We have been debating gun control on the blog. I live in the city, so I want no one to have a gun but police and active duty military.
Our beloved reader, Duane, is a hunter, and he defends all kinds of guns, including semi-automatics.
Here is a true story. Just reported.
Just read this. A woman driving to work. A man runs a red light and smashes into the woman’s car. Man’s car rolls over. Man jumps out with his AR-15 and shoots woman dead.
Diane Ravitch's blog 
Your Well-Regulated Militia At Work … Again …
Ay ay ay Jon!
See my response below.
A well-regulated militia. The right to congregate and train. (From a different perspective and time.)
http://therichest.imgix.net/2016/01/BLACK-PANTHER-PARTY.jpg?auto=format&q=40&lossless=1&w=480&h=319&fit=crop
From the article:
“A military spokeswoman confirmed to The Washington Post that Desha served in the U.S. Marine Corps from 2004 to 2008, and was deployed to Iraq twice during that time.
According to his military personnel file, Desha was a private who served as a mortarman. Desha’s neighbor Kathleen Salvatore told WEWS News that the man struggled after his time in the Marines. “He was also the kind of person that if someone was trying to mess with him, like a guy picking a fight with him, you’re going to get pummeled,” Salvatore told the station.”
Do I need to say anymore?
Well, yes, you might say a little more about why a person who is no longer a well-regulated member of a well-regulated militia still needs a license to murder innocent civilians.
No license needed. The poor bastard suffered from AEPTSD.
Just explain how a trained killer with PTSD should be allowed to possess an AR-15 military assault rifle? Then explain why anyone should be allowed to possess military weapons designed for mass murder? I am a recreational hunter and I do own several rifles for deer, turkey, and small game. Just don’t understand the need for assault weapons. And yes I know Desha could have killed Pearl with my .270 deer rifle. It is no coincidence that possession of militarystyle, semi-automatic weapons seem to be at the root of so many senseless killings.
Do we know that he indeed suffered from PTSD? I did not see that anywhere in the article. It was hinted at by what I quoted but never explicitly stated. So getting at the root cause of that heinous murder was some poor PTSD bastard who listened and believed all the American Exceptionalism Idiology (AEI), joined up and being a mortarman I’m sure saw his unfair share of death and destruction.
And that was not a “military weapon” unless one considers all guns “military weapons”. It is a semi-auto not an automatic therefore using the term “assault weapons” is wrong. Did the killer in Nice use an “assault truck”? It is the same kind of truck used by militaries throughout the world so that makes it an “assault vehicle”?
I make no excuses for his meltdown other than his having succumbed to AEI-PTSD variant. But ultimately it was his decision to both enter the military and then to improperly handle his weapon in this tragic situation. Do not mistake human intention and action for an inanimate object which has no volition and should not be “blamed” for this killing.
Guns don’t kill people. Deranged, angry people kill people. Take most of the guns out of the hands of deranged, angry people and there would be far fewer people killing people with guns.
Agree. The difficult problem is determining who are the “deranged, angry people” and whether or not they have a gun.
” The difficult problem is determining who are the “deranged, angry people” and whether or not they have a gun.”
Yes let’s go after the mentally ill, the people who are known to get mad more than they should (it should be easy to measure this, shouldn’t it), the people who are too absent minded, and they might leave a gun loaded, or who clean a loaded gun, or have their kids clean the loaded gun, or are known to handle their gun after drinking or smoking a joint, or people who get too excited and nervous during hunting, or not exactly responsible parents who let their kids handle a hunting rifle before what age?
Yeah, let’s establish a new office in the US Government and in local law enforcements which would have to be much greater than the police since criminals are just a very small subset of gun owners. In the meantime, let’s not control guns. Let’s let people enjoy their weapons. They may not have much time left to do that.
In the meantime, we can also give a little time to ourselves to think over some other highly restrictive policies we have: Why do we make automakers recall a car just after a few deaths? Why do we make poor drug makers check various drugs for years? Most drugs don’t have any lethal side effects, do they? How about building codes? Come on, how many houses collapse on their own each year? How about bridges, fun parks, ski lifts? Why do we waste ginormous sums of money to control these almost benign things?
How many people got killed in Baton Rouge this year during the flood? Mere 12, and they beat up the state for not doing a good job in protecting them? I mean, what’s this 12 compared to the 865 gun deaths each year (so not just in some years) in Louisiana? I say, similarly to the gun laws, let’s not change anything in that area. Let’s just see if there will be some more deaths due to flooding, but if the number of victims stays under 800 on average, there is no need to even make sure, people are notified in any form (as it is now) if the water is coming. After all, is anybody notified in Baton Rouge if the neighbor is not very careful with his guns and may shoot through the fence (accidentally, of course)?
“Do I need to say anymore?”
Why not? So that I can understand why I should just relax when my colleagues can come to work with their guns, and soon the students can do the same.
The only time a gun should have a chambered round is when it is going to be immediately fired. Carrying loaded weapons around without any intended target is insane. So is carrying unloaded weapons around with an intended target. Both are egregious breeches of ethical gun ownership in my mind.
Thanks for the rational comments here.
As many know, I was hit by a woman who ran a red light last Dec., and my car was totaled, and I was almost killed and have permanent life changing injuries. This woman called her husband to come to the scene of the carnage she alone caused…and all the time the police, firemen, ambulance people were there, her husband hovered over me and glared at me with frightening and intimidating rage…even though the police report and the witness attested to the fact that his wife was 100% to blame. BTW, her car, an SUV, weighed double my little car, and she needed only minor repairs, and she had NO injuries. She was running around the scene saying to the authorities that she did not see the red light until she collided with me in the intersection, all this as I lay in the road on the ground, barely conscious.
From the look on her husband’s face, and his aggressive behavior toward me as I lay in the street bleeding and with a massive concussion, if he had an assault rifle, or even a 22, I could see him shooting me.
There are NO excuses for anyone to own these weapons…particularly the mentally deranged.
This is a horror story…and if Duane wants to own an arsenal, which clearly shows his state of mind, then I am glad he lives deep in the woods away from civilized society. People who urge that killing machines be allowed in the hands of all comers, are inherently blood thirsty and dangerous.
NO ONE needs to own an assault weapon of any kind.
First, sorry to hear of your accident, Ellen. Sounds like a very sad, insane situation not caused at all by you.
But speculating on what the husband might have done is speculation and speculation only with no bearing on the reality of the situation of which we are talking. Be that as it may. . .
“if Duane wants to own an arsenal, which clearly shows his state of mind, then I am glad he lives deep in the woods away from civilized society. People who urge that killing machines be allowed in the hands of all comers, are inherently blood thirsty and dangerous.
NO ONE needs to own an assault weapon of any kind.”
I concur that NO ONE “needs” to own an “assault weapon” especially the military folks. The weapon used in this tragic situation was not an “assault weapon”. An assault weapon is an automatic weapon and they have been banned for civilian use since the ’20s (and too bad not banned for military also).
I know of no gun owner who “urge that killing machines be allowed in the hands of all comers”. I have never stated anything near that and it is a strawman argument that does nothing to further any dialogue.
And I’m glad you know my state of mind Ellen. And I’m glad you know that I have an “arsenal”-NOT! Yes I have a few hunting guns and one plinker .22 revolver for target shooting, but no one would ever begin to describe it as an “arsenal”.
Except maybe a paranoid ignorant namby pamby. No strike that, just as it’s not fair for Ellen to claim knowledge of my state of mind I can’t claim to know hers. Please take the last two sentences as the example it’s meant to be and not as a cut, because I know that overall you are an intelligent, caring human as shown by your posts, Ellen. You just went a little overboard with saying what you said.
And please, the folks that live out here in the country are part of civilized society. Hell the school bus just drove by! Falsely accuse me of what monster you may think I am but leave the good people who live in the country out of it (even if almost all have guns).
Duane….facts….
From the online Colt site, defining an AR 15…only partial article. Photos omitted here.
“AR-15” is a registered trade mark of Colt’s Manufacturing Co, Inc. Therefore, only rifles made by Colt or Colt licensees can be legally marked as “AR-15”. Rifles of similar design but made by everyone else are usually described as “AR-15 type” or “AR-15 style” and bear various proprietary model designations, such as SR-15, XM-15, Z-15 etc.
(original “Colt AR-15″ logo on the military issue M16A1 rifle)
The family of semi-automatic rifles, based on the original Armalite Ar-15 / Colt M16 automatic rifles, is one of the broadest and most popular in the world. Weapons based on same basic design features and same basic specifications, originally established by Colt and approved by US Government (so called Mil-Spec, for “Military specifications”) are manufactured in hundreds of versions and configurations, dozens of calibers and in many countries of the world. Obviously, the USA is the major source and consumer of these rifles, but similar weapons also are manufactured in Canada, Czech republic, China, Germany, Italy, Turkey, Switzerland and even Russia and Ukraine.
The AR-15 designation itself comes from the Armalite division of the Fairchild Republic Corporation, which originally developed this rifle during second half of the 1950s as its fifteenth weapon project. Colt bought AR-15 rifle design and manufacturing rights from Armalite in 1959. More details on the origins of the AR-15 military rifles can be found in the M16 rifle article.”
———————————————————————-
So Duane….IMO…
The AR 15 and its derivatives are “automatic rapid fire weapons” meant to kill people rapidly and were designed for military use. The article above is very long and detailed if you wish to read it…just google it.
I agree that I should not have inferred that you would have or use this automatic rifle, and for that statement, I apologize. However, in the recent past you have posted about your personal gun collection.
I too lived in the country in California for some decades and owned a small fruit orchard (but my day job was educational research and teaching), though most in my area were cattle ranchers, and in major agri business farmers. Many of my neighbors were gun owners.
I also lived in Hawaii in the late 60s through the 70s in pineapple and sugar cane areas of old Hawaii, and NEVER saw a gun.
I have worked with Women Against Gun Violence for the past 35 years, now called People Against Gun Violence, and I am firmly against the stances of the NRA and others who promote the false philosophy that anyone and everyone should be allowed to buy, keep, and shoot guns, registered or not. In LA, every day there are shootings, some gang and crime related, and some due to road rage. Most, with the use of toss away, Saturday Night Specials. In the past few years there were 5 manufacturers of these guns within a mile of our City Hall. They are the gun of choice for young predators/robbers/gang bangers for they can be purchased on street corners and at gun shows for about $25. Far worse are the rapid fire weapons which cost more but are easily available to these same predators.
You seem to be unaware of this huge political battle between most of America and the richest strongest lobby in the land, the weapons manufacturers, protected and fostered by the NRA. These money motivated people absolutely and repeatedly have testified publicly that anyone who wants a rapid fire weapon should be able to purchase one, with NO oversight by the government.
Thank you for you kind words re the car crash.
Hi Diane. I have been a public school teacher for over 20 years. I live in a city and II own a number of guns. (Pistols, rifles, and shotguns) I also have a concealed carry permit. I am a responsible, law abiding, and caring citizen. I enjoy the shooting sports as do my friends and family. However, you wrote that that you do not want me to have a gun since I am not a police officer or active duty military. I have never hurt another human and I keep my firearms locked up. Why do you not want me to own a legal product?
Tommy,
I take your word that you are a responsible gun owner.
But more than 30,000 people died last year by guns. You didn’t kill them. If we were not a gun culture, most of them would still be alive. Do you have any ideas about reducing gun deaths?
“But more than 30,000 people died last year by guns.”
which is 100 a day, and 15 times the number of victims of 911. In two years, more people die from guns than the total number of casualties during the Vietnam war.
Tommy’s argument, as well many similar ones are quite fairly addressed by referring to slavery
Here, too, numbers game. How many died by self-inflicted shots? How many died by JUSTIFIED police shootings? How many died by PLANNED suicide-by-cop? How many died by gang violence? And how many died by violence such as the start of this conversation? And how many died as innocent by standers?
Violent crime, murder rate: US has 57 times more violent murders than Australia
http://www.nationmaster.com/country-info/compare/Australia/United-States/Crime
We don’t have the political will to support real gun control measures. The alternative is better mental health and substance abuse policies and programs. The majority of people who kill with guns are mentally deranged, angry, drunk, or high.
Talk about the red herring! The relationship between stricter mental health checks and gun ownership are indeed a red herring. Look at the school shootings, for example. Many of the guns used were purchased by legitimate owners, but used by relatives. How far will you take the mental health check-up? Kids? Spouses? Neighbors? Nieces/nephews?
To blame gun violence on mental health issues is ignoring some basic facts…
Since 60% of gun deaths are suicide related, the elephants in the room are the mental health issues found in the USA. The shooter in this story appears to definitely qualify as such. Gangs are responsible for 70 – 75% of the USA homicides according to criminologists. Super strict gun control in Chicago, for example, has apparently had little effect there as is the case in a number of large urban areas. Gang violence is a whole other issue here and it is a massive one.
Personally, we have semi-automatics here, rifle and pistol. The mere possession of one saved my wife some time back from a highly likely attack. That said, one should not have them if not trained and comfortable in their use and knowledgeable about the related laws.
Tommy, the problem is not with your guns, but with those guns that kill way too many people in this country. Why can’t I drink a little and drive? Drinking a glass of wine doesn’t affect me one bit.
Why can’t I drive by 80 miles/hour? My car is good, and, similarly to the vast majority of the drivers, I can control my car very well at 80 mi/h.
Why do we have all these controls implemented for driving but not for guns? Does the gun permit make sure people don’t shoot their guns when they are drunk?
If something causes 600 accidental deaths every year, shouldn’t that thing be controlled? In fact, isn’t it the case that if something causes 600 accidents in a year, then very probably the thing will get recalled—unless the thing is a gun?
We need much better access to mental health, as vulnerable people sometimes resort to violence instead of addressing problems in a socially acceptable way. Over a third of people in jail have mental problems. As we have fewer social safety nets at our disposal, some troubled individuals resort to violence or substance abuse. Our easy access to guns and our rabid NRA contribute to the problem.
Chicago has been averaging about 40 death per week for a while now. Are you saying that all those shooters are mental health cases? Based on…? What? Their gun ownership (which most likely wer gotten illegally, but that’s just a guess…)
Máté Wierdl
August 31, 2016 at 4:18 pm
“Tommy, the problem is not with your guns, but with those guns that kill way too many people in this country.”
And that is the false logic that I see used by many. Those guns kill no one. It is the human who kills. A gun has no volition and does not pull its own trigger. To state what you say is the same as saying vehicles kill way too many people in this country (in 2015 over 38,000 deaths and 4.4 million injuries way more destruction than “guns cause”) and therefore there are way too many vehicles in this country. And again that is a false narrative as a vehicle has no volition and cannot act independently, and like guns needs a human to activate it.
I understand senseless violent deaths can seem frustrating and understand the need to look to prevention. In this case, never having sent this man off to war as a mortarman would have been the best hypothetical action that could have been taken.
The inner city death toll in Chicago can definitely be blamed om mental health issues Rudy; along with alcohol nd drug use. Yes!
The average black male growing up on the south side of Chicago does not expect to live past 30.
Rage, I don’t see “better mental health and substance-abuse policies and programs” as an alternative to real gun-control measures for which there is ‘little political will’. First of all there is equally little political will for the former.
But even if there were, anyone who has raised a child with mental illness– particularly the kinds that set in in young manhood and carry danger of harm to self and others– can tell you that the state of the art/ medicine is not even close to meeting the challenge under ideal circumstances. The medicines available to treat bipolar & schizophrenia are highly problematic, with severe side-effects, and it usually takes a decade of tweaking and trialling for even a halfway-tolerable treatment regime.
‘Real gun-control measures’ on the other hand are practical no-brainers that make it far harder for the untreated to slay others while in the throes of maia/ psychosis.
And Rudy I do not find the murder stats in ‘strict gun-control’ Chicago any kind of argument against doing nothing. They simply prove that there are no complementary actions being taken by ATF to stop the flow of illegal guns to the black market.
YES, agree with all you say, Beth. This endless palaver about making all gun deaths the fault of mental illness is ridiculous. Most shooting deaths, murders, are inflicted by those adjudged as sane by the courts. As Diane stated, the proliferation of death by guns is a very American thing…see all our entertainment media that encourages this…and we are the leading industrialized nation in gun ownership.
We are also the only industrialized nation that does not provide universal health care, and in America, those who have been shot make up the major population of ERs in big cities. Shooting people is a huge health care problem and cost.
FACT: countries that once provided universal health care are cutting more and more benefits. It is economically not sustainable.
Reason is very simple: people are living longer, and do not procreate as much as earlier generations.
Working one (1) hour a week qualified me for national health insurance in Holland. The ONLY requirement? It had to be the same hour every week.
So, you better hope this country will never get universal healthcare, because you can’t afford it!
The inaction regarding gun control after the Sandy Hook massacre of 20 five and six year old children and an six teachers tells us all we need to know about political will and gun control. There are 300+ million guns in the US – more guns than people; and politicians have shown no stomach for stemming the madness. I am not suggesting that helping with mental health issues and substance abuse are a panacea for gun violence, given the political climate and power of the NRA, I see no other avenues with which the problem can be attacked. Improving the economic conditions in our impoverished inner cities is another root problem that is presently insurmountable. We have created a violent, gun-crazed culture that is clearly out of control, but no mentally healthy, happy, sober individual commits the kind of senseless murders we are talking about.
What is your solution?
Please note: the guns used in Sandy Hook were purchased legally by someone who would have passed every mental health test.
The guns used in columbine were purchased legally by someone who would have passed every mental health test.
The guns used in Jonesbore were purchased legally by someone who would have passed every mental health test.
The gun used in Austin was purchased legally by someone who would have passed… Well, you get the picture.
Violence by people with mental health problems seldom causes mass killings.
The tie between mental illness and gun violence is a red herring. It is blaming an entire population group.
It’s like the book, “The Ugly American.” Because of the behavior of the few, the entire nation was judged.
Intermittent explosive disorder (IED) is an impulse-control disorder characterized by sudden episodes of unwarranted anger. The disorder is typified by hostility, impulsivity, and recurrent aggressive outbursts. People with IED essentially “explode” into a rage despite a lack of apparent provocation or reason. Individuals suffering from intermittent explosive disorder have described feeling as though they lose control of their emotions and become overcome with anger. People with IED may threaten to or actually attack objects, animals, and/or other humans.
Intermittent explosive disorder is said to affect around 7.3% of adults at some point throughout their lifetimes. This equates to around 11.5-16 million Americans. Of the individuals in the U.S. who were diagnosed with IED, 67.8% had engaged in direct aggression against another person(s), 20.9% had threatened aggression against another person(s), and 11.4% had engaged in direct aggression against objects.
Here’s the full article:
http://www.valleybehavioral.com/disorders/ied/signs-symptoms-causes
Put an AR-15 in the hands of someone with IED and we get these incidents. If we continue to allow the proliferation of deadly, military style weapons, is mental health screening something we should ignore as well?
Solution? Goal: Only people who can handle guns get guns. Anybody with an unstable mental health disorder, conviction for ANY aggressive crime, road rage, or domestic abuse should be denied a gun. Close gun show loophole. License firearms. Strengthen sentencing for illegal gun ownership. Trouble is, there are more guns than people, so any action will take decades to have any effect. The truth is, even if you own a firearm, you cannot easily defend yourself. The criminals always have the advantage of surprise and forethought. Better to try to keep guns out of the hands of terrorists and criminals in the first place. Instead, Congress does nothing.
“Anybody with an unstable mental health disorder, conviction for ANY aggressive crime, road rage, or domestic abuse should be denied a gun.”
News flash: the laws already exist, AND are enforced.
Ah, so…once again I appreciate the sanity and good judgment of Vale Math. His suggestions for improving the gun situation in the US are right on the mark. And yes, Congress, paid off by the gun lobby, does nothing of substance.
Congress could pass laws that lead to a life sentence in prison for anyone caught with an illegally bought weapon. That would put teeth in a law that denied firearms from potential terrorists and the mentally ill.
I know combat vets rated 100 percent for their PTSD, and to receive benefits from the VA, they are not allowed to own or have firearms.
Thanks, Ellen. I grew up with guns. Dad hunted rabbit and squirrel in lean times – no kidding. It was a tool, not a religion. I don’t know when the NRA turned from a gun safety organization into a fanatical group of wild eyed zealots. I’m sure money has something to do with it. Now, we don’t know if the guy blowing the horn is going to follow up with a couple rounds or just a finger. Too many think they are right. Too many are sure they’ve been offended and have to retaliate. Too many think the Second Amendment means you end an argument or some perceived slight with a shooting. Instead of quoting meaningless statistics or arguing in circles, America should try taking a step forward.
Far right hate media has pounded fear into Americans for decades that they are going to lose their 2nd Amendment freedom/rights to own firearms from Clinton, From Obama, from HRC, etc. Every time they beat the drums that Obama is going to take away their weapons, sales skyrocket. Add up Trump’s supporters and you’ll arrive at a number for the fools that fall repeatedly for this crap.
This has been a huge story in NE Ohio. Very tragic. If it were an African American shooter and a white victim, Trump would be exploiting it. But since it was the other way around, there’s nothing to see here; just a random incident. Thanks for sharing with the rest of the nation.
A horrible and very sad story. There’s no question that our gun laws need strengthening. NJ gun laws appear to be amongst the better ones in the US.
Here’s another insane gun “accident” story (April 2016): Another day, another accidental shooting.
This time a mother almost killed her two year old by dropping her purse to the floor that had a gun in it. The gun fired, richocheted and grazed the child’s face.
http://crooksandliars.com/2016/04/mom-accidently-shoots-2-yr-old-face
And your example is an example of piss poor handling of a weapon. What the hell was she doing having a loaded gun with a chambered round in her purse? Sheer stupidity!
How many “accidental” vehicle incidents happen everyday, many due to the sheer stupidity of the drivers (and many not, that is why they are called accidents) so I guess we need tighter traffic laws, eh! Another day and another vehicular death. Oh well!
Duane, how do you enforce ‘proper weapon-handling’ in the home? Rather than comparing to car accidents, try an analysis comparing the need of ordinary citizens to use a carried weapon in self-defense to the risks of gun accidents in the homes of those same citizens.
bethree5
Gun control legislation is off the table. Accept it. Now what do we do?
Rage, I don’t accept that gun control is off the table. Any more than I will lie down & let corporate eduformers make a move on my local schools. Or stand by mute about lousy mental-health policy in my county. The individual needs to work with like-minded people to form grass-roots pressure groups on issues of high concern to him, raising public awareness & making noise with the local & state legislatures.
And always be active on the ‘get $ out of politics’ front: to me this is the elephant in every room. There’s big $ being made in the industries behind each of those 3 issues, & it’s used to buy off legislators, while stirring the pot with fear-mongoring propaganda funded by huge PR budgets. This is the machine that browbeats the public into believing there’s insufficient political will.
I do not own guns. I come from an environment where gun control laws are about as strict as you can get. The majority of the people who have guns were police and criminals. And still innocent people got killed.
There are states in THIS country where the gun laws are very strict. And there, too, innocent people are getting killed.
Other countries have strict gun laws, and there, too, innocent people are getting killed.
It does not matter how strict gun laws are. Innocent people will still die.
Some of the “rules” in place in this country are never even enforced, so, you can make the laws stricter than what they are now, innocent people will still be killed.
It’s like immigration. New laws make no difference when existing laws are not enforced. Or speeding… Or…
What happened was horrific, no doubt about that. But as a frame of reference, in some of the Southern States lots of people drive with loaded guns in their gun racks in the back of the pickup truck. And yet, you do not hear of exaggerated gun violence in those states.
The US has more gun violence than any other advanced nation.
It’s a numbers game. And, when you look at other nations (% vs cap), interesting numbers pop up. That way, at one point in time, Amsterdam was the murder capitol of the world…
Murders with firearms: U.S. had 669 times more than Britain. http://www.nationmaster.com/country-info/compare/United-Kingdom/United-States/Crime
Diane, what is an “advanced nation”?
A very sad story. Can only happen in the USA. Mt take is guns, all kinds should be banned and existing guns should be taken away from citizens. That days when local militia is needed to prevent a foreign country taking us over is long gone.
The well regulated local militias protected by the 2nd amendment were intended to defend AGAINST our own government in the off chance that some future US regime went rogue..
Honestly, if it comes to that, we’ve already lost.
If you are a gun toting yahoo who likes to fire your gun in the air in celebration – read this first!
http://www.richmond.com/news/latest-news/article_95a28426-e549-11e2-a881-001a4bcf6878.html
My brother has lived in Richmond for a long time. I’m not sure what holiday it was, maybe New Year’s eve. He and some friends were on top of their home that evening. People were shooting up in the air for most of the evening through midnight. He heard bullets coming down near them. They went inside.
Someone said above that guns don’t kill people. Here’s what Rolling Stone said in an article titled “4 Pro-Gun Arguments We’re Sick of Hearing”. I’m sick of hearing that one also.
“Guns don’t kill people. People kill people.”
This is a fantastic argument for those who can’t tell the difference between one death and a dozen. Absolutely, a murderer can often kill one person or two with a knife before being stopped. But to really rack up those mind-blowing death counts – to make sure that many lives are destroyed and families ruined in the space of five or 10 minutes – you need a gun. If all you care about is apportioning blame and declaring that someone does or does not have murderous intent, then by all means, claim a knife and a gun are equivalent weapons. For those of us who are more worried about preventing unnecessary deaths than merely acknowledging the hate that resides in some people’s hearts, however, the sheer amount of damage a gun can do is reason to limit who can get their hands on one.
Well, we sure as hell better get those assault vehicles off the streets, eh!! The sheer amount of damage an assault vehicle can do is reason to limit who can get their hands on one!
Guns and vehicles are inanimate objects and have no volition or ability to act. Only humans can make them into an “assault device”.
So yes, “Guns don’t kill people, people kill people”.
Faulty logic abounds in these gun debates, from both sides.
I wonder if the shooter is a Donald Trump supporter. I think so.
I agree with Duane. People kill people and a vehicle can be used as a weapon, a bullet that weighs several thousand pounds. From the description of the incident, it looks like the nut case used his car as a weapon first when he ran the stop sign and hit her car. Then when she survived, he used his AR-15.
Donald Trump’s campaign of hate stirred his racist anger, and he went out hunting for a minority to kill. This poor woman was in the wrong place at the wrong time. If it wasn’t her, someone else would have been rammed and/pr shot if they survived the crash.
Are we going to restrict who owns vehicles?
I see no reason for anyone but military or police to own an automatic rifle like an AR-15. There are two reasons to own firearms: home defense and sport hunting to bring home wild meat from wild game.
At the same time all restrictive laws do is move weapons sales underground where anyone with enough cash can still buy an AR-15, but honest people that obey the laws don’t. That means only crazies and criminals will end up with the heavy firepower.
Look at history to learn why it doesn’t work to pass laws to fix problems like this. Prohibition, for instance. I support background checks that ferret out who shouldn’t buy firearms. Maybe we should also take away the right to buy a vehicle from people who make the no-buy list and limit their earning power to poverty wages so they won’t have the money to buy firearms and vehicles on the black market.
Here we go with the car argument. Cars kill more people than guns, should we ban cars? Cars are not designed to kill and maim, as guns are. Cars are designed to take you from point A to point B. Cars are highly regulated from manufacture to ownership. Many states have regular car inspections. The safety of cars is being constantly improved and upgraded. You have to buy insurance on your car. You can lose your license through your own malfeasance, carelessness or stupidity. Certain types of cars are banned from the road. Yes, a car can be used as a weapon by some demented person but that is not the design purpose of the car. Guns are weapons designed to kill, disable and/or maim.
I identify as “pro-gun control.” Technically that’s a pretty meaningless descriptor, because it suggests that there is some mainstream debate about whether we should or should not have “gun control.” In fact, the overwhelming majority of the people who argue about gun control recognize that “gun control” exists, that it’s a good thing, too. The question is whether our existing gun laws are not restrictive enough, too restrictive, or, by some miraculous legislative accident, just perfect as they are.
With that introduction, I’ll just toss out a few comments.
“Innocent people will always die” is a meaningless assertion, and is an outstanding example of allowing the perfect to be the enemy of the good. The starting assumption should be that it is preferable that fewer rather than more innocent people should die.
“Are we going to restrict who owns vehicles?” We certainly restrict who can operate them, and that’s a good thing.
“If something causes 600 accidental deaths every year, shouldn’t that thing be controlled?” Whether that’s true depends on how we weigh the costs and benefits of the regulation. Tens of thousands of people die every year in traffic accidents, and there is a direct correlation between speed limits and traffic deaths. We know that we could reduce the number of traffic deaths by reducing speed limits. We probably could come close to eliminating traffic deaths entirely if we reduced speed limits to a maximum of 10 mph. We choose not to do that because we believe that tens of thousands of traffic deaths are a fair price for being able to drive a lot faster than 10 mph. Setting the appropriate level of gun regulation uses the same analysis.
“The US has more gun violence than any other advanced nation.” The US has always been more homicidal than any other Western nation. It’s a cliche to say “this is a violent country,” but it is unfortunately true.
“For those of us who are more worried about preventing unnecessary deaths . . .” Eradicating semi-automatic weapons — assuming that were possible — would certainly reduce the number of mass shootings. But it would only amount to some minor tinkering with the number of gun homicides. That by itself is not a reason not to put further restrictions on semi-automatic weapons (again, the perfect should not be the enemy of the good). But it is something to ponder.
It looks to me like the hot button issues get more press on this blog too, just like the rest of the media. Still, I admire how contributions to this blog are so reasonable, and often have more than 120 characters. So I too would like to weigh in.
We all believe in gun control. The real question is, what guns will be the province only of the military? We all agree that we do not want surface to air missiles in the hands of everyone. No mortar launchers for John Doe, even if he gets a jolly out of blowing up an old car. And 155s? Who would want a conceal permit for that one. Atom bombs? Certainly not for every Donald Trump and Harry. So what should we restrict and how?
I foresee a day when we will need state militias again. We seem to be moving away from the “advanced nation status” that crept into the conversation above. In 1934, a mob burned our courthouse in a rage over a crime with violent racial overtones. The national guard, a sort of militia, had to be called in. We need people who are proficient with the use of weapons to protect us from the crazies. That group often comes from sportsmen and military folks. So I can see the need to protect gun ownership.
Still, we cannot ignore the damage that can be done with a gun placed in the hands of a public danger. I think the ban on assault weapons is a good place to start, but I will hear reasonable arguments.
We need to realize that our history banning items has not gone well. Alcohol, banned for a time last century, proliferated under a ban. Some illegal drugs did not respond to bans more recently, and looser restrictions have not produced wild abuse as we ease back on our philosophy. Cigarette smoking, always legal, seems to have increased only as we get more restrictive of its use now that our campaign to convince people has had positive effects. And, of course, safe driving is always a fight. Just today I was nearly killed by a texting driver, an experience far too common this day and time.
The good bet is on the combination of pushing people to think, and restricting access to some dangers. I believe both of those things are constitutional and illustrate good government.
Roy
You saved me a post, I was thinking a few cruise missiles, ruling out the Nuclear option.
State militias can be trained by the State. There is no need to be “Pistol and Riffle ready”.
But being a strict constructionist, I have no objection to musket load. It would seem like a good place to start. Then we could work our way up.
Roy…the Military Commissions Act insures that we have a militia comprised of the military, to act at each President’s command. We do not need the Second Amendment to arm them.They are already well armed.
Disagree about ‘banning’ laws not working…we are all banned from driving without wearing a seat belt. We are all banned from driving a car without a license and without insurance. In California, children are banned from entering school without immunizations.
Given the will of a majority of the American people, as has been shown with empirical data collection, we could indeed ban assault weapons from being purchased by individuals, and we could close gun shows and internet sales, and parking lot trades. and ban any gun ownership without background checks. No sales to minors, to potential terrorists on no fly lists, to felons, to the mentally unstable.
“Disagree about ‘banning’ laws not working…we are all banned from driving without wearing a seat belt. We are all banned from driving a car without a license and without insurance. In California, children are banned from entering school without immunizations”
And yet, banned though they be, people still die in accidents because they do not wear a seatbelt, people still die in accidents caused by uninsured drivers (dare I mention 11 million illegal immigrants, many if whom drive but have no license, no insurance) and, last, kids do go to school and cause outbreaks of mumbs etc.
so, no banning things is really not full proof.
No one is claiming that stronger gun laws would be fool proof. There is no such thing as a fool proof law, which is probably why we have law enforcement and a court system. There will always be innocent victims, but do we have to have so many? We have all seen people do really stupid things, and it is only blind luck when their idiocy doesn’t have any victims. Anyone who hasn’t done something really stupid that could have hurt you or someone else raise your hand. I think, though, that this is one of those situations where maybe general welfare is being harmed by a too liberal interpretation of individual rights. There seem to be a lot of loopholes in gun control that could be closed.
Rudy…nothing is “fool proof” but we in America ascribe to being a nation of laws, and we have a social contract that indicates if we obey these laws, we will have a more constructive society. I choose to believe this even though we have great discrepancies in services and wealth distribution. As you stated, the Netherlands was quite crime ridden…and even recently Jewish citizens are suffering there and being stabbed in the streets. And murder still abounds, but so does similar murder in some Scandanavian countries, and surely in France which is plagued with immigrant problems leading to massive murders. And these are mainly socialist run countries unlike our government.
(You mention also, as an aside and off topic, the “failure” of universal health care in European countries, but the Canadian system is working well and citizens/residents seem not to mind paying higher taxes for care. In the US, analysis shows that Medicare for All would cost far less than the massive insurance profiteering we currently have (figures indicate a drop from 33% actual cost, to 3 – 5 % which is about the cost of Medicare). Seniors suffer from not having the ability to negotiate with pharma for meds, and we pay more than anyone on the planet even though each of us pays, continually, about $2500 yearly for our Medicare coverage, plus needing secondary insurance to pay the inflated medical bills. The farce, blatant and manipulative lies, of calling Medicare an ‘entitlement’ was initiated by the Right Wing legislators and the corporate media. I am all for Single Payer Universal Health Care which every other industrialized nation has today.)
.
” the “failure” of universal health care in European countries, ”
Interestingly, I spend 3 months every year in (the poorest part of) Europe, and I don’t experience or hear about the decline. Yeah, there are complaints, but things don’t seem to get worse, and the situation is incomparably better there than here in the US.
I was born there, and lived there for 2/3 of my life. ALL my relatives still live there. I get regular newspapers from there.
So I believe I am pretty much up to date on events and changes. And when you know people in other Western European countries, the news flow becomes bigger.
Many people in the Netherlands now have large “deductibles,” there are more things taken out of the treatment plans, there are now strict requirements re. time worked… And most of that because the population is getting older, living longer…
I really enjoy this discussion, but I feel my point has been missed. My point was that we need to be careful how we wage war on things we do not like. On one hand is Robespierre’s Republic of Virtue, surreal in its extremes. On the other is anarchy, where strong men dominate, and the social contract Ellen mentions above moves toward Thomas Hobbes wherein we give up freedom for safety.
So let us restrict ourselves to reforms that work well. As I said above, I feel we should begin with the assault weapons ban. No matter what you get out of shooting 500 bucks worth of shells in 10 minutes, you should be a good enough citizen to give up that personal pleasure and join the military. For the good of the public safety.
” My point was that we need to be careful how we wage war on things we do not like.”
I agree. We need evidence that whatever change is proposed is supported by evidence.
The war comes home. They always do.
Love to see you here, Mike. Read your blog regularly.
IMHO, if a society has the “true civilized, civic and just” legal system PLUS responsible and law-abiding citizens, then there is no need to worry about senseless deaths that happen to innocent people or bystanders.
I came from a communist country, I wish that citizens could obtain any type of guns to be self-defense. Mr. Lofthouse is correct about those criminals who can obtain heavy weapon through black market.
In reality, I strongly agree with señor Swacker’s logical argument. I respectfully disagree with Dr. Ravitch and Ellen. Yes, I believe in karma. Also, yes, I prefer to have the best technique of self-defense to be ready for any situation limitless of my potential.
All rich and poor criminals with intention of abuse of legal “loop hole” system to harm and bully innocent people shall forbid to have driving license and to own any kind of weapons like cross bow, gun, and taser. Back2basic
My brother was murdered BY A GUN. We don’t know if he died from the GUNSHOT to the head or the GUNSHOT to the heart. GUNS DO KILL. I have lived in Spain, France and China. GUNS are not common in those countries. And neither are murders. GUNS are common in the US. And the murder rate in the US is astronomical. GUNS cause MURDERS in the US. GUN CULTURE IS KILLING OUR KIDS.
A perfect example of why it is important to fact check first before expressing an opinion as if it is a fact backed by reputable sources.
“The US has the highest gun ownership rate in the world – an average of 88 per 100 people. That puts it first in the world for gun ownership – and even the number two country, Yemen, has significantly fewer – 54.8 per 100 people”
• “But the US does NOT have the worst firearm murder rate – that prize belongs to Honduras, El Salvador and Jamaica. In fact, the US is number 28, with a rate of 2.97 per 100,000 people”
https://www.theguardian.com/news/datablog/2012/jul/22/gun-homicides-ownership-world-list
Well, here is the list of the countries which are less safe than the US. Is this comforting? In Uganda, Lebanon, Israel, Egypt, people are safer. How much safer? In Lebanon, 4 times safer, in Uganda almost 4 times safer, in Egypt, almost 6 times safer.
Yeah, most people are responsible gun owners. So what? Does the large number of guns make us safer, as many claim?
Honduras
El Salvador
Jamaica
Venezuela
Guatemala
Saint Kitts and Nevis
Trinidad and Tobago
Colombia
Belize
Puerto Rico
Brazil
South Africa
Dominican Republic
Panama
Bahamas
Ecuador
Guyana
Mexico
Philippines
Paraguay
Anguilla
Nicaragua
Saint Vincent and the Grenadines
Zimbabwe
Costa Rica
Argentina
Barbados
United States
“The former Soviet Union’s extremely stringent gun controls, successfully implemented and enforced by a police state, did not keep the nation, and successor states like Russia, from posting murder rates from 1965-1999 that far outstripped the rest of the developed world [sources: Kates and Mauser; Kessler; Pridemore; Pridemore]. The killers in question did not obtain illegal firearms — they simply employed other weapons [source: Kleck].
“On the other hand, Norway, Finland, Germany, France and Denmark, all countries with heavy gun ownership, posted low murder rates in the early 2000s compared to “gun-light” developed nations. In 2002, for example, Germany’s murder rate was one-ninth that of Luxembourg, where the law prohibits civilian ownership of handguns and gun ownership is rare [source: Kates and Mauser].”
http://people.howstuffworks.com/strict-gun-laws-less-crime1.htm
I submit that the firearm homicide rate in the U.S. is more a product of poverty and far right hate media then the ownership of firearms.
Lloyd, there are always exceptions, no doubt. But can we say, there is no statistical correlation between gun homicide rate and gun ownership rates? In other words, can we say that more often than not, more guns allowed means more gun violence?
is it true that permissive gun laws result in a safer country? (Hence, the most immediate question for us in TN: does allowing guns in schools make safer schools?)
Murder rates do not include suicides, accidental, or undetermined deaths. Read the totals here:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_firearm-related_death_rate
US @ 10.54 per 100,000
Only Venezuela (59.13), Uruguay (11.52), Swaziland (37.16), Panama (15.11), Jamaica (30.72), Honduras (67.18), Guatemala (34.10) and Columbia (25.94) have higher gun death rates than the US.
Lloyd Lofthouse
So we know from the education wars how important it is to have valid statistical samplings. To be comparing Apples to Apples. So how do our numbers compare to the
EU or the G20?
Now Honduras does have a pretty violent history, when it comes to gun violence. Do your figures come before or after Madame Secretary.
fact check to find the answers to your question.
John, I agree with you.
Our gun culture is a culture of death.
Lots of deranged, impulse-control challenged gun owners in Ohio. My own teenage daughter was threatened with a gun by a woman. The woman was mad my daughter stopped for a school bus. Christian fish bumper sticker and all. I will support responsible gun ownership. But America is doing nothing to identify responsible gun owners. Instead, Congress arms terrorists and Stupid. People are hyper-aggressive and quick to solve every conflict with the pull of a trigger. Republicans do nothing because they haven’t been personally affected. Democrats cower in fear of NRA push back. America is becoming a violent, third world country. Ohio is leading the way.
California Senator Diane Feinstein originally led the fight to establish the Assault Weapons ban (despite that her billionaire husband is in the weapons business and is a Regent of the U. of California), and in the last go around to extend this vital legislation, Ohio joined with many others states to KILL it. We have too many ignorant legislators with no knowledge of history. Please read Joe’s link on the slave militias and how the Second Amendment became law.
The NRA is a Siamese twin to the KKK.
Really? NRA = KKK? And here I thought I was ignorant, as an immigrant!
How sad, Rudy, that such a religious person who seems to predicate his life based on Scripture, and is a self described immigrant, would be reduced to insults when confronted by the opinion of a lifetime educator. What I left out of my comment can be algebraic. Trump = KKK + NRA
All just IMO.
Perhaps you will read this link posted below by Joe.
http://www.truth-out.org/news/item/13890-the-second-amendment-was-ratified-to-preserve-slavery
Reduced to insults????? Who did I insult???
I was not the one who made the statement that, “The NRA is a Siamese twin to the KKK..”
I know about the KKK. I know about the NRA. And, if I were an NRA member, I would be extremely insulted by that statement! Last I knew, NRA does not preach hatred, does not advocate wiping out all who are not like them, do not hide behind masks, haven’t burned any crosses, whipped anyone, bombed any churches, killed anyone for disagreeing with their opinions…
You made the comparison… I just wondered when I missed that these two organisations were Siamese twins.
You questioned the opinion of a lifetime educator. Now you must pay the price.
The cowards in Congress looked at the picture below and did NOTHING! What makes anyone think that meaningful gun control is remotely possible in America?
They only act on any issue if they are personally affected. Republicans controlling Congress (and Ohio) are sociopaths.
And Democrats want to be for everything with someone else’s money.
So, are we done with the idiocies now?
When you take a deep breath and a step back, you may just realize that the conflicts about recent proposals are real.
The Don’t Fly list has people who were placed on there without any legal reason. Even members of congress are on that list.
Other people whose only problem is a similar name. Or people making typographical errors when entering names for that list.
So a blind transfer from that list to the list if don’t sell them a gun – do you really think that’s a good idea?
What? I really didn’t understand how you wandered from gun control to taxation. And I had a hard time following your text.
Let’s stick to topic at hand and not deflect.
Gun violence is real and a problem.
Congress has had opportunities to act and didn’t. They are negligent.
The only time they act is when they are impacted personally.
By failing to enact reasonable gun control, Congress is arming terrorists and criminals.
Most Americans feel terrorists and criminals should not be armed.
This shooter had a clear history of violence, drug abuse, aggressive behavior, and brushes with the law. Reasonable people would agree he should not own a gun.
Gosh, Rudy…you tip your hand with this remark about Dems “spending someone else’s money.” To think that you left you homeland where you spent “2/3 of your life” to move to the U.S. knowing how our government functions in terms of collecting taxes, and ostensibly using that money for the greater good…at least when Dems are in office.
I only used the ‘no fly’ list as one example and am aware that it too has errors…but then, as we have discussed, nothing is fool proof. But that does not mean that we should become libertarian in our political behaviors…with no laws. I see government much like sailing where we constantly must correct and ameliorate our course by watching ‘tell tails’ and tacking…even to the point of ‘coming about’.
I am surprised that a well known scholar of religion would be averse to paying taxes for health care and public education, to help all others. Is it not a Christian (and Abrahamic) religious precept to “help the least among us”?
I’m a little too busy to get to all this right now. I just skimmed it. Duane, please be sure to read the comment I just wrote on the other post.
Really quick though, I would like to express my agreement with and support for Duane and Lloyd on this topic.
I have several weapons and my teenager shoots competitively. I also carry a concealed weapon when I am not at school. I have been threatened by several gangs over the last three years. Being armed kept me from being a victim. They are in jail and I am still here. I have a right to defend myself and I should not be denied the means to do so. The second amendment was not written to allow hunting and the founders recognized the right of self defense. I will not live where that right is denied to me.
All rights are a balancing act. Few want to eliminate the right to defend ourselves. But most Americans want reasonable efforts to keep guns out of the hands of criminals terrorists.
You have brandished a gun at gangs several times in the last three years?
No Flerp, they threatened me, I drew my weapon and called police, they were arrested, convicted, and sent to jail instead of being able to harm or kill me.
For what it’s worth, I have three tiny but perhaps powerful words to offer Mr. Swacker and Dr. Ravitch:
Strict
Product
Liability
Why this doctrine of American law would apply to things like blenders, toasters and cars but not to automatic weapons is bizarre, unacceptable, asking if not begging for violence, and a pure facilitation of a culture comprised of “Shoot when you feel angry to handle your feelings” in a 1% ownership society that is already swallowing you up more and more each year.
Angry because someone cut you off on the road? Shoot them.
Disappointed with your local, state, or federal politician? Just pull out your gun.
Did your wife run off with the accountant? Use those bullets to dignify yourself.
Miffed because you missed that retail return policy by one day and are stuck with a defective product? Take out your weapon and show them who is boss.
In Norway, automatic weapon possession by civilians is a felony, and semi-automatic weapons are ONLY allowed to be had by avid collectors who must follow very strict and appropriately bureaucratic laws.
No one on any planet should own an automatic weapon ever. Rifles are fine for hunting; hand guns are okay for shooting targets. Other than that, automatic weapons should be banned for both police and civilians and only allowed to be used in the military.
No wonder America is, in very specific ways and under limited circumstances, becoming the laughing stock and the scorn of the rest of the world.
How sad.
Filmmaker, I really do not care what other countries think of us, they almost always turn to us for help when disaster strikes. As far as strict product liability, you don’t sue car companies because the driver is drunk and kills people. You are advocating an end around process to abrogate a right. If you do that, then don’t complain when other constitutional rights are infringed by a later regime with a different political perspective. People here, with few exceptions, can not own automatic weapons. As for the evil semi automatic, the language of similar operating action applies to most hunting and competition rifles and shotguns. Remember the Rodney King riots in L.A.? The Korean business community survived unscathed by having those “evil” weapons to turn back the mob. I did the same to the gang that came to see me after I testified against them. The problem is with people and criminal behavior. We have thousands of gun laws on the books, why not try using these and sentencing the poor misunderstood gang bangers to jail for good pursuant to current laws and reduce the violent crime rate?The things you emphasized are already illegal. Norway is a different country and does not have the street gangs and drug traffic we have. Any comparisons ring hollow.
And that’s where it all rests: people kill people. It does not really matter what kind of weapon is used.
Poverty is not an excuse. The Great Depression did not lead people to randomly start killing others.
But in current societal thinking it is easier to blame circumstances or… Or… But making people accountable is unacceptable anymore.
People make the decision to kill. Not guns, knives, cars, bombing jackets.
No matter what the NRA DOES, Obama does or this blog does… Unless you can get people’s mind and attitude to change, deaths will not stop.
” I did the same to the gang that came to see me after I testified against them.”
Statistically, how often does it happen that civilian, non-gangmember people prevent homicide by using their firearms?
The Walton Family Foundation is the major donor to institute universal carry laws in every state in our Union. Their goal is not only to make all public schools into charters for free market profiteering, but also they seem to think every single one of us should carry a gun and shoot it out when we think we are in danger, as the whacko Zimmerman did when he murdered Trayvon Martin.
The fight to eliminate any regulation of guns is an ALEC priority. What next? No speed limits?
Funny how these people want to make it hard to vote but easy to get a gun
Old Teacher,
You are right that Norway has a different society than your country, and I hope I did not appear to put down America in general, because there are so many great and exemplar attributes of American culture.
But we do have far less street/gang crimes and drug traffic because our systems of social safety nets and much fairer distribution of wealth do not motivate people to resort to drugs to numb the pain, to sell drugs to make up for missing wealth, or to feel the degree of stress Americans feel. There is a profound connection, almost a sort of welding, between your gun culture and a grotesquely imbalanced distribution of wealth with eroding safety nets.
We Norwegians have come a very long way since the days of the pillaging Vikngs. I just wish Americans would evolve as such. I sincerely feel badly for them, but not for their government.
Yes, America helps so many countries, but often it is always in exchange for some business or military base interest. While this is not pure colonialism, it is not pure altruism either. But the average American has both and informational and political deficits when it comes to shaping foreign policy. The average American must overcome Washngton D.C.’s hegemony, if the country is to continue as a viable democracy.
Mate: in answer to your question, estimates of armed citizens defending themselves range between on and two million incidents per year. Precise numbers are difficult because many incidents go unreported.
A carmaker is not held accountable when the driver plows into a crowd on purpose. A knife maker is not held accountable when it is used to kill someone. A medical scalpel supplier is not held accountable when the surgeon makes mistakes.
So why would you hold a gun maker accountable? Might as well hold McDonald’s acciuntable for the obesity problems. O, wait… They are already trying that!
This is yet one more example of holding the wrong people accountable!
Rudy,
As Ellen pointed out, a car is intended to be transportation, not a lethal weapon. A knife is meant to cut food or ripe. A gun is a lethal weapon intended to maim or kill.
And…? It is against the law to use it for those purposes except in specific cases.
Do you really want a seller of anything which can be used as a mechanism to kill someone be held accountable?
A KBAR knife is made to kill – which is why military specialist like it. But then, spec ops professionals can use pretty much anything for that purpose.
But it comes down to personal responsibility. Someone who uses a gun for killing someone else cannot argue, “Well, if the gun maker had not made this available I never would have used it…”
If Phillips never would have made cigarets… (Especially since the mid- seventies!)
If McDonald’s would not have created the Big Mac
If jack Daniels had not made…
When I mess up, no one but ME is accountable. That’s as simple as it gets.
My background does not matter. My parents are not responsible (I grew up as the victim of child abuse – but made a decision on how I would raise my kids).
“When I mess up, no one but ME is accountable. ”
Is that supposed to be a comfort to people subjected to gun violence, that no one but the shooter is responsible?
Does blaming the government help?
Does blaming poverty help?
Does blaming drugs help?
Does blaming the gun maker help?
Obviously not!
So get the shooter. Put him wherever there is space. Throw away the key. I would say give him the death penalty but that would open another can of worms.
There ARE gun laws. And there are criminals. And there are those who get a kick out of killing people for whatever reason.
Apply the gun laws. Punish those who sell guns illegally. If you don’t like the gun laws – vote them out of office and vote in those you think will write the gun laws you want.
And if the NRA starts lobbying? THEY DO NOT CONTROL YOUR VOTE! Only you do. And if enough people get the righteous anger, you might be amazed how that changes voting behavior.
“Does blaming the government help?
Does blaming poverty help?
Does blaming drugs help?
Does blaming the gun maker help?
Obviously not!”
I don’t believe I suggested that blaming would solve anything. I rather like the throwing away the key idea and making it harder to own a gun. I don’t see gun ownership as a right but a privilege.
“When I mess up, no one but ME is accountable. ”
So cigarette ads have nothing to do with people smoking? When McDonalds puts sugar in everything and a kid, who is taken to McDonalds by her parents every day, grows up addicted to fast food, then parents and McDonalds are not responsible for the obese adult?
Why do you make a judgment call and a general rule for all child abuse victims from your own experience?
On this blog, we talk about the effects of early childhood experiences to adults all the time, so now you present this “no excuses” position (not argument and certainly not evidence) to us. Why?
“So cigarette ads have nothing to do with people smoking? When McDonalds puts sugar in everything and a kid, who is taken to McDonalds by her parents every day, grows up addicted to fast food, then parents and McDonalds are not responsible for the obese adult?”
Since the mid-seventies, there have been statements on the cigarette packaging that smoking is bad for your health. You ignore the warning, who but you is responsible?
McDonalds is not responsible for the choice the parents make. How can I complain about my child’s obesity when I am the one making the food choices as a parent?
“Why do you make a judgment call and a general rule for all child abuse victims from your own experience?”
Having the actual experience of child abuse, I keep up with developments in the way this is dealt with and thought about. Not only in the psychology, but also in the legal developments. When someone is tried for a violent act, the excuse of “But I was abused as a child…” is brought up. Having met a lot of other abused children, I KNOW that the experience does not excuse the personal choices made later on in life. This is not based on just my own experience.
On this blog, we talk about the effects of early childhood experiences to adults all the time, so now you present this “no excuses” position (not argument and certainly not evidence) to us.
I am a voracious reader on a wide variety of subjects. And when there is ample evidence out there that a bad childhood does not leave the adult without choices and options, but that many children growing up in bad situations find lots of ways to make a better life for themselves. This election cycle seems to be filled with people who grew up as the child of a single parent, for example, growing up in poverty – if you believe the stories told.
These people have overcome hardship – THEY made choices.
Are there exceptions? Of course there are! But those are exactly that. Using my background as a constant excuse for the trouble I cause for myself has caused this society to become what it is now: Find someone else to blame for every wrong in my life.
The question is how you prevent bad choices. By punishing people after they mjade a bad choice rarely works. See the effect of the death penalty. Instead, eliminate the bad choice.
As a minimum, prevent bad choices to be presented as good choices. Presently, guns are presented as good choices.
I agree Rudy, as proverbs says, “There is nothing new under the sun, no, nothing.” Since Cain and Abel evil is with us. Hold the irresponsible and the criminal responsible and leave the rest of us and our rights alone. Just another note, the suspects that are alleged to have killed Duane Wade’s relatives in Chicago have numerous convictions for violent crime but were out of prison after a mere three years on their latest violent assault with firearms convictions. Federal law allows for over 20 years of federal time for being a felon in possession of a firearm….. your point stands and I concur with you. Why should my rights be predicated on the actions of criminals? If I do something stupid or criminal, punish me.
Sounds rather like anarchy to me…’we will all carry our guns and shoot it out with each other’. To hell with laws….each of us is a self contained entity and it is always ‘me first’.
Sorry, Old Teacher, not a situation that appeals to me, and I too am an old teacher. I prefer fighting to make sensible laws function correctly rather than not have laws. But then, I am an atheist who believes in following the Golden Rule…not biblical scripture.
People in Biblical times did not have guns. They had rocks and spears. You could throw only one rock or stone at a time in those days.
Exactly, Ellen!!!!!
From Wikipedia:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_laws_in_Australia
Gun laws in Australia
Gun laws in Australia became a political issue in the 1980s. Low levels of violent crime through much of the 20th century kept levels of public concern about firearms low. In the last two decades of the century, following several high-profile killing sprees and a media campaign, the Australian government coordinated more restrictive firearms legislation with all state governments. Gun laws were largely aligned in 1996 by the National Firearms Agreement.
A person who wants to possess or use a firearm must have a firearm license. License holders must be at least 18 years of age, have a “genuine reason” for holding a firearm license and must not be a “prohibited person”. All firearms in Australia must be registered by serial number to the owner, who holds a firearms license, except that firearms manufactured before 1 January 1901 may not need to be registered in some states. The firearm owner must have secure storage for the firearm. Firearms dealers must be over 21 years of age and hold a dealer’s license, and dealers’ employees must be vetted by the police. “Prohibited persons” cannot be employed by dealers. Besides other requirements, dealers must ensure that the purchaser of a firearm holds a firearm license, must maintain a register and must notify police of each transaction.
No mass firearm deaths (defined as 5 deaths or more) have occurred since the 1996 legislation was passed, although there were frequent incidents prior to that. Total gun crime and gun related suicides have also seen significant reductions since, though the role of the 1996 legislation in those reductions is less clear.
Who would you be against such a reasonable gun law (ANFA) in the US?
We have to evolve.
It will always be hard to agree about gun laws in a country where urban and rural culture are so different. Living in a densely populated area gives rise to a whole different set of feelings about other people and their ability to kill you.
But I haven’t seen anyone mention what I think would be the best solution: smart gun technology. It would certainly not prevent all gun violence, but think of the dramatic reduction in accidental shootings, and in shootings with borrowed or stolen guns. Think of how often crimes are committed with stolen guns (not only shootings but also armed robberies)… more restrictive laws about purchasing guns would not have much effect on the problem of illegally acquired guns, but imagine if we could eventually make it so that only the legal purchaser can fire the gun. The technology exists and could be developed further, but the gun lobby is very, very strongly against it.
Interesting idea. Would stop all of those attempts to gain police officers’ guns, like this one (luckily the officer was rescued):
http://5tjt.com/officers-life-saved-by-bystander-with-hand-infection/
Would stop kids from improperly using family guns. And would probably just about eliminate misfires due to dropping or banging the gun, depending on the mechanisms involved.
And of course all you mentioned about “borrowed” and stolen guns for crime.
We’re approaching Westworld territory here.
http://m.imdb.com/title/tt0475784/
We really have to evolve, morally. We have to be careful what we do for ‘fun’ and ‘sport’. We have to be careful what we cheer on and how we think of and treat each other. We have to be especially careful of how we think of competition and those on the opposite sides of arguments. We were all children once, and to some degree those children remain with us, are still deeply part of who we are.
Smart phones, smart cars, smart guns, smart bombs, robots, drones… Smart tests. We oddly share something in common with the gun lobby — an inexorable link between libertarians and civil libertarians — a desire to keep our personal data to ourselves.
The technology exists, but at this time is not particularly reliable, hence not being used by law enforcement. For those defending themselves the term fatal error takes on a whole new meaning. Also, what if someone else needs to use the weapon, such as a spouse, police partner, or other….The manufacturers have stated the technology is not ready for roll out.
It is a note for everyone who should be aware of the dangerous ideology and destructive power in DEREGULATION from ALEC, GOP, and the GUN LOBBY.
It is not dangerous to own a legal weapon, BUT it is dangerous to have deregulation for all outlaw criminals and its organize of crime to freely kill innocent people.
It is a broken legal system that nurture organize of crime to terrorize law abiding people.
In short, “abiding law” citizens should have the right to own their legal weapons to self-defense in their own home or business place. Back2basic
I am glad that I live in a country where as a free, law abiding citizen, I can choose to purchase a gun if I want to. I can choose not to as well. So many people do not realize that purpose of the second amendment is to ensure that the citizens of our country can be armed in the event that our government becomes overtly oppressive and threatens to harm it’s own citizens. It is quite shocking that people do not realize the level of violence that governments have unleashed on their own people even in the past 100 years. (Germany, North Korea, China, Cambodia, Russia) Millions of people were simply lined up and shot or gassed by their own governments. There is countless others housed/slaving away in gulags as I type this message. Governments have always had the capability to enslave their own people. The founding fathers knew this to be true and thus wrote the second amendment to allow the people the chance to fight back if this ever took place here. (Lastly, the militia is NOT the national guard. The militia in the US is composed of every single able bodied man who can take up arms when needed)
Tommy,
If the federal government comes to your town to take over, how will you fight back against tanks, grenades, machine guns, bazookas, heat-guided missiles, and all the paraphernalia available to the military? I am unarmed, and if the federal government wants Brooklyn, I won’t stop them. Even if I had a gun, I couldn’t stop them. Really.
The odds are that the federal government won’t send in the military to take over any American town unless it’s to save the town from a mob of rioters burning it down or an invasion or to put down a bloody rebellion.
The oath that enlisted men and officers take explains why: “I do solemnly sweat (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic.”
That oath even means defending the U.S. Constitution against a president like Donald Trump if he orders the military to support a dictatorship where he decides the only way he can achieve his lies to his followers is to become the first U.S. dictator and ignore the U.S. Constitution.
And before Tommy thinks about using his firearms to resist anything the federal or state government does no matter who the U.S. President is, I suggest he spends some serious time reading and learning what the U.S. Constitution says instead of listening to someone allege what the U.S. Constitution means from the far right hate media that thrives on pushing fear for fools by lying to them repeatedly.
Lloyd ““I do solemnly sweat (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic.”
That oath even means defending the U.S. Constitution against a president …”
Unless the United States in the Constitution is interpreted as “the President and the Congress”—as it is often done here and elsewhere. After all, for many (most) people, the President decides who is enemy.
The officers oath doesn’t mention the president at all.
“I, _____ (SSAN), having been appointed an officer in the Army of the United States, as indicated above in the grade of _____ do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic, that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office upon which I am about to enter; So help me God.” (DA Form 71, 1 August 1959, for officers.)
Now, listen to what 4-star U.S. Marine Corps General John Allen said at the DNC. Allen served for about 40 years.
Any President that attacks/subverts the U.S. Constitution in a way that bypasses the division of powers between the U.S. Supreme Court, the Congress and the White House is, by definition, a domestic enemy.
Whoopee, every legal gun owner is a policeman/policewoman unto themselves who decides what is just or unjust. So everyone who owns a gun is part of the militia? “The militia in the US is composed of every single able bodied man who can take up arms when needed” That includes all the drunks, the wannabe Rambos, the guys with anger management problems, the undiagnosed psychopaths, lunatics, Trump supporters, etc. What could possibly go wrong. By the way, when the cursed 2nd amendment was being hatched, millions of black Americans were being enslaved and the original peoples were being massacred and dispossessed from their lands. Part of the rationale of the 2nd amendment was the ability to keep the slaves in their place with gun power.
good points
After all, history shows us slaves rebel (I’m thinking of Spartacus) and when waging war to steal land from the people who have lived on it for more than 10,000 years, it’s a safe bet they will fight to keep that land or even attempt to get it back.
i want to add that the only reason I own firearms is to protect msyelf from people who think like Tommy, Bill Gates, the Koch Brothers and their ALEC, Eli Broad, the Walmart Walton family, and Donald Trump. If any of these fools and/or autocrats succeed in subverting the U.S. Constitution, I want to be in a position where I can honor the oath I took when I joined the U.S. Marines and fought for this country.
” So many people do not realize that purpose of the second amendment is to ensure that the citizens of our country can be armed in the event that our government becomes overtly oppressive and threatens to harm it’s own citizens.”
Are you serious? What can people with guns do against today’s military?
Interesting question. Allow me to share some history
Germany vs Russia
Vietnam vs US
Afghanistan vs Russia
Iraq vs US
ISIS vs name them
And I apologize for forgetting
America vs England
Are you suggesting that personal stockpiles of weapons were the main source of munitions in all those conflicts?
No. I’m responding to the question about what armed civilians can do against a standing army.
“And I apologize for forgetting
America vs England”
I wrote today’s military. See Lloyd’s helpful response.
The 2nd amendment is old. Similarly to the Bible, the Constitution talks about some eternal truths, some outdated, hence replaceable, stuff, and, arguably, also some topics which shouldn’t have been put there in the first place.
The 2nd Amendment is old like the Bible. Huh?
The 2nd Amendment was written December 15, 1791.
The Bible, if you we include the oral tradition of the Bible before it was written, is over 3.400 years old.
I seriously do not think it is wise to compare the 2nd Amendment to the Bible.
Matthew 5:21
“You have heard that it was said to those of old, ‘You shall not murder; and whoever murders will be liable to judgment.’
Romans 12:19
Beloved, never avenge yourselves, but leave it to the wrath of God, for it is written, “Vengeance is mine, I will repay, says the Lord.”
Matthew 26:52-54
Then Jesus said to him, “Put your sword back into its place. For all who take the sword will perish by the sword. Do you think that I cannot appeal to my Father, and he will at once send me more than twelve legions of angels? But how then should the Scriptures be fulfilled, that it must be so?”
Tommy is going to use his AR-15 to shoot the AGM-114 Hellfire missile fired from a drone, that’s been used to kill terrorists in the Middle East, out of the air before it hits his house.
If he watches this film, he’ll know what he has to shoot at.
Or maybe he’ll be able to take out an M1 Abrams tank when it rolls down his street.
Then there’s The Apache gunship his taxes helped pay for that he can shoot down before it gets him. That is if any of his firearms can even reach it.
From Thom Hartmann at truthout: “The real reason the Second Amendment was ratified, and why it says “State” instead of “Country” (the framers knew the difference — see the 10th Amendment), was to preserve the slave patrol militias in the southern states, which was necessary to get Virginia’s vote. Founders Patrick Henry, George Mason and James Madison were totally clear on that… and we all should be too.
In the beginning, there were the militias. In the South, they were also called the “slave patrols,” and they were regulated by the states.”
http://www.truth-out.org/news/item/13890-the-second-amendment-was-ratified-to-preserve-slavery
Excellent link, Joe…thanks for posting this history of the slave patrol militias, and why this became the crux of the Second Amendment.
Hartmann takes this theory from Carl Bogus, who he quotes in the article. It’s an interesting theory, but I don’t think it’s in the mainstream of either legal theory or constitutional history. So, caveat emptor.
Is Bogus a real person? I mean…
Totally.
“Is Bogus a real person? I mean…”
http://law.rwu.edu/carl-t-bogus
Click to access DavisVol31No2_Bogus.pdf
What’s wrong with Bogus http://law.rwu.edu/carl-t-bogus or his paper http://lawreview.law.ucdavis.edu/issues/31/2/Articles/DavisVol31No2_Bogus.pdf , FLERP?
I only glanced at it, so I couldn’t tell you. That’s why I just said “caveat emptor” rather than describing any problems. I simply note that it is not a mainstream theory, which should give anyone pause before blindly accepting the assertion that this is “the real reason” (or indeed, that any reason is “the real reason”) why the Second Amendment was ratified. At a minimum, this would seem to understate or ignore anti-federalist concerns about a standing national army.
Joe, the article sounds pretty convincing.
Flerp, you continue to be snide when it comes to pedagogic thought and information. You now have gone from your frequent sarcasm re my openly identifying myself to a new correspondent like Rudy (who has an interesting background available at google), to suggesting “caveat emptor” after only ‘glancing’ at the work of the well known professor, Carl Bogus. Although you sometimes write with introspection and intelligence, too often you just react to others who quote reliable and respected academic sources.
Yet you choose to not reveal if you are male or female, no name, nor anything to validate your opinion. Most of us here who do work in the world of education tend to research our statements before posting our comments. My fellow California teacher whom I respect and value, is Lloyd Lofthouse who continues to educate us with fact, not just opinion. Would that you would do the same.
Counter to this, Old Teacher really alarms me with his lack of academic balance and I wonder if he really is a teacher or just a troll, and where and what he taught? I worry for the students he may have influenced with his lack of pedantic efficacy and insight…and his pure aggressive behavior. Yes, Flerp, as a trained and licensed educational mediator, I too have faced gang members, but without any gun…only with language. And I am still here.
Just gave you another opportunity for a wise ass remark.
“Counter to this, Old Teacher really alarms me with his lack of academic balance and I wonder if he really is a teacher or just a troll, and where and what he taught? I worry for the students he may have influenced with his lack of pedantic efficacy and insight…and his pure aggressive behavior.”
You obviously feel strongly about gun rights as does Old Teacher. Neither one of you is going to change the other’s mind through rational argument or cheap shots. Since other countries have managed to reduce gun violence significantly without taking away the right to gun ownership, perhaps there is a middle ground that we all can at least abide toward which we can work.
This should have been preceded by a double “Ameen, Ameen.”
Yes, I do know how to spell. But the statement is a signal for those listening to pay extra attention, because what is said next is going to be extremely important!
Somewhere, in the middle of the extremes of those who think they should be allowed to own a houwitzer and those who feel a pen knife is too dangerous to be owned, there has to be a compromise without making an entire group of the population guilty by association.
“there has to be a compromise without making an entire group of the population guilty by association.”
Well, those who say “I enjoy hunting, hence chasing and killing animals” should think over their philosophy in life. Why is it permissible to hunt animals but not people?
Of course, it’s useful to think over why we enjoy eating animals too.
We honor Martin Luther King because he fought real injustice with peaceful and nonviolent protests and demonstrations. What if he had resorted to guns and violence to achieve his goals? For generations blacks were suppressed by the power of the state and the power of arms (guns). MLK fought that gun power with peaceful protests and accomplished much more without guns. Guns are not the answer to every political problem we have in the US.
Dearest Dr. Ravitch:
Historically, savage is the action from greed, lust and control.
People who live with savage abuse the advance in technology to protect and to sustain their wealth, power, and control over law abiding citizens.
IMHO, gun and PUBLIC education have the same POWER in effect on the true civic living.
Have you known the way of EDUCATION that FASCIST and COMMUNIST government commands in its country?
Why do we fight for civilization and humanity? Isn’t it for our own dignity, self-respect and mutual understanding among races, genders, and different cultural background?
In America in this 21st century, there is chaos security that is caused by internal and CORRUPTED spy/POLICE ORGANIZATIONS.
We must acknowledge that civilized people treasure and respect GOOD MANNER (or (INTELLECTUAL AND SPIRITUAL STRENGTH) = civic code of being gentle and considerate for others.
Also, we recognize that savage people only respect for people with PHYSICAL strength like wealth, weapons and gangsters or mobsters. The savage will stay away from any neighborhoods who unite with power of guns. I would not escape to die in ocean if I have a chance to fight back for my own civic living. Life would not be worth to live to be enslaved by the savage.
Your acceptance of the savage to take over your civic living will be as if you surrender to tech tycoons to take over PUBLIC EDUCATION without putting up the best fight.
In short, I completely agree with you regarding restriction of destructive GUNS to all people including military personnel or police personnel. All automatic and powerful GUNS should ONLY be used in battle field.
We should not let all law abiding citizens who easily become helpless victims to the savage with destructive guns, because law abiding people cannot own the legal guns.
Very respectfully yours,
May King
Very interesting and civil conversation. My preference would be to see less emphasis on the gun purchase and more on owner licensing and ammunition. Five year licenses with required safety courses and physicals might provide for fewer accidents and identification of some with mental health issues that should not be operating firearms. While I know folks who like their recreational range shooting and would be pinched by this, taxing ammunition more heavily could reduce the effective supply and the revenue could go to victim compensation.
To Stiles:
I am seconded to your suggestion with a restriction of using any powerful and automatic guns in all communities and with NO EXCLUSION for military personnel, police personnel, and black market for the rich, and the organization of crime. Back2basic
“Five year licenses with required safety courses and physicals might provide for fewer accidents and identification of some with mental health issues that should not be operating firearms. ”
How about screening out people whose hands are shaking when under stress, who tear up when they are scared, who get scared easily, who get angry easily, who may not get mad easily but cannot control their anger very well, who are too absent minded, who are too sloppy, who are too depressed, who have ADHD, who smoke marijuana, who take pain killers that impairs their judgment, who are going through chemotherapy?
How about mandating monthly tests where people would have to shoot accurately under stressful situations?
The main purpose of buying guns is for protection in case of an attack, after all, isn’t it?
Isn’t it for protection that more and more colleges allow people carry guns on campus, in classrooms, offices?
My father was in the tenth Mountain in WWII. He was a skilled strategist but a lousy shot, which was a bit of joke from, what I understand. I believe it, though. At one point after we children had all left home, my father bought a 22 to try to shoot a beast that was eating their vegetable garden. On one occasion while cleaning his gun in the kitchen, he shot a hole through a cabinet that tracked across the den and entered the ceiling below the front corner of the master bedroom. I don’t remember where it went after that; I just remember that my mother was reportedly in the bedroom. (His record with a chainsaw wasn’t much better, but that is a story for another time.) This was a highly intelligent, athletic man not prone to anger who probably needed close supervision around firearms especially during peace time. When we reached adult status, my mother used to use us to talk Dad out of some of his questionable moves. He could tune her out, but he listened to us, thank goodness. Believe it or not, he lived til almost ninety!
Interesting, thanks, 2old2! 🙂
Mate,
“The main purpose of buying guns is for protection in case of an attack, after all, isn’t it?”
NO! The protection offered is just a side benefit of owning a gun as most guns are bought for hunting or target/clay bird shooting.
Duane, on the other hand, people defending their rights to own guns almost always bring up the 2nd amendment and “protection” from government or criminals.
It’s pretty unconvincing to say “I want to preserve my rights to own lethal weapons because I like to play with them, do target shooting and such. I also want to be able to shoot animals because I enjoy doing that: they run and fly beautifully, and then they fall when I shoot them. I especially enjoy the part when they don’t die immediately, so I chase them for hours (or, if I am really lucky, for days) and they limp along on three or one leg. That’s when I feel really one with nature, that’s when I develop real appreciation for wild life.”
Once my son’s 11 year old gymnastics team mate bragged that he already accompanies his dad when he goes hunting, and that he shoots this and that. I made a sarcastic remark about how many shots it might take for such beginner to kill an animal. The father overheard it, and he lectured me about “responsible hunting” and “responsible teaching of hunting”, and he referred me to a hunting show on cable TV. So I sit down to the TV to see the master hunter of the day, and the very first thing he does is shoots a deer’s right front leg off. The deer runs away, the dog, wagging his tail, brings in the leg to the master. “This is just to show you that not all shots are perfect” the master comments and shrugs his shoulders.
“It’s pretty unconvincing to say “I want to preserve my rights to own lethal weapons because I like to play with them, do target shooting and such. I also want to be able to shoot animals because I enjoy doing that: they run and fly beautifully, and then they fall when I shoot them. I especially enjoy the part when they don’t die immediately, so I chase them for hours (or, if I am really lucky, for days) and they limp along on three or one leg. That’s when I feel really one with nature, that’s when I develop real appreciation for wild life.”
Imagining things IS fun, isn’t it? Some of my best friends are hunters, and they eat what they shoot, and only shoot what they want to eat. If what they shoot is only wounded, they WILL track it, and kill it – and then eat it.
A number of states have deer culling times. What is shot during those days, is donated to food banks, where it helps feed families.
What about fishermen? You have a same kind of fantasy about them, too??
“What about fishermen? You have a same kind of fantasy about them, too??”
Sure. A popular fantasy is The old man and the sea.
Sports fishermen drive the hook through the eyes of a live bait fish because the fear and pain supposedly make its blood sweeter for the predator fish.
Btw, in what sense do you think your desctiption of your hunting friends was supposed to make me feel better about hunting? That they responsibly chase down an injured animal, and then they eat it?
The only hunter I personally know has 11 full deers in his freezers. He obviously overhunts his own and his friends’ urgent needs for food.
On the side: what percentage of gun owners use their guns for hunting? My websearch shows 20%-ish.
Mate,
Yes, those are still legitimate reasons for owning a weapon as is self defense. Although those who tout the latter probably have no clue what that would actually entail.
In the video you cite, deer hunting with a dog involved is illegal in Missouri, although in a few other states it is legal.
Are you a vegan?
“Are you a vegan?”
No, I am a hypocrate. Do you enjoy hunting, or it’s all about the good food?
Not much of a hunter, mainly enjoy the piscatorial pleasures. In both cases it’s about getting food for eating.
To Ellen and 2Old2Teach: 2Old, you consider the second amendment to be a privilege not a right. The Supreme Court and our history disagree with you. If you have no regard for the things you do not like, just remember that when a regime with a different view takes over and infringes on the things you care about. When you then complain, remember, the precedent of gutting and redefining the second amendment will be the likely justification as well as the canard, it is to prevent deaths.
Ellen, you claim that those that carry weapons for defense are practicing anarchy. How so? We are law abiding non criminals with no violent intent unless we need to protect ourselves and others from the human predators that often are on the streets because of lax sentencing and a refusal to apply current laws. I wish we had the gun free utopia you wish for. I am a realist though, I know violent people are out there, the police are not likely to be able to protect me (nor are they responsible for my protection), therefore I am willing to take the responsibility to protect myself if need be. I respect your view, but I think your emotion drives it.
I did NOT say I consider the second amendment a privilege, not a right. I said I consider gun ownership a privilege, not a right. Those are two very different statements. Even those scholars who argue that the second amendment applies to an individual’s right to own a gun, do not argue that it is an inalienable right not to be abridged in any way.
I see Stand Your Ground laws as practiced by Zimmerman when he murdered teen ager Trayvon Martin, to be about the most dangerous law possible. If each individual can personally decide who makes them uneasy and then can pull a gun and shoot them to death…yes, this is anarchy.
The Walton Family Foundation is the prime funder of these laws. I think America would be a far better country without the Waltons who are corporate welfare recipients, teach their under paid employees how to apply for food stamps and how to get on Medicaid. They are reprehensible people who feed off us all as they greedily make life miserable for others…and they are the richest family in the world with somewhere in excess of $143 Billion aquired because their daddy worked hard and they inherited the fruits of his labor…but they do not want to ever pay inheritance tax.
Sad to see that some here must idolize them for their stances, particularly on Guns.
Old Teacher….
Just reread your scolding of 2old2teach and me. Boy, did you ever twist both our comments to suit your own belief system. Please in future, use my exact quotes to comment, rather than manufacturing your own words and ascribing them to me.
I ask again, Where did you teach? What grade level? What subject matter?
Duane, I spent the summer in your beautiful state. Where is the better hunting, in Pike county or around Springfield. I will be retiring in the next few years and my son has land in both places. He will let me build a homestead and have the land in either location.
My special thanks go to Mr. Lloyd LoftHouse for his reminders of God’s words of wisdom.
Here is the best concert regarding “Eye in the Sky” from Alan Parsons Project in Spain in 2004. I hope that everyone will enjoy the beautiful music and relax with a topic “gun control”.
Have a great long weekend “Labor Weekend” before heading back to School in the Fall. Back2basic
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ekO_9sm9pVA
Alan Parsons – Live In Madrid (2004) Complete Concert (Psychobable @ 26:39)
In the 60’s I lived in Michigan. A housemate of mine from Germany enthusiastically prepared for deer season. He left and came back in 24 hours, shocked at the lack of common shooting etiquette and expertise among the other hunters. If we allow guns for hunting there should be at least a shooting exam and test as there is for drivers. One reason so many innocent people are killed is because of the lack of skill of those who own guns.
One of my brother’s in-laws left his pistol on an end table in easy reach of a toddler grandchild, probably because of his alcoholic state. My son, a ten year old at the time, notified the adults, and my brother moved pretty darn quick to secure the gun in the gun case. My brother was a well-trained, award winning sharp shooter and Viet Nam veteran.
We had been shown how to shoot by our father who would not allow us to so much as point out fingers or toy guns at one another. He also was specific about who could and who could not go shooting on our farm. They had to have a certain level of character and skill.
And although, my son had the guts and intelligence to protect us as a ten-year-old, I would not necessarily want him to have a weapon as an adult because of his impulse control issues. Not everyone is ethically or morally entitled to a firearm.
Iowa now has a mandatory hunting class for people who apply for a license. Makes sense. It’s a one time class. Has helped a lot.
I like meat. I am not a hunter. I like it arriving on my table in a form that does not remind me that it was a living, breathing animal. One of my sons is a hunter, and he knows what his meat looks like on the hoof. When he eats chicken, the bird was walking around in a neighbor’s yard not long ago if not his own. Typically, he does not eat a lot of meat. He cans a lot from the garden for the winter that supplies a lot of fresh food to the table during the warm months. Sometimes he fishes. We had some absolutely delicious trout when we visited one of his brothers, who is an avid fisherman. It didn’t arrive in a cellophane package already filleted although I didn’t have to stare it in the eye. My son did the honors.
I remember on one occasion having a discussion about culling deer with my hunting son. He disabused me of any romantic fancy about the lives of deer. He described the very likely ugly end of diseased and/or old deer in herds that are allowed to grow too large for the forage. Even if predators have not been decimated, does anyone think their food dies a pleasant death? Believe it or not hunters are more likely to be attuned to the balance of nature and the importance of environmental protection efforts than those of us closer to the urban corridor.
Since I seriously doubt that guns are going to be banned, what we really need to focus on is responsible gun use and what that means. While there will be commonalities, I suspect that the answers might be slightly different depending on where we live.
COLUMBIA, S.C. — A South Carolina sheriff says a father told deputies he was trying to make sure a gun was safe when he accidentally fired the weapon, killing his 2-year-old daughter and wounding her 4-year-old sister.
Don’t see many stories about people successfully defending themselves with guns; though you do see quite a few stories such as Trayvon Martin’s… racist, cold-blooded executions cloaked under “stand your ground”/gun rights laws.
Is killing kids–whether accidental as the case in South Carolina or on purpose as with George Zimmerman– part of your right to defend yourself? Really????
The “collateral damage” of gun culture (murders/executions/accidental killings/unjustified killings/mass shootings) is UNACCEPTABLE for civilized people.
Civilized people? Civilized people do not kill their unborn children. Civilized people do not encourage those who suffer to kill themselves.
So, exactly what civilized people did you have in mind??
Ellen, Bare Fear, as the proper term is, does not justify the use of a weapon and is illegal. As far as the Trayvon Martin case goes, witnesses at trial collaborated Zimmerman’s story that Martin was on top of him beating him before he fired. There are many ambiguities in the case and it is tragic. Zimmerman, in my view, exercised poor judgement and could have avoided the confrontation. I avoid such situations like the plague because I understand my responsibilities as an armed citizen. I need to deescalate or avoid obvious situations. My weapon is a last resort to save my family and I from grave bodily harm or death, nothing else. My carry permit does not make me a police officer or authorize me to do anything but protect myself. Furthermore, I practice every week because if I do have to shoot, I am responsible for every bullet, where it goes, and what it hits. I envision a family near each target, I can’t afford to miss. Research has found that concealed carry permit holders are among the least likely of the citizenry to commit crimes of any type. We are well aware of the grave responsibility we carry that comes with the freedom to defend ourselves.
Old Teacher and Rudy S.,
Please close the discussion of guns and regulation or non-regulation.
Please do not restart the debate about George Zimmerman and Trayvon Martin.
Enough.
And one more note Ellen, not to be picky, stand your ground was not invoked as a defense in the Zimmerman case and had nothing to do with the court proceedings. It did not apply according to both the defense and the prosecution.
John, the media generally does not care to print or cover self defense stories. There are places that do. Self Defense Gun Stories.com, The Armed citizen column of the NRA, Bearing Arms.com, but the media would rather focus on its agenda. As far as Zimmerman goes, the jury found him not guilty, and I would speculate that the late Trayvon Martin had a hand in his death as well. I do thing Mr. Zimmerman holds some culpability and could have avoided the whole situation. Evidence did indicate that Martin was on top of him beating him before the shooting. See my note above. In most cases of citizen self defense, no shots are fired. You are right, the press does not cover it, but people do defend themselves more often than you think.
2 employees shot in lobby of Fresno jail
By the Associated Press
Posted: 09/03/16, 12:59 PM PDT | Updated: 3 secs ago
0 Comments
FRESNO >> Two sheriff’s office employees are hospitalized after being shot in the lobby of a central California county jail Saturday.
The Fresno County Sheriff’s Office says their condition is unknown.
Sheriff’s spokesman Tony Botti says one suspect is in custody.
Botti says the Sherriff’s Office received a report of an active shooter inside the jail located in the city of Fresno on Saturday morning and that the investigation is ongoing.
No other details were immediately available.
Click Here
5374 E 2nd Street Long Beach, CA 90803
Richmond: Fatal shooting victim identified
By Harry Harris, hharris@bayareanewsgroup.com
Posted: 09/02/2016 11:17:36 AM PDT
RICHMOND — A man killed in a shooting Wednesday morning that left two other men wounded was identified by the Contra Costa coroner Friday as Maxim Biswas, 30, of Richmond.
Police have still not released a motive or made any arrests in the case.
The three men were shot about 12:20 a.m. Wednesday inside a car at the intersection of Marina Way South and Wright Avenue.
Biswas was pronounced dead at the scene. The other two men were hospitalized with wounds that were not life-threatening, officials said.
What the three men’s relationship was, has not been released.
The possible shooter’s car has been described as a dark-colored sedan that was seen fleeing the area before police arrived.
Did a search of East Bay Times: “Shootings”
On page 137 (each page lists the titles of articles… not articles themselves I had only gone back to mid-June 2016. What a disgrace!
As one would expect, this has been a very acrimonious comment thread. But if you want to see a bright side to this issue, here’s the one I see: Yes, America has a very high gun homicide rage compared to the rest of the world. But when I consider the number of guns in circulation in the United States, I find it astonishing how *few* gun homicides there are here. Few enough to make me feel better about human nature than I normally feel.
Good for you, FLERP! Not so good for the 30,000 people who die every year because of guns
Obviously nothing’s good for the victims of gun violence.
Nothing is good for anyone who dies an early death for any reason. For instance, there are lifestyle disease like heart disease, type 2 diabetes, and some types of cancer. Yet, even knowing this, most people refuse to change an unhealthy lifestyle that leads to these early deaths. And dying from one of these diseases is not fun. It is painful and often takes years and costs small fortunes to fight.
The lifestyles people choose to live is their choice. If they don’t know the risk of an unhealthy lifestyle,maybe they are Donald Trump supporters.
>Heart disease is the #1 leading causes of death.
>#2 is cancer
>Accidents is #3 (over 136k)
>Diabetes is #7 (More than 76k)
>Intentional self-harm (suicide+ is #10 at 41,773 deaths in 2015.
http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/leading-causes-of-death.htm
Where does gun violence fit in this ranking?
In 2015, some 13,286 people were killed in the U.S. by firearms and another 26.8k were injured (those figures include suicides and suicide by gun shot is the #1 method. Drugs are #2 and hanging is #3). The New York Times even published this: Gun Deaths Are Mostly Suicides. “More than 60 percent (almost 8k) of people in this country who die from guns die by suicide.” That reduces homicides to 5,316.
http://frater.com/suicidelist.html
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/10/09/upshot/gun-deaths-are-mostly-suicides.html
The debate over more restrictive laws concerning buying firearms is no different than the debate over the causes of global warming. They are distractions.
Meanwhile, 43% of households with incomes below the poverty line ($21,756) are food insecure (uncertain of having, or unable to acquire, sufficient food). … Counties with the highest rates of poverty also have the highest rates of diabetes.
If we don’t address poverty, we won’t reduce gun violence.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/dorothy-stoneman/poverty-gun-violence_b_3528888.html
The billionaire funded corporate war against community based, locally controlled, democratic, transparent, non profit traditional public schools ignores poverty and claims that using test scores to fire teachers, crushing teachers’ unions, close schools, throwing challenge children to the streets like they are doing in New Orleans, and erase democracy will solve poverty.
For this reason alone, I think Bill Gates, the Walton family, the Koch brothers, Eli Broad and all the other billionaires out to destroy democracy and the public sector are murderers and must be held responsible for this crime.
https://mises.org/blog/mistake-only-comparing-us-murder-rates-developed-countries
Lloyd, these stats comparing the US to a different set of countries is very close to “let’s pick countries with murder rates similar to the US, and then our stats will shine.”
The gun stats you show are very similar to the argument about US school test results compared with other OECD test results where we keep repeating ” let us take out the test results from schools in poor areas, and we shine”.
The US has serious social problems and that’s the reason for the poor murder rate and school test stats.
The reformers’ solution of solving the school performance problems is as effective as the “more guns, more safety” argument.
I was looking for a list that compared the entire world – every country. I didn’t find it during that Google search.
The bottom line here is that the U.S. does not have the highest homicide (by firearm) rate in the world, In fact, once we reduce the total by 60 percent, it’s a lot less, because the majority of firearm related deaths are suicides and the majority of firearms deaths (suicide and homicide) are related to poverty.
Gun Deaths Are Mostly Suicides
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/10/09/upshot/gun-deaths-are-mostly-suicides.html?_r=0
Gun Violence and Poverty
“Persons in poor households had a higher rate of violence involving a firearm.” MUCH HIGHER if you click the link and read.
For instance, “The poverty rate in eight of the 10 states with the most gun violence was above the national rate of 15.8%. Mississippi, New Mexico, Louisiana, and Arkansas, the states with the four highest poverty rates in the country, were among the states with the most gun violence. (Center for Disease Control)”
http://coldspringcenter.org/mattsmumblings/gun-violence-and-poverty/
Then there is this:
The Assault Weapon Myth
“It turns out that big, scary military rifles don’t kill the vast majorette of 11,000 Americans murdered with guns each year. Little handguns do.” And the handgun, of course, is the #1 favorite suicide choice.
“In 2012, only 322 people were murdered with any kind of rifle, F.B.I. data shows.”
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/09/14/sunday-review/the-assault-weapon-myth.html
And here is a link to an info-graphic comparing the entire world, and it doesn’t take long to realize that there are a lot of countries with higher rates of intentional homicide by firearm.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_intentional_homicide_rate#/media/File:Map_of_world_by_intentional_homicide_rate.svg
According to the BBC, Somme 13,286 people were killed in the US by firearm in 2015.
And according to CDC.gov, there were 41,149 suicides in 2013 and 21,175 were firearm suicides.
And before anyone jumps on the U.S. for its suicide rate and calls for more laws to restrict that, the U.S. was ranked 30th in 2013. Finland was #26, South Korea #3, and Japan #9. The U.S. public schools are often compared to Finland, South Korea and Japan, because the cherry picked numbers make the U.S. look bad. But maybe the higher suicide rates are caused by pressure on kids and young adults to perform in school.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_suicide_rate
Lloyd, Mate, others,
Please drop the gun issue. We have heard enough on this. We have all expressed our views. Enough.
OK
I’ll write about it on one of my blogs.
FLERP “I find it astonishing how *few* gun homicides there are here. Few enough to make me feel better about human nature than I normally feel.”
Here is how we can feel even better: establish a government program that would provide 5 guns to everybody in this country. Then our guns/homicide rate will be the lowest in the world. And if the rest of the world catches up to us in time (by distributing free guns) , let us distribute even more guns. We are richer than other countries, so we can always outdo in this the rest of the world.
Everbody will be happy: we can be proud of our nonviolence stats, gunmaker swill make even more money, and there will be millions of new jobs created. 🙂
Mate — I’m not suggesting that guns reduce gun violence. I’m saying that my intuitive expectation based on the proliferation of guns in America is that there would be much more gun violence than there is.
Tragic. A case for a murder trial if ever there was on.