just grow and keep growing and it will continue to be a rubbish excuse.
Sure there is the mental side of it, but take the guns out of the equation and all you have is a nut, like the guy who went on a knife rampage in a school last week, where the injuries were bad, but not one person lost their life.
Here in Australia, a nut went on a rampage in 1996 in Tasmania killing 35 people and injuring a whole lot more. After this event, the Prime Minister at the time banned guns and issued a buy-back scheme. There were a lot of people against it, but it is no doubt one of the best things that happened to this country.
For this to change in the U.S., the country needs to change. And what was relevant in the 1700's is no longer relevant today.
Sure there is the mental side of it, but take the guns out of the equation and all you have is a nut, like the guy who went on a knife rampage in a school last week, where the injuries were bad, but not one person lost their life.
Here in Australia, a nut went on a rampage in 1996 in Tasmania killing 35 people and injuring a whole lot more. After this event, the Prime Minister at the time banned guns and issued a buy-back scheme. There were a lot of people against it, but it is no doubt one of the best things that happened to this country.
For this to change in the U.S., the country needs to change. And what was relevant in the 1700's is no longer relevant today.
sevo
Fokutorendaburando
I agree. Cultures can change, though - see Switzerland or Canada for countries with a even higher gun count and nonetheless significantly less gun related casualties per capita than the US. And on the other hand, gun related injuries and deaths are increasing in the gun-controlled UK even though they are tightening control - probably a side issue of local culture adopting the cultural values transported in US produced TV series.
sevo
Fokutorendaburando
The only militia the authors of the constitution thought of was carrying muzzle-loaders. So that's what they'll have to allow... ;-)
x-ray
Veteran
My cousin saved the life of himself, his wife and his young daughter because he kept a revolver in his nightstand.
While at a church activity one day his young daughter spilled a come which would up getting the jeans of another girl next to her wet. No big deal till a week later when the other girls father kicked my cousins front door in one ne night in the middle of the night. He managed to get to the bedroom where my cousin and his wife were sleeping awakening my cousin. He demanded $500 for damages to his daughters jeans. The man told my cousin if he didnt pay he would kill him and his family. When my cousin refused he started beating my cousin severely. My cousin managed to get to the pistol in his night stand and shot and killed the intruder. My cousin was taken to the hospital with serious injuries but his family was still alive.
No charges were brought against my cousin. The intruder had to move from another town due to other threats on citizens but this time he meant it. He had been going around town according to witnesses saying he would kill my cousin and his family if he didn't pay him the $500 for soiling his daughters jeans. Clearly the man was insane and my cousin and his family would be dead if my cousin had not been armed.
You never hear about these instances on the news but how many lives are saved because someone had a firearm.
While at a church activity one day his young daughter spilled a come which would up getting the jeans of another girl next to her wet. No big deal till a week later when the other girls father kicked my cousins front door in one ne night in the middle of the night. He managed to get to the bedroom where my cousin and his wife were sleeping awakening my cousin. He demanded $500 for damages to his daughters jeans. The man told my cousin if he didnt pay he would kill him and his family. When my cousin refused he started beating my cousin severely. My cousin managed to get to the pistol in his night stand and shot and killed the intruder. My cousin was taken to the hospital with serious injuries but his family was still alive.
No charges were brought against my cousin. The intruder had to move from another town due to other threats on citizens but this time he meant it. He had been going around town according to witnesses saying he would kill my cousin and his family if he didn't pay him the $500 for soiling his daughters jeans. Clearly the man was insane and my cousin and his family would be dead if my cousin had not been armed.
You never hear about these instances on the news but how many lives are saved because someone had a firearm.
Richard G
Veteran
1. I Agree the whole constitutional right to bear arms is overstated and outdated. See the long discussion on theonlinephotographer yesterday.
2. I don't yet think this is beyond hope.
3. I don't think the number of guns in America right now has anything to do with what sort of legislation should be enacted. The Australian Prime Minister negotiated a buy back and prospective abolition of all semi-automatic and automatic weapons in private hands in 1996. There has been no mass killing in Australia since this response to the Port Arthur massacre of 35 in that year. There had been two others in the previous ten years.
4. The multiple deaths of those children, with a fatal outcome in 100% who were shot, was PREVENTABLE.
5. It is up to all individuals and legislators to press for change. The NRA is declining, prominent people like Mayor Bloomberg and now even the President are openly proposing change. It is crucial that those right thinking people who support this do not become defeatist and realize that the US gun culture could be changed.
2. I don't yet think this is beyond hope.
3. I don't think the number of guns in America right now has anything to do with what sort of legislation should be enacted. The Australian Prime Minister negotiated a buy back and prospective abolition of all semi-automatic and automatic weapons in private hands in 1996. There has been no mass killing in Australia since this response to the Port Arthur massacre of 35 in that year. There had been two others in the previous ten years.
4. The multiple deaths of those children, with a fatal outcome in 100% who were shot, was PREVENTABLE.
5. It is up to all individuals and legislators to press for change. The NRA is declining, prominent people like Mayor Bloomberg and now even the President are openly proposing change. It is crucial that those right thinking people who support this do not become defeatist and realize that the US gun culture could be changed.
sevo
Fokutorendaburando
In your example, a life very obviously was lost because someone had a firearm - at the price of a broken nose and a few bruises he could as well have called the police to arrest the man.
If any, I'd call that a perfect example why US citizens should not be allowed any guns, at least until they have cured their paranoia.
f6andBthere
Well-known
Substitute the word 'taken' for 'saved' and you have the other side of the coin ... in exactly the same sentence!
Jubb Jubb
Well-known
I was about to say the same thing sevo.
A gun does not equal safety or protection. What would have happened if the intruder wrestled the gun off your cousin?. He would have had a weapon to kill the family...
It's time to lose this false belief that having more guns makes you safe.
A gun does not equal safety or protection. What would have happened if the intruder wrestled the gun off your cousin?. He would have had a weapon to kill the family...
It's time to lose this false belief that having more guns makes you safe.
sanmich
Veteran
the question is what type of weapon the occasional psychopath will find in his mommy's kitchen: a knife or an automatic rifle...
thegman
Veteran
I think the anti-gun among us (I include myself) should accept that the gun is not bad in all cases. In cases where violent intruders are killed, rather than innocent people being hurt or killed makes a strong case for private citizens owning guns.
In this case, a gun did make a man and his family more safe. To deny it is to deny reality. The real issue is not are guns good or bad, it's whether they do *more* bad than good. I think it would be fair to say they do.
But it does not matter how loud you shout for guns to be banned, or even for moderate changes in the law, it won't happen, so probably best to think of something can actually happen.
Rob-F
Likes Leicas
The government could allow six months for people to turn in their semi-automatic guns and assault rifles, no questions asked. They could even give compensation to those who can prove legal ownership. They could give a voucher in exchange for military weapons, that serious gun collectors could take to a gun shop and redeem for something of equal value, such as an historic blunderbuss, derringer, set of dueling pistols, etc. Anything that can't do quite so much harm.
x-ray
Veteran
You weren't there and only have the condensed version of the story.
Obviously the police thought there was sufficient theat to my cousin and his family to not file charges against my cousin.
Personally my fear is once the bill of rights is changed for today's agenda it will be changed me next time agendas change.
Paul T.
Veteran
there are doubtless some lives saved throughout the year because someone had a gun; we don't know how many.
But what is undeniable to any rational person, is that that number is dwarfed by killings by accident, on impulse, or suicides. There are probably more "burglars" shot and killed by accident who were in fact innocent - like the recent incident where a man shot and killed his son because he was dressed strangely - than there are genuine criminals deterred from crime.
There are 100,000 shootings a year in the US, 30,000 killed. Of these many are suicides, many of them people who acted on impulse who may well not have done so had a gun not been readily available. There are huge numbers of wives or husbands killed with a firearm who would be alive today if they hadn't been shot on impulse.
There is also one child shot by accident every two or three days.
It probably is too late to put the genie back in the bottle; the NRA are simply too powerful. They even effectively ban the gathering of statistics to study gun ownership effectively.
However, if we look at the example of Australia, following the Port Arthur massacre, in which the killer used an assault rifle, there is hope.
A right-wing administration focused on the most dangerous weapons; roughly one fifth of all the weapons in circulation were returned, and payment was made for them. it is also possible to limit the amount of ammunition, to limit the number of weapons kept at home (we hear the killer's mom had four or six). THere are also sensible measures like limiting the trade at gun fairs, where at the moment it's easy for criminals or the insane to buy guns. The Australian legislation cut down gun crime to a massive extent, and there have been no mass killings since then.
But what is undeniable to any rational person, is that that number is dwarfed by killings by accident, on impulse, or suicides. There are probably more "burglars" shot and killed by accident who were in fact innocent - like the recent incident where a man shot and killed his son because he was dressed strangely - than there are genuine criminals deterred from crime.
There are 100,000 shootings a year in the US, 30,000 killed. Of these many are suicides, many of them people who acted on impulse who may well not have done so had a gun not been readily available. There are huge numbers of wives or husbands killed with a firearm who would be alive today if they hadn't been shot on impulse.
There is also one child shot by accident every two or three days.
It probably is too late to put the genie back in the bottle; the NRA are simply too powerful. They even effectively ban the gathering of statistics to study gun ownership effectively.
However, if we look at the example of Australia, following the Port Arthur massacre, in which the killer used an assault rifle, there is hope.
A right-wing administration focused on the most dangerous weapons; roughly one fifth of all the weapons in circulation were returned, and payment was made for them. it is also possible to limit the amount of ammunition, to limit the number of weapons kept at home (we hear the killer's mom had four or six). THere are also sensible measures like limiting the trade at gun fairs, where at the moment it's easy for criminals or the insane to buy guns. The Australian legislation cut down gun crime to a massive extent, and there have been no mass killings since then.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.