Guest fountainhall Posted July 21, 2012 Posted July 21, 2012 It’s been said before on this Board and I’m sure a huge number of other sites and publications, the gun laws in the USA are centuries out of date and should be updated in line with the reality of modern day society. Yes, I know I am not an American citizen and some will say I have no right to comment on US affairs. Fine. But then explain away yet another massacre of innocent civilians by some crazy lunatic! By coincidence, I had just returned from seeing the Batman movie at the iMax Theatre in Paragon when I heard about the deaths in Aurora. This nut case was not merely intent on killing in the theatre. His home, it seems, was booby-trapped to the hilt to take out neighbours as well. Of course, US politicians of all persuasions will come out and parrot yet again about it being nothing to do with the right to bear arms – it’s clearly going to be yet another of these ‘let’s not offend the all-powerful NRA’ times. It’s about just a few mentally deranged individuals, they’ll all say. And if it wasn’t guns, they’d find some other means of killing. Well, I for one, don’t buy that crap. The ready availability of millions of instruments of mass slaughter will always result in some using them to kill. Heck, that’s their purpose, after all. And American lawmakers can say what they like about background checks. That’s pure ostrich-with-their-heads-in-the-sand talk when the number of massacres keeps continuing. “The guy basically had normal guns,” said Eugene Volokh, an expert in constitutional law at the University of California, Los Angeles. Unless some new evidence of documented psychiatric disturbance emerges, Mr. Volokh added, “there’s no indication that, from his record, he is someone whom more restrictive screening procedures would have caught.” http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/21/us/colorado-gun-laws-remain-lax-despite-changes-after-columbine.html?_r=1&ref=global-home Guns should be banned. Is it not odd that America always seems to claim it needs guns to supposedly protect life and property, when almost every other civilized country does not? Quote
Bob Posted July 21, 2012 Posted July 21, 2012 A very difficult subject. Although I have been a responsible owner of both handguns and long guns (I sold the handguns when I started spending most of the year in Thailand as I couldn't stand the notion of somebody breaking into my US house to steal them and then subsequently killing somebody with one of them), I've advocated for decades that all handguns need to be strictly regulated. I even advocated that those allowed to own a handgun ought to be required to keep them at a local police station and one could simply pick up the gun when you're going target shooting or whatever. There is absolutely no legitimate purpose for anyone having a weapon that holds a 30-shot clip. Even for legitmate hunting purposes, the hunting laws of the states prohibit possession of any weapon that holds more than 3-5 cartridges or shotgun shells. Yet, the NRA and its minions (all well-financed politicians and mostly Republicans) have gutted any reasonable effort (including repeal of the Assault Weapons Ban intelligently legislated a decade or more ago) to impose reasonable regulations that balance the safety of society with legitimate gun ownership rights. The NRA, in my book, is the slimiest organization around and it reached its rock bottom when it fought legislation to ban the teflon-coated bullets (also called "cop killer" bullets) which were worthless for hunting or target shooting and served the sole purpose of having the ability to penetrate "bullet-proof" vests. Before my friend Khun Khortose starts telling us that recent relaxation of handgun ownership has actually led to lower crime rates in the US, I do wish to note two things: (1) the crime rates for almost all crimes has abated in the US over the last two decades or so and simply saying this is due to "more guns on the street" simply doesn't make it so (I actually don't believe it in any event), and (2) comparing the current let alone old murder rate by guns in the US to those of countries that limit gun ownership (the UK, for example) leads to the inescapable conclusion that thousands of lives a year would be saved in the US if we had the UK limitations. I'd vote for them in a heartbeat. Quote
Guest fountainhall Posted July 21, 2012 Posted July 21, 2012 Many tend to think that the UK outlawed private ownership of guns many decades ago. This is not the case, although the laws were no doubt more stringent than those in the USA. It was another massacre, this time of 16 primary school children in the Scottish city of Dunblane in 1996, that caused such outrage and motivated large sections of the population to lobby for much tighter gun control legislation. As a result, two laws were passed in 1997 which now makes it illegal for the private ownership of handguns in the UK. Quote
ChristianPFC Posted July 21, 2012 Posted July 21, 2012 "the right to bear arms" is the basis of a great pun: Quote
KhorTose Posted July 22, 2012 Posted July 22, 2012 Before my friend Khun Khortose starts telling us that recent relaxation of handgun ownership has actually led to lower crime rates in the US, I do wish to note two things: (1) the crime rates for almost all crimes has abated in the US over the last two decades or so and simply saying this is due to "more guns on the street" simply doesn't make it so (I actually don't believe it in any event), and (2) comparing the current let alone old murder rate by guns in the US to those of countries that limit gun ownership (the UK, for example) leads to the inescapable conclusion that thousands of lives a year would be saved in the US if we had the UK limitations. I'd vote for them in a heartbeat. The problem is between what you want to believe and the truth. Michele Bachman would be proud of you both. On crime and the right to carry law: http://en.wikipedia....uns,_Less_Crime If I had been in that theater that night and had my 45 auto (I am an expert shot) on me there is a chance James Holmes would be dead long before he shot 70 people. On England since the gun latest gun control legislation. http://www.politics....rence/gun-crime And from one of the most liberal colleges in Canada: http://www.mitosyfra...gunsFraser.html Mr. Murdoch says---yeah I know crap when I see it----nevertheless. http://www.dailymail...e-soars-35.html The telegraph: http://www.telegraph...g-Dunblane.html This is just part of the first page on Google where I asked, "gun crime in England since 1996". There is a Wiki article that says there is actually no difference in gun crime before and after the ban, and that is the best I can find for your point of view which seems somewhat divorced from the facts. Finally, I do not support the NRA. This is because of their right wing stance and not because their basic anti-gun control stance. However, from Thomas Jefferson on it is clear that the founding fathers wanted no gun control, and the Sup. Court has consistently agreed with this view Quote
Guest fountainhall Posted July 22, 2012 Posted July 22, 2012 KT - I wish you could have quoted at least part of the articles and saved me part of my Sunday morning reading them up It seems to me there is a ton of misinformation in the public domain. Re the UK, there being no apparent difference in gun-related killings is partly explained by a change in the way in which the UK police recorded crime just before the 1997 gunlaw. This is from the UK Home Office Paper "Crime in England and Wales 2001/2" (Chapter 3, page 25)- The impact of the recording changes vary considerably between different categories of recorded crime. For violent crime, an apparent eight per cent increase nationally becomes in reality a five per cent decrease. http://webarchive.na...fs2/hosb702.pdf Even the Daily Mail article you quote, has this near the end - the updated British Crime Survey (BCS), also published today, showed . . . trends since 1997 showed all crime down by 27%, burglary by 39%, vehicle theft by 32% and violent crime by 26%. http://www.dailymail...e-soars-35.html I acknowledge governments will always put the best spin on all bad news. But surely the most important issue, I believe is not percentages – it is the actual number of gun-related deaths. In 2008 The Independent reported that there were 42 gun-related deaths in Great Britain http://en.wikipedia...._United_Kingdom And what about the USA? I cannot find statistics for 2008, but in 2005 the total was nearly 31,000. Since about 40% or so of these were a result of gun-related suicides (and should perhaps also be included, but for argument's sake I shall omit them), that leaves around 18,600. http://www.huffingto...t_n_110043.html So, approx. 18,600 US deaths (after allowing for suicides) against 42 UK deaths (not allowing for suicides). Adjusting for the five times difference in populations, on the basis of these figures the UK would have had 210 deaths. 210 against 18,600! That, more than anything, tells me that the UK with its gun laws is vastly safer for the average citizen than the USA. Quote
Bob Posted July 22, 2012 Posted July 22, 2012 from Thomas Jefferson on it is clear that the founding fathers wanted no gun control, and the Sup. Court has consistently agreed with this view "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." That's the second amendment provision relating to the right to keep and bear arms. You're right that the Supreme Court has generally upheld private ownership as a personal right. Not that it matters but I've always disagreed with those holdings as I believe the founders meant that the states had the right to have armed militias and that the amendment in essence meant that the federal government had no business telling the states what to do with repect to guns and other weapons. At the time of enactment, it was understood that each state was to defend itself. But, Khun Khortose, there's a bit of intellectual dilemma here. If, as you say, each of the citizens has the personal right to "keep and bear arms" (mind you, arms under any definition is not limited to handguns and long guns) and neither the state or federal government can infringe on that right in any manner, how is it legally justified that both the state and federal government can "legally" stop a citizen from owning a fully-automatic weapon, a canon, a tank, etc.? Quote
KhorTose Posted July 22, 2012 Posted July 22, 2012 But, Khun Khortose, there's a bit of intellectual dilemma here. If, as you say, each of the citizens has the personal right to "keep and bear arms" (mind you, arms under any definition is not limited to handguns and long guns) and neither the state or federal government can infringe on that right in any manner, how is it legally justified that both the state and federal government can "legally" stop a citizen from owning a fully-automatic weapon, a canon, a tank, etc.? Oh gosh and gooly gee, I would love to own my own tank. The thought of doing that makes my watch-a-ma-call-it just tingle like mad. Hell, I don't even need to own an Abrams. I would settle for a WWII Sherman unless my neighbors started buying Abrams. Can't stand to be outgunned, Okay now that I've played to many peoples concept of what a gun owner is like, allow me to counter your arguments.. First off, neither I nor the Spreme court has ever said that you cannot regulate guns ownership. Yes, if you are convicted of a felony or you can't tell the Martians from the normal people in a crowd, then you should not be allowed to purchase a gun. What the court has repeatedly said is that you cannot deny gun ownership to a majority of the people without cause. In other words you cannot take guns away from everyone. Does this mean that guns owners can't be required to register or undergo training. Yes, they can be required to do so. However, I must point out that I am against mandatory registration as I believe that the government can use this to take away a persons guns. and one only has to look at England and Australia to know this is true. Secondly, while you correctly quote the second Amendment you go on to say that the Supreme Court has misinterpreted what the founding fathers meant when they wrote it. As a lawyer you should and probably do know that when the Supreme Court interprets the Constitution they do so by reading the Federalist papers and the writings of the founding fathers. Here is what they had to say on the subject; Fountainhall I will answer you at the end. The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government." -- Thomas Jefferson Papers (C.J. Boyd, Ed. 1950) "They that can give up liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." -Benjamin Franklin, Historical Review of Pennsylvania.. "The legitimate powers of government extend to such acts only as they are injurious to others." -Thomas Jefferson, Notes on the State of Virginia (1781-1785). "I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for a few public officials." -George Mason, 3 Elliot, Debates at 425-426. "The Constitution of most of our states (and of the United States) assert that all power is inherent in the people; that they may exercise it by themselves; that it is their right and duty to be at all times armed." -Thomas Jefferson. "(The Constitution preserves) the advantage of being armed which Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation...(where) the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms." -James Madison. "Laws that forbid the carrying of arms...disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes...Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man." -Thomas Jefferson, quoting Cesare Beccaria. "Arms in the hands of citizens (may) be used at individual discretion...in private self defense..." -John Adams, A defense of the Constitutions of the Government of the USA, 471 (1788). "...arms...discourage and keep the invader and plunderer in awe, and preserve order in the world as well as property. ...Horrid mischief would ensue were (the law-abiding) deprived the use of them." -Thomas Paine. "On every question of construction (of the Constitution) let us carry ourselves back to the time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested in the debates, and instead of trying what meaning may be squeezed out of the text, or invented against it, conform to the probable one in which it was passed." -Thomas Jefferson, letter to William Johnson, June 12, 1823, The Complete Jefferson, p322. "Experience hath shewn, that even under the best forms [of government] those entrusted with power have, in time, and by slow operations, perverted it into tyranny." -Thomas Jefferson, Bill for the More General diffusion of Knowledge (1778). "To disarm the people (is) the best and most effectual way to enslave them..." -George Mason, 3 Elliot, Debates at 380. "The best we can hope for concerning the people at large is that they be properly armed." -Alexander Hamilton, The Federalist Papers at 184-8. "Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect everyone who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force. Whenever you give up that force, you are ruined...The great object is that every man be armed. Everyone who is able might have a gun. -Patrick Henry. "Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it, Almighty God! I know not what course others may take, but as for me, give me liberty or give me death!" -Patrick Henry "To preserve liberty it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them..." -Richard Henry Lee writing in Letters from the Federal Farmer to the Republic (1787-1788). "The Constitution shall never be construed to authorize Congress to prevent the people of the United States, who are peaceable citizens, from keeping their own arms." -Samuel Adams, debates & Proceedings in the Convention of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, 86-87. "...the people have a right to keep and bear arms." -Patrick Henry and George Mason, Elliot, Debates at 185. "The right of the people to keep and bear...arms shall not be infringed. A well regulated militia, composed of the people, trained to arms, is the best and most natural defense of a free country..." -James Madison, I Annals of Congress 434 (June 8, 1789). "A militia, when properly formed, are in fact the people themselves...and include all men capable of bearing arms." -Richard Henry Lee, Additional Letters from the Federal Farmer (1788) at 169. "The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age..." -Title 10, Section 311 of the U.S. Code. (see http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/) "The people are nor to be disarmed of their weapons. They are left in full possession of them." -Zachariah Johnson, 3 Elliot, Debates at 646. "No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -Thomas Jefferson, Proposal Virginia Constitution, 1 T. Jefferson Papers, 334 (C.J. Boyd, Ed., 1950). "If the representatives of the people betray their constituents, there is then no recourse left but in the exertion of that original right of self defense which is paramount to all positive forms of government..."-Alexander Hamilton, The Federalist (#28). "As civil rulers, not having their duty to the people duly before them, may attempt to tyrannize, and as the military forces which must be occasionally raised to defend our country, might pervert their power to the injury of their fellow citizens, the people are confirmed by the article in their right to keep and bear their private arms." -Tench Coxe, Remarks on the First Part of the Amendments to the Federal Constitution, under the pseudonym "A Pennsylvanian" in the Philadelphia Federal Gazette, June 18, 1989 "The right of the people to keep and bear arms has been recognized by the General Government; but the best security of that right after all is, the military spirit, that taste for martial exercises, which has always distinguished the free citizens of these States...Such men form the best barrier to the liberties of America." -gazette of the United States, October 14, 1789. "Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every kingdom of Europe. the supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any bands of regular troops that can be, on any pretense, raised in the United States." -Noah Webster, An Examination into the Leading Principles of the federal Constitution (1787) in Pamphlets to the Constitution of the United States (P. Ford, 1888). "If a man hasn't discovered something that he will die for, he isn't fit to live." -Martin Luther King Jr., June 23, 1963. Speech in Detroit. The supposed quietude of a good man allures the ruffian; while on the other hand, arms like laws discourage and keep the invader and the plunderer in awe, and preserve order in the world as well as property. The balance of power is the scale of peace. The same balance would be preserved were all the world destitute of arms, for all would be alike; but since some will not, others dare not lay them aside. Horrid mischief would ensue were one half the world deprived of the use of them; the weak would become a prey to the strong."Thomas Paine, writing to religious pacifists in 1775: I can go on and on, but I am not Dolly of BahtStop and I am getting tired of cutting and pasting. This is not all there is. Please show me your quotes of the founding fathers. Fiountainhall, we are taking about gun crime not crime in general and the last thing I said was I had found an thatI f said that gun crime has in fact not gone up or down. All your law did was take guns away from the honest people. Here ids the quote and lenghtly from Wiki: Writing in the British Journal of Criminology, Dr Jeanine Baker and Dr Samara McPhedran found no measurable effect detectable from the 1997 firearms legislation with ARIMA statistical analysis. [66] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_politics_in_the_United_Kingdom Now as to the number of deaths by guns in the USA , yes it is high. But no records are kept as to which were by police, by suicide, accidents, or by people defending themselves. We do not have those figures. If the prevalence of guns is the problem how do you explain Switzerland where everyone has a gun, including automatic weapons. Furthermore, if you are appalled by these deaths we have many more times (4x or 5x) as many people killed in car accidents in America then by guns, and at least once a year some nut or old person drives into a crowd killing and injuring a number of people. Darn it when are we going to take these dangerous cars away and make everyone walk. Removing guns is no more logical then removing the cars that kill many more people each year and often by criminals who had drunk too much. Quote
Guest fountainhall Posted July 22, 2012 Posted July 22, 2012 Now as to the number of deaths by guns in the USA, yes it is high, But no records are kept as to which were by police, by suicide, accidents, or by people defending themselves. We do not have those figures, If the prevalaence of guns is a problem, how do you explain Swizerland where everyone has a gun, including automatic weapons. I know precious little about the US Constitution and so cannot comment on the detail. All I find strange is that what was held true hundreds of years ago (and thousands of years ago in the case of some religions) need necessarily hold true in the very differing circumstances of 21st century life. I happen to believe that often this will not be the case. But that's only a personal view. As to numbers of gun-related deaths, khun KT, I am sorry but you cannot argue with facts. The number in the UK is infinitesimal compared to those in the USA, making the allowances I did - which included deducting 40% for suicides (itself a massive number)! This is discussing deaths by guns - not cars or other means by which death may be inflicted. 42 total compared to approx. 31,000 total! Also, since you mention Switzerland, I note you surely have forgotten that all young Swiss males undergo military training at the age of around 20. From that time until they are between 30 and 34, each male remains a member of the reserve militia and is required by law to keep his army-issued personal weapon at home! What was also not pointed out, though, is that since 2007, no ammunition is provided for such weapons and all previously-issued ammunition had to be returned. Only special rapid deployment units and the military police are now permitted to have ammunition stored at home today. Furthermore, automatic weapons must now be sent back to the weapons factory where the fully automatic function is disabled. And whilst all weapons may still be kept at home, a special permit is required for every weapon carried outside one's home. Such permits are only provided after extensive training with each gun and the passing of a written test on the lawful use of such weapons. Slightly different from the USA, I think. As for statistics, sorry to say they are available for Switzerland in 2006. Killings and attempted killings using firearms numbered 34. Still proportionally higher than the UK, but again infinitesimal compared to the USA. And the numbers have been decreasing since 1990! http://en.wikipedia...._in_Switzerland Quote
Rogie Posted July 22, 2012 Posted July 22, 2012 So, approx. 18,600 US deaths (after allowing for suicides) against 42 UK deaths (not allowing for suicides). The following article written on the 10th anniversary of Columbine quotes 300,000 deaths in ten years. That ties in with FH's source, except it hasn't been edited to take into account suicides. "Ten years after the Columbine massacre on April 20, it is painfully clear that the United States squandered the opportunity in the last decade to enact policies to reduce and prevent gun violence," Freedom State Alliance stated in a press release. "Over the last ten years, and despite overwhelming support from the American people to enact stronger gun laws, the United States has lost significant ground to confront our nation's gun crisis," the Freedom State Alliance release continued. "America's 'lost decade' since the Columbine tragedy can be summed up as an appalling record of failed leadership, squandered opportunities, blind ideology, and raw intimidation and power by the gun lobby and industry. " The concern among anti-gun groups extends to the prospects of change that were promoted by President Obama throughout his bid for the White House. "Our country simply cannot afford to lose any more time, much less a decade, before we act to stem the gun violence epidemic in America," Barbara Hohlt, Executive Director of States United to Prevent Gun Violence, told the Freedom State Alliance. "Change does not just happen by itself. America needs advocates in our government who are willing to show courage and integrity in fighting for solutions." Roughly 300,000 Americans have died from gun violence since Columbine. Citing the Freedom State Alliance press statement, "Despite overwhelming support nationwide to pass stronger gun laws, politicians' fear of the gun lobby has paralyzed America's response to our gun violence crisis," said Sally Slovenski, Executive Director of FSA. "With little being done to effectively address the intolerable level of gun violence in our country, leadership matters, and it's more critical now than ever." Read more: http://digitaljournal.com/article/271202#ixzz21NwC59dO Oh gosh and gooly gee, I would love to own my own tank. You're not the only one. What about those 4x4's, SUV's, utes, Chelsea tractors, off-roaders, call them what you will, all owned by people who'd just love to stick a machine gun or anti-missile launcher on their roof or bonnet (hood). They love to lord it over the rest of us, motoring along in their diesel-powered palaces, heaven forbid they get any actual mud on their precious replacement phallus. Quote
Guest thaiworthy Posted July 22, 2012 Posted July 22, 2012 Gun control or not, this guy is definitely insane. Other inmates where he's incarcerated want to kill him. Personally, I don't think he'll live very long, someone will get to him, sooner or later. He spits at everything and everyone and remains in his "Joker" persona. I am beginning to think the real issue is not firearms control, although that is a certainly a concern. In this particular case it is clear we are dealing with someone who does not know the difference between reality and make-believe. He has been found on Friendfinder (apparently) portraying himself with this disturbing personality. This event is complex, and i'm not sure a general discussion about gun control is necessarily pertinent when you are talking about a person this far gone. There are many other ways to stage a mass killing by other means than guns. The theme of the movie provided him with this modus operandi. Also, why not a discussion about violence-themed movies as cultural influence and the effect it has on extremely impressionable people? If the movie to blame? The linked story is interesting. http://www.nydailyne...3#ixzz21Mt1sjWt Movie massacre suspect James Holmes remained unapologetic and irrational Saturday in a Colorado jail where his life was at risk from inmates bent on revenge.Holmes, held under suicide watch in solitary confinement, remained in his murderous “Joker” persona after arriving at the Arapahoe Detention Center, a jailhouse worker told the Daily News. “Let’s just say he hasn’t shown any remorse,” the employee said. “He thinks he’s acting in a movie.” The man accused in the midnight theater massacre was still acting bizarrely a day after his rampage at a screening of “The Dark Night Rises” — the last film in the Batman trilogy. “He was spitting at the door and spitting at the guards,” one released inmate told The News outside the jail. “He’s spitting at everything. Dude was acting crazy.” Quote
Guest thaiworthy Posted July 22, 2012 Posted July 22, 2012 If you have seen the previous Batman movie, "The Dark Knight," there is a scene where the Joker is being held by police and questioned. The character and personality portrayed is a tribute to the acting ability of Heath Ledger. It is a powerful scene and makes a keen impression. One could easily speculate how easily James Holmes assumed this character. Ledger told reporters he "slept an average of two hours a night" while playing "a psychopathic, mass-murdering, schizophrenic clown with zero empathy ..." Heath Ledger thought landing the demanding role of the Joker was a dream come true - but now some think it was a nightmare that led to his tragic death.Jack Nicholson, who played the Joker in 1989 - and who was furious he wasn't consulted about the creepy role - offered a cryptic comment when told Ledger was dead. "Well," Nicholson told reporters in London early Wednesday, "I warned him." Though the remark was ambiguous, there's no question the role in the movie earmarked as this summer's blockbuster took a frightening toll. Heath Ledger died on January 22, 2008. And the toll continues. http://www.nydailyne...rticle-1.340786 Quote
Guest fountainhall Posted July 23, 2012 Posted July 23, 2012 Gun control or not, this guy is definitely insane. A very fair point. Yet, how do you know that someone is insane in advance of his going out and committing a massacre with guns - or any killing, for that matter? The fact is, in most cases you don't. Everyone who knew this guy before his crime seems to have thought he was just a regular decent guy, great university degree etc. etc. The fact that he was a loner had him way off the radar. Same with the Columbine High School massacre. Although the two young men had been in trouble with the police once before, they were so well-behaved their probation officer discharged them from the programme early - and with commendations! They were off the radar. The Korean who went on the rampage at Virginia Tech clearly had a troubled mental history. Yet, he too was off the radar when he should have been right there plumb in the centre. U.S. policy aims to make firearms available to almost everyone, yet understandably to restrict access by those individuals in certain high risk groups. But with 300+ million people, how many other nutters are out there in communities who are similarly "off the radar"? Quote
Bob Posted July 23, 2012 Posted July 23, 2012 Darn it when are we going to take these dangerous cars away and make everyone walk. Removing guns is no more logical then removing the cars that kill many more people each year and often by criminals who had drunk too much. There is a rather significant difference between cars and guns as I don't believe the cars generally are designed to kill nor do people generally intend to use their vehicles to kill. And, while we likely don't have enough space to go into it here, Khun FH has somewhat noted that constitution ought to be interpreted in the context of the time it was enacted and the historical changes and advances that occur afterwards. That has exactly occurred by the Supreme Court with respect to the "cruel and unusual punishment" clause (they've even acknowledged that what they have judged "cruel and unusual" now was in no manner considered "cruel and unusual" to either the people of the late 1700's including the founders). No reason that the same logic isn't applied to other clauses including the second amendment. And, while we're on that track, I'm all for allowing most citizens to have a long-gun musket (which is exactly the "arms" that the founders must have been thinking about as that's all they had then!) but that's a far cry from either an automatic or semi-automatic AK-47 with a 30-shot clip. Quote
KhorTose Posted July 23, 2012 Posted July 23, 2012 And, while we're on that track, I'm all for allowing most citizens to have a long-gun musket (which is exactly the "arms" that the founders must have been thinking about as that's all they had then!) but that's a far cry from either an automatic or semi-automatic AK-47 with a 30-shot clip. Actually for most semii-autos like the AK47 or the armalite m15 or m16 there are 100 round clips. I had a mini 30 (30-30 caliber) and there were 100 round clips for that. Yes, guns are designed to kill if you are a hunter or a murderer. But they are also designed to protect you and your family from that murderer or for sports like target shooting. It still comes down to the fact that cars do kill four or five times more people then guns, and yet we still have cars. Thus the meaning of guns do not kill, but people do. If not with a gun, then a knife, or poison or a hammer or a club or a car. Hell, if all else fails they make a bomb or use poison gas. As all the statistics show---even in England---if you take away people's guns nothing changes except only the bad people have guns. Crime, nor murders do not go down and in America the figures are plain to see. When states pass a right to carry crime and murders do go down. Quote
Guest fountainhall Posted July 23, 2012 Posted July 23, 2012 I had a mini 30 (30-30 caliber) and there were 100 round clips for that I really have to ask. With all respect, why would anyone, anywhere, require a gun with 100 rounds for the purpose of self-defence? That is surely Rambo territory! It still comes down to the fact that cars do kill four or five times more people then guns, and yet we still have cars. As I suggested before, that really is not the point. Cigarettes kill more than cars - and result in massive cost to the medical services - yet are still perfectly legal. Khun KT is valiantly defending a position. But I heard a so-called 'expert' do the same on CNN earlier. This man has written a book about about guns in the US. I can not quote verbatim as I was only able to make brief notes. But I believe the following to be a reasonable summary - "Focusing on an inanimate piece of metal is not the way to solve the problem. In the USA, we are awash with guns. We have 300 million of them (actually, I noted the number is nearer 270 million!) You cannot do anything about guns. If you ban them today, are you going to go into every house to confiscate them? My gun was made 100 years ago and works as well today as it did then. If you ban guns, they will still be in existence in 100 years. What you can do, though, is something about what makes us violent, what makes us do this, about how stressed out and crazy people feel." Which, in my view, is about ridiculous as it gets! I grant Khun KT America is not alone. Norway has been marking the first anniversary of a dreadful gun massacre. It has happened in other countries. But nowhere near to the same degree. And when we think of gun culture, we somehow automatically think of the USA But a big 'bravo' to Mayor Bloomberg who has come out, front and centre, and said it is time the country did something to introduce effective gun control. Presidents are elected to lead, and they should take the lead on this issue. Both Obama and Romney should take a similar stance, he suggests. He also points out that Romney has changed his stance. As Governor os Massachusetts, he actually pased a bill banning assault weapons, and has now reversed course, no doubt because both candidates and all so-called politicians are so utterly terrified of the NRA. So they won't and they don't lead. I'd love to see how many votes Bloomberg would get if he ran as an independent! As one lady comments on Bloomberg's views in the Huffington Post (echoing those of Khun Bob) - Our Constitution's key assurance, the inalienable right of "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness" and the right to carry a firearm, cannot successfully co-exist. How would Thomas Jefferson have known about an AK47 with a 100-round magazine? http://www.huffingto...=elections-2012 Quote
Guest thaiworthy Posted July 23, 2012 Posted July 23, 2012 " . . . What you can do, though, is something about what makes us violent, what makes us do this, about how stressed out and crazy people feel." Which, in my view, is about ridiculous as it gets! This is exactly the point I was trying to make. I don't think it is ridiculous. Is it difficult to accomplish or just outright impossible? Do we just write people off as "crazy" or do we try and comprehend them? Yes, their behavior is impossible to recognize and therefore also impossible to prevent, but I still want to understand what is going on in their minds and how it got this way. The question quivers in my brain like a loud, cavernous echo: WHY? WHY? WHY? Do we just toss them in jail and throw away the key? The United States has the highest documented incarceration rate in the world. I should think one would wonder why. Surely, some responsibility rests with the family and the school, but unless someone attempts that determination, the prisons will just continue being more crowded. On Facebook yesterday, I saw a photo where a former work associate was showing off his new hunting rifle. I made the comment, "sorry, I just can't look at guns right now." The photo was ill-timed and insensitive, I thought. One of his hunting buddies fired off a comment with the usual argument of "guns don't kill people, people kill people. Get used to it." I thought mine was a perfectly honest comment and was not inviting a debate, but got one, so I had to de-friend him. Everyone is arguing about this right now. I understand what the CNN correspondent is saying, but I don't think he was offering it as a short-term solution. There is no easy answer. Something will change in the gun laws eventually, and that will not stop senseless killing, but it will make us feel better about it. And if all we can do is make our selves feel better for now, then why not understand what makes people do these things in the first place, even if we can't prevent it. It only takes a fraction of an inch to pull that trigger. It is just too easy with guns to take a life if it's pointed in the right direction, and unfortunately guns will not just disappear. I think all parties will have to compromise, eventually. I feel like all these discussions over gun control is like being trapped in a maze with no exit. The issue is very hot right now, and like my Facebook friend, arouses the emotional responses I'm reading here. That's the part I can't get used to. Quote
Guest fountainhall Posted July 23, 2012 Posted July 23, 2012 Just for clarification, the author being interviewed on CNN today seemed not to be referring to stressed out and crazy individuals but rather to "us" being stressed out and crazy people in general - at least that is how I interpreted it. There's another comment made today that I find all but unbelievable. On the CNN site there is an interview with James Alan Fox, the Lipman Family Professor of Criminology, Law and Public Policy at Northeastern University in Boston, and co-author of "Extreme Killing: Understanding Serial and Mass Murder". He says - Mass murder is regrettably one of the painful consequences of the freedoms we enjoy http://edition.cnn.com/2012/07/20/opinion/fox-mass-murder/index.html?hpt=hp_bn4 Quote
Guest colinr Posted July 23, 2012 Posted July 23, 2012 I think KT misinterprets the UK statistics. The post-Dunblane (1996) legislation was presumably aimed to prevent more Dunblanes. The question should therefore be "what would the statistics have looked like without this legislation?". In fact there has only been one more case - Cumbria 2010. Would there have been more without the changes in the law? Who knows? But surely it was right to reduce the risk. Quote
kokopelli Posted July 23, 2012 Posted July 23, 2012 Since Kuhn KT brought up the connection between cars and guns, let me add this. First the number of auto deaths and gun deaths in the US are about the same, 30,000/year. Secondly the recent deaths of 12 people in Colorado has generated a great deal of mourning on a national level but the daily death of 100 persons in auto accidents, mostly preventable, goes unnoticed except by the friends and family of the deceased. Having said that, that is not a rationale for the mayhem that guns cause. Quote
KhorTose Posted July 24, 2012 Posted July 24, 2012 I really have to ask. With all respect, why would anyone, anywhere, require a gun with 100 rounds for the purpose of self-defence? That is surely Rambo territory! Not self defense, It is very convenient if you target shoot. Not hard to shot 1000 rounds in a two hour session. By the way, I too buy my ammo on the internet, 1000 rounds at a time. Why? It is a hell of a lot cheaper that way, even with shipping. As one lady comments on Bloomberg's views in the Huffington Post (echoing those of Khun Bob) - http://www.huffingto...=elections-2012 Yes there are a lot of misinformed people including some smart politicans like Bloomberg. Remember he is from a state that did a gun ban years ago. Funny New York has a terrible crime rate with guns involved, and a New York police force that unconstitutionally stops and frisks its citizens (unconstitutional according the the ACLU). Not really a good example of a man who believes in the Constitution. Yes he is for Gay rights---he needs their votes. Quote
Guest fountainhall Posted July 24, 2012 Posted July 24, 2012 Not self defense, It is very convenient if you target shoot. Not hard to shot 1000 rounds in a two hour session. By the way, I too buy my ammo on the internet, 1000 rounds at a time. Why? It is a hell of a lot cheaper that way, even with shipping. That I perfectly understand. It is not uncommon in countries where the right to carry a gun is banned, yet permits are provided specifically for hunting. Even in my old-fashioned diary, along with "Ramadan begins" or "Third Sunday after Trinity", I have such vital information as "Fallow Buck stalking season begins" on August 1 and "Grouse shooting season begins" on August 13! Yet, if one of the arguments seems to be that gun ownership reduces crime and is required to protect life and property, given that a vast majority of the population (I guess) neither hunts nor engages in what I might call recreational shooting, why on earth should this majority be permitted either to purchase guns that can shoot 100 rounds or to purchase vast quantities of ammunition for such guns? That is far more than is required for basic protection, in my book. One of my beefs about gun ownership is the possibility of accidents - or worse, deliberate shooting by mistake. Once a human has been killed, he cannot be brought back to life - even if totally innocent. I will never forget the desperately sad tale of 16-year old Yoshihiro Hattari, an exchange student in Baton Rouge, Louisiana. Two months after arriving in the US and still knowing only basic English, he was invited to a Halloween party for Japanese exchange students. He was driven to the party by the son of the family with whom he was staying. Unfortunately for young Hattori, his friend stopped at the wrong house. They walked up to its front door and rang the bell. Receiving no answer, they returned towards the car. Their presence had been noted by the occupants, however. Before they reached the car, the owner of the house opened the carport door and shouted "Freeze". In the darkness, Hattori, presumably believing this to be "Please", turned and moved towards the gunman. He opened fire at point blank range. Hattori was killed. Neither the gunman nor his wife had called 911. And what did the gun owner say to the police? "Boy, I messed up. I made a mistake . . . There was no thinking involved. I wish I could have thought. If I could have just thought." He was acquitted by a jury of his peers of manslaughter. Quote
Rogie Posted July 24, 2012 Posted July 24, 2012 . . . politicans like Bloomberg. Remember he is from a state that did a gun ban years ago. How many of the 50+ States have banned guns (or require some sort of permit)? Is there evidence to show any change in gun-responsible fatalities (excluding suicides) in such States? . . .in my old-fashioned diary, along with "Ramadan begins" or "Third Sunday after Trinity", I have such vital information as "Fallow Buck stalking season begins" on August 1 and "Grouse shooting season begins" on August 13! What a wonderful diary! Makes mine look so dull. Here is the entry in mine for 1st August: "First savings bank opened, Hamburg Germany, 1778." and for the 13th; "Last hanging execution took place in Britain, 1964" My mind goes back to circa 1895 - excitement mounts as on the 13th I join one of the PoW's shooting parties. We eagerly await our first grouse, but of course decorum obliges us to hold our fire until HRH bags the first one. I wrote about such things in my acclaimed book: The Country Diary of an Edwardian Gentleman. (available at all good bookshops and on line at Amazon - of course). Unfortunately for young Hattori, his friend stopped at the wrong house. They walked up to its front door and rang the bell. Receiving no answer, they returned towards the car. Their presence had been noted by the occupants, however. Before they reached the car, the owner of the house opened the carport door and shouted "Freeze". (I hope my flippant reverie above may be forgiven. Now back to the real world.) What a tragic outcome. I am shocked at something though. What gives a person the right to behave in such fashion? I mean, to a person who simply rings your doorbell, gets no reply and walks away. It could have been anyone, Jehova's Witnesses, door to door encyclopaedia salesman . . . anyone. Put more simply what gives anyone the right to shout the uncouth command "freeze"? A policeman? Yes, but not an ordinary citizen, and one armed with a gun at that. Well, there's plenty of uncouth people around but most of them restrict their uncivility to their tongues. There are shades here of the discussion on the killings at the showing of the new Batman film. We've all seen films where the police shout "freeze" and the 'baddy' either does as he's told or he doesn't in which case he gets shot (often killed - I don't know why they have to kill the guy, if they are trained properly why not just incapacitate?). So it's not so hard to imagine some pathetic gun owner imagining he's on the set of his own film and enacting what he's seen his heros do. Quote
ChristianPFC Posted July 24, 2012 Posted July 24, 2012 I will never forget the desperately sad tale of 16-year old Yoshihiro Hattari, an exchange student in Baton Rouge, Louisiana. Apart from him, it seems, only US-Americans get killed. This is a complot by the Communists, Jews, Moslems, whoever you want. No war since WWII or terrorist attack killed so many US-Americans as get killed by gun crimes, accidents and suicides. Quote
Bob Posted July 25, 2012 Posted July 25, 2012 This is a complot by the Communists, Jews, Moslems, whoever you want. I had no idea what the word "complot" meant so I looked it up. It means engaged in a conspiracy or plot together. But I still am not sure what Christian is trying to say or why he elected to include that little tidbit in a discussion about gun control laws or the lack thereof. Christian, you care to explain? Quote
