Shoot a camera, not a gun

[Paul T.]

Personally my fear is once the bill of rights is changed for today's agenda it will be changed me next time agendas change.

But the Bill of rights WAS changed - up until 1986, there was no suggestion that the 2nd amendment was designed for private citizens to carry a firearm for a hobby or for personal use. It was NRA lobbying that effected this change.

Chief Justice Warren Burger said that the new interpretation of the Second Amendment was “one of the greatest pieces of fraud, I repeat the word ‘fraud,’ on the American public by special-interest groups that I have ever seen in my lifetime.”

 

[rhl-oregon]

"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"?

A deeply contradicted one, Bille, and (this is my feeling) one sick with an addiction to male violence.

One built on Europeans escaping religious intolerance that swiftly adopted its own puritanical intolerances. One whose best-known symbol welcomes all sorts of immigrants, yet at certain borders even tries to keep some out (except during harvest), and sweepingly deports others. The contradictions go on and on.

Let me provide a micro-sample of these contradictions. Three brothers with good parents who took them to church, saw them schooled, encouraged them to seek higher education, etc.
1/Oldest: loved guns, joined the army for 20 years, fought in Vietnam, grew increasingly 'conservative' and well to do in a second financial career. Owns 85 guns, many of them historical pieces, but including an assault rifle. Is in the NRA, watches Fox News, packs a small revolver in his pocket every day, hates the 'welfare state.' 2/Middle brother: loved books, make-believe, all kinds of music, theater. Decided to become a poet in college, protested Vietnam war, handed out socialist/communist leaflets, taught creative writing, published books, voted for social-welfare candidates. 3/Youngest: the only son who asked his father for a shotgun and to be taken hunting (though the father, who fought in WWII, disliked hunting), yet (fast forwarding decades) became a Buddhist monk and a painter. Brothers 2 and 3 are still brothers. Brother 1 belongs to a different world. Now that their mother is dead, he no longer speaks to them. And they no longer pretend to understand him.

Contradictory temperaments and philosophies like these divide not only America families but communities. For some the Second Amendment is the real #1 right, Don't Tread on Me their motto, and individualist pursuit of wealth the greatest thing. For others (like me, the middle brother), social welfare, education, equality, universal health care (including mental health!), and the ever-elusive glimmer of world peace are the right values and pursuits. But the other side keeps accumulating the guns--and blaming 'sick indivduals' for their sickness while offering them discounts on Bushmaster assault rifles at the mall.

My wife recently learned that she may be able to regain the Canadian citizenship her mother gave up in the 1950s. If the US turns ever more rightward, we may move north to British Columbia for old age....

 

[Bille]

The generalization of "guns" and "arms" in this debate is what I dont understand. Propagating the right to carry any weapon you want "because you can" ... is that freedom? Is that peace?

 

[x-ray]

Substitute the word 'taken' for 'saved' and you have the other side of the coin ... in exactly the same sentence!

You can what if all day but this was not the case.

What if one of the passengers on one of the 911 flights had a gun. That person might have stopped the hijackers from killing thousands of people in the world trade center and plane. What if isn't reality but only speculation. You can speculate all day.

Don't ever profile individuals or groups known to be problematic. This isnt politically correct Simply step on the rights of the innocent who have never harmed anyone.

 

[Roger Hicks]

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.

No doubt you know more about Australian gun law than I, but some factors to bear in mind are:

1 The population of Australia is relatively tiny: about 7% of the population of the United States. The number of guns in circulation, before the buy-back, was even tinier. 'A rubbish excuse' suggests lack of consideration of the relative scales of the problems.

2 There is no historic 'gun culture' in Australia, except for pest control (and I often wonder how the anti-gun lobby proposes to handle this one)

3 There was no 'gun ban' in Australia. Restrictions on the availability of firearms were greatly increased, but it is still possible to own pistols up to 9mm/.38 and, in some cases, larger. Quite honestly, I can't see how calibre restrictions make a whole lot of sense for hand guns, but that's a separate issue.

Cheers,

R.

 

[f6andBthere]

Howard's main aim was to remove the semi automatic assault rifles of the type that killed 35 in Tasmania in tha hands of Martin Bryant..

It's still possible to own a firearm in this country but there are plenty of hoops to jump through.

And if you want an insight into Australian culture and our history read 'The Fatal Shore' by Robert Hughes. It may make your guesswork a little more accurate. 🙂

 

[splitimageview]

One fact that never seems to be mentioned: every one of these shootings happened in a so-called 'gun free zone.'

It turns out that this is the safest place for these nutcases to do their evil.

Perhaps we could do a little learning from Israel, and properly secure the campuses. It has well worked for them.

The gun control advocates want to make everywhere a 'gun free zone.' Then everywhere will be like Chicago, with murders every single day...but officially, legally, gun-free...

 

[Roger Hicks]

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.

(Second post) The only militia the authors of the constitution thought of was carrying muzzle-loaders. So that's what they'll have to allow... ;-)

First post: Quite. My suspicion is that if it were compulsory to handle guns at school (as it effectively was at my old school), people might be more aware of (a) how extremely dangerous they are when misused and (b) how extremely safe they are when not misused.

Second post: Well, either that, or re-introduce well-regulated militias.

A thought from Frances: "It's about power." In other words, there are those who are only aware that if they carry a gun, they can impose their will on others, and those who are only aware that others can dominate them with guns. There's hysteria on both sides -- the psychopath/Rambo mentality, or the slave/victim mentality. Both mentalities discourage rational thought.

Cheers,

R.

 

[daveleo]

IMO virtually all the comments made above are reasonably correct.
Which is why (in the US, going forward) this is an unsolvable, in fact an undefinable, problem.

Okay to vent and rage about it, but don't delude yourself that a solution exists here in the USA.

 

[Sarcophilus Harrisii]

Howard's main aim was to remove the semi automatic assault rifles of the type that killed 35 in Tasmania in tha hands of Stephen Bryant..

It's still possible to own a firearm in this country but there are plenty of hoops to jump through.

And if you want an insight into Australian culture and our history read 'The Fatal Shore' by Robert Hughes. It may make your guesswork a little more accurate. 🙂

Martin Bryant.
Regards
Brett

 

[Richard G]

Defeatist, Dave. Undefinable? The reason the NRA are against statistics is that defining the problem is the first step in fixing it. Too many for too long have talked like you are now. Definable it is. Fixable it is.

 

[sevo]

Obviously the police thought there was sufficient theat to my cousin and his family to not file charges against my cousin.

For one, I sincerely hope that that is not what happened, as every reasonable concept of division-of-power says that the executive (police) may not judge anybody. Self-defence, even with excessive means and lethal consequences, is a legitimate case of manslaughter even in places where guns are outlawed, but it is up to a judge or court to determine that legitimacy.

For the other, the legality of excessive self-defence is inevitable, as anything else would put the assailant (who does not have to worry about the legality of his - entirely illegal - actions) at an unfair advantage. But that does not mean it should be morally acceptable behaviour - your cousin screwed up as hard as he could without going to jail (and minor factors, like being drunk, drugged, black, Indian, Hispanic or homeless could have had him end on death row with exactly the same story).

 

[splitimageview]

It's certainly fixable. Protect the children. We have plenty of examples of what works, and what doesn't.

These terrorist acts are nothing new, unfortunately. This one was 85 years ago, and didn't involve guns.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bath_School_disaster

 

[daveleo]

Defeatist, Dave. Undefinable? The reason the NRA are against statistics is that defining the problem is the first step in fixing it. Too many for too long have talked like you are now. Definable it is. Fixable it is.

Tragically, history says that you are wrong. NOT wrong in wanting to solve the gun problem, but wrong in thinking its is solvable. Two weeks from now, we 300,000,000 will be off thinking about something else. (The news media claims that 48 hours after it "drops" a story, virtually everyone in the country has forgotten about it.)

 

[Roger Hicks]

IMO virtually all the comments made above are reasonably correct.
Which is why (in the US, going forward) this is an unsolvable, in fact an undefinable, problem.

Okay to vent and rage about it, but don't delude yourself that a solution exists here in the USA.

Which is not to say that a solution cannot eventually be reached, after considerable mature thought and perhaps very slowly. But hysteria on either side (not referring to your post in any way) is no way to work towards a solution.

Cheers,

R.

 

[Roger Hicks]

It's certainly fixable. Protect the children. We have plenty of examples of what works, and what doesn't.

Highlight: does this actually mean anything at all? I mean, for a start, ban motor-cars.

Cheers,

R.

 

[Roger Hicks]

For one, I sincerely hope that that is not what happened, as every reasonable concept of division-of-power says that the executive (police) may not judge anybody. Self-defence, even with excessive means and lethal consequences, is a legitimate case of manslaughter even in places where guns are outlawed, but it is up to a judge or court to determine that legitimacy.

For the other, the legality of excessive self-defence is inevitable, as anything else would put the assailant (who does not have to worry about the legality of his - entirely illegal - actions) at an unfair advantage. But that does not mean it should be morally acceptable behaviour - your cousin screwed up as hard as he could without going to jail (and minor factors, like being drunk, drugged, black, Indian, Hispanic or homeless could have had him end on death row with exactly the same story).

Highlight: Not in the real world it doesn't. The police are ALWAYS the ones who decide whether to feel someone's collar or not. That's the whole basis of 'reasonable suspicion', which is the criterion for arrest. How can it be otherwise? If it were not so, they'd nick all of us, all the time, and let the courts decide if we were guilty of anything. Without necessarily even bothering to say what they'd nicked us for.

Cheers,

R.

 

[gavinlg]

As someone who comes from South Africa/Rhodesia from a farming family, who has hunted and shot as a sport with his father, I actually cannot fathom how anyone can think that guns are the issue here. I cannot fathom. The people I know who enjoy firearms are the safest and most gentle people I know.

Americans, your country is ****ed up. You have serious social divide, the WORST media groups on the planet, and you're angry and looking for a scapegoat. These shooters - they're famous now. They've been trumpeted and absolutely solidified in history - their names, their stories, their deeds. This is what they wanted. There's only one reason someone does this - they don't want to be a sad sap who turns off his own lights and no one knows or cares, they want to be remembered and infamous. Your media allows this. Your media supports this. You go on about how bad guns are but turn on ANY SINGLE TV channel at ANY SINGLE MOMENT DAY OR NIGHT and see what's on - guns, shooting, murder. There are more crime/homocide/law and order type shows on air now than I can actually count on all my fingers and toes. Every single one of them is based around homicide or killing. There are countless video games that glorify it. probably 75% of movies parade extreme violence. And here we are saying guns are the issue? If not guns, there will be (and already are) homemade bombs. Knives. Cars. Fists and metallic objects. The problem does not lie with an inanimate object, it lies with the people that wield it. It lies with your media and your society. Prescription drugs kill more people than guns in the US, in fact there are some saying now that they kill more than they save - why not go all bat**** crazy over prescription drugs too?

 

[oftheherd]

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.

Two often overlooked truths: Unrestrained mental illness, and proper training. One more, a society that believes we must rehabilitate all criminals.

Those mentally ill that are likely a danger to society should be placed in hospitals for treatment and/or protection of themselves and society. As with criminals, we have taken a tack that says if they can take care of themselves, we should let them free. We don't ask if they are a danger to anyone, or if their mental condition will deteriorate without enforced treatment. There is of couse a big problem. What will it cost to ensure they are well cared for, and do get meaningful treatment to see if that will help. Big problems for abuse of the mentally ill in poorly run institutuions.

As to criminals, by the time a person has been on the fringes of 'good' society until their 18th birthday, it is difficult to impossible to rehabilitate them unless they wish it to be so. They have to realize their former lifestyle was wrong, and they want to join the rest of society. However, to them, their lifestyle has worked for them. Why would they want to change? Solution? Well, we can force them into thinking changes (I am afraid of that). We can just incarcerate them until they are rehabilitated, no matter the offense, since at least they won't be out of prison preying on nice society. But what will make the rehabilitated? Who gets to decide when they are?

Jubb Jubb - you appear to not care what anyone thinks about owning guns to the point of admitting there may be legitimate reasons. You just aren't going to accept that. OK, your rigjt. I actually salute you for taking a stand for what you believe. But I would caution against assuming because you believe something, that is is automatically reality. And I don't mean that maliciously.

I favor gun ownership, but I realize there are ligitimate arguments against at least some weapons, especially automatic or simi-automatic assault style weapons. Also tanks, mortars, B 52 bombers, etc. That may not mean a total ban, but restrictions on what it takes to own one.

I also realize that not everyone is like me or Mr. Hicks. I was also taught at home what weapons were for, not to ever point a firearm at anything I wasn't legally ready to shoot, and proper legal behavior in general. So I don't like the simplistic argument that we just have to ban all guns. Do you think taking away a law abiding citizen's gun will keep an already non-law abiding criminal's guns? If you don't, what would you propose?

 

[Paul T.]

If we're simply going to accuse an entire nation of being "****ed up", then this thread is pointless.

Personally, I'd like American gun laws to change so that fewer Americans will die. I like Americans.

America has shifted to the right, but that doesn't mean that reasonable measures like a modicum of gun control can't be enacted. But we need an LBJ - someone who runs a machine, which can crush the machine built by the NRA. The only way to fight them is by taking them on, manipulating them - not by appealing to their better instincts, for they apparently don't have any.