next »

[oldadjunct]

I agree with gennimom. Whether you agree with gun control or not is not the issue. The issue at stake is the fact that criminals will find a way to get and use guns, leaving everyone else unprotected. At least this way there is some form of regulation.

Exactly. How could keeping guns away from law abiding citizens have stopped this crime?  He is a criminal. He is not a citizen, apparently. He had no legal way to get a gun. He got the guns illegally.  2nd Amendment isn't applicable here.

At a time like this it is very important to have your facts straight.  He was not a criminal and he had bought the guns legally.  It is not against the law in Virginia, and many other jurisdictions, for legal aliens, to own a gun.

The slogan that "If guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns," is maddeningly silly, in that it could be said of any criminal act.  Try, "If rape was illegal, only rapists would rape."

Or, find one such mass murder committed by someone who was a criminal before the act.

If the slogan had any merit at all, the 200 million guns, yes 200 million, in this country would make us the safest country on the planet.

This from someone who has grown up with guns.

[allbutfoundajob]

There is also, in my view, no comparison between freedom of speech and the "right" to own deadly weapons.

Of course there is a comparison between these two rights.  The right to bear arms and the right to free speech along with the right to private property allow for the citizenry to retain power and overthrow a tryrranical government.  These two rights work in concert for the maintenance of a free state. 

A government which would strip power from citizens and concentrate it in the hands of gvoernment agents by banning free speech is no different than a government which would strip power from citizens and concentrate it in the  hands of government agents by banning the right to bear arms.  I have the same amount of respect for people who ban free speech, ban guns or ban private property.

[prytania3]

To think someone's little pistol or shotgun is ample weaponry to overthrow a tyrannical government is silly. The military has tanks and machine guns and nukes, so your mama's gun ain't going to do s***.

I lived in NYC for many, many years where handguns are illegal. And everyone is right. Only the criminals in NYC had handguns. But here's the thing: criminals are interested in criminal activity that pays good money. They're into drugs, Mafia hits, or bank robberies. They weren't interested in breaking into my house to steal a cheap CD player. Get real. Criminals aren't interested in randomly killing people. To them, crime is a job, and they're looking for the payola. And yes, NYC is a very safe city.

The fact is America is a violent country. It has always been a violent country. People like to own guns because it gives them the illusion of power, and we are still enamored of the gun-slinging Wild West.

[allbutfoundajob]

To think someone's little pistol or shotgun is ample weaponry to overthrow a tyrannical government is silly. The military has tanks and machine guns and nukes, so your mama's gun ain't going to do s***.

How many tanks and nukes and choppers and air craft carriers does the Iraqi insurgency have?  Seems to me that the Iraqi insurgency is going to be effective enough to defeat the US armed forces and force the US to leave Iraq. 

[oldadjunct]

To think someone's little pistol or shotgun is ample weaponry to overthrow a tyrannical government is silly. The military has tanks and machine guns and nukes, so your mama's gun ain't going to do s***.

How many tanks and nukes and choppers and air craft carriers does the Iraqi insurgency have?  Seems to me that the Iraqi insurgency is going to be effective enough to defeat the US armed forces and force the US to leave Iraq. 

Oh, now I get it.  The Second Amendment guarantees the right to wear (not bear)  bomb vests and build IED's!  Got it.

[prytania3]

To think someone's little pistol or shotgun is ample weaponry to overthrow a tyrannical government is silly. The military has tanks and machine guns and nukes, so your mama's gun ain't going to do s***.

How many tanks and nukes and choppers and air craft carriers does the Iraqi insurgency have?  Seems to me that the Iraqi insurgency is going to be effective enough to defeat the US armed forces and force the US to leave Iraq. 

The US people will force the US to leave. Iraq is neither a well-supported nor well-funded war. It is like Viet Nam--we aren't really there to win. If we truly wanted to kick Iraq's ass, we could, but we would also be condemned around the world.

[allbutfoundajob]

The US people will force the US to leave. Iraq is neither a well-supported nor well-funded war. It is like Viet Nam--we aren't really there to win. If we truly wanted to kick Iraq's ass, we could, but we would also be condemned around the world.

The Iraqi insurgency won the war by breaking the will of the American public to fight the war.  They won without having any tanks, choppers, fighters or navy.  They only had small arms and explosives.


Therefore, your point that nukes and tanks must be had to beat the American armed forces is wrong.

[prytania3]

The US people will force the US to leave. Iraq is neither a well-supported nor well-funded war. It is like Viet Nam--we aren't really there to win. If we truly wanted to kick Iraq's ass, we could, but we would also be condemned around the world.

The Iraqi insurgency won the war by breaking the will of the American public to fight the war.  They won without having any tanks, choppers, fighters or navy.  They only had small arms and explosives.


Therefore, your point that nukes and tanks must be had to beat the American armed forces is wrong.

Okay fine. You win. But you still don't need your mama's gun to make home-made bombs.

[oldadjunct]

The US people will force the US to leave. Iraq is neither a well-supported nor well-funded war. It is like Viet Nam--we aren't really there to win. If we truly wanted to kick Iraq's ass, we could, but we would also be condemned around the world.

The Iraqi insurgency won the war by breaking the will of the American public to fight the war.  They won without having any tanks, choppers, fighters or navy.  They only had small arms and explosives.


Therefore, your point that nukes and tanks must be had to beat the American armed forces is wrong.

"Only had small arms"?  No, they have mortars and RPG's.  You really don''t seem to know what you are talking about.

[enviroabd]

I'd like to point out that there have been a small number of college shootings in Canada too. Not as many were killed, but both shooters had obtained their guns legally. It is much less common to own guns in Canada. A few years ago four Mounties were killed in a rural area by a man who was known to hate the police - he escaped the dragnet, snuck back onto his property and shot the four at point-blank range. His guns were legal, I believe.
Chicago, with all the gun and gang problems, has had great difficulty in getting weapons regulated because rural landowners have fought for their constitutional right to bear arms.

I believe that this has been cited elsewhere on the forum, but I think that it's worth posting this summary:
Friday, April 17, 1998
U.S. Leads Richest Nations In Gun Deaths
BY CHELSEA J. CARTER
THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
     
    ATLANTA -- The United States has by far the highest rate of gun deaths -- murders, suicides and accidents -- among the world's 36 richest nations, a government study found.
    The U.S. rate for gun deaths in 1994 was 14.24 per 100,000 people. Japan had the lowest rate, at .05 per 100,000.
    The study, done by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, is the first comprehensive international look at gun-related deaths. It was published Thursday in the International Journal of Epidemiology.
    The CDC would not speculate why the death rates varied, but other researchers said easy access to guns and society's acceptance of violence are part of the problem in the United States.
    ``If you have a country saturated with guns -- available to people when they are intoxicated, angry or depressed -- it's not unusual guns will be used more often,'' said Rebecca Peters, a Johns Hopkins University fellow specializing in gun violence. ``This has to be treated as a public health emergency.''
    The National Rifle Association called the study shoddy because it failed to examine all causes of violent deaths.
    ``What this shows is the CDC is after guns. They aren't concerned with violence. It's pretending that no homicide exists unless it's related to guns,'' said Paul Blackman, a research coordinator for the NRA in Fairfax, Va.
    The 36 countries chosen were listed as the richest in the World Bank's 1994 World Development Report, with the highest GNP per capita income.
    The study used 1994 statistics supplied by the 36 countries. Of the 88,649 gun deaths reported by all the countries, the United States accounted for 45 percent, said Etienne Krug, a CDC researcher and co-author of the article.
    Japan, where very few people own guns, averages 124 gun-related attacks a year, and less than 1 percent end in death. Police often raid the homes of those suspected of having weapons.
    The study found that gun-related deaths were five to six times higher in the Americas than in Europe or Australia and New Zealand and 95 times higher than in Asia.
    Here are gun-related deaths per 100,000 people in the world's 36 richest countries in 1994: United States 14.24; Brazil 12.95; Mexico 12.69; Estonia 12.26; Argentina 8.93; Northern Ireland 6.63; Finland 6.46; Switzerland 5.31; France 5.15; Canada 4.31; Norway 3.82; Austria 3.70; Portugal 3.20; Israel 2.91; Belgium 2.90; Australia 2.65; Slovenia 2.60; Italy 2.44; New Zealand 2.38; Denmark 2.09; Sweden 1.92; Kuwait 1.84; Greece 1.29; Germany 1.24; Hungary 1.11; Republic of Ireland 0.97; Spain 0.78; Netherlands 0.70; Scotland 0.54; England and Wales 0.41; Taiwan 0.37; Singapore 0.21; Mauritius 0.19; Hong Kong 0.14; South Korea 0.12; Japan 0.05.

There are many things that used to occur that we have decided to regulate because of the public interest. Gun ownership is obviously a very emotional issue, and guns in and of themselves are not bad. Then again, DDT in and of itself is not bad, and in some cases is extremely valuable, but we ban that.

case, with all due respect, comparing rural communities to urban communities and saying that the difference in the number of home invasions is due to the rate of gun ownership is extremely simplistic and does not account for any number of variables.

finally, how often do you hear about the idea of a drive by knifing?

[allbutfoundajob]

"Only had small arms"?  No, they have mortars and RPG's.  You really don''t seem to know what you are talking about.

Mortars and RPG's are in the category of small arms and light weapons. 

http://muse.jhu.edu/journals/sais_review/v025/25.1stohl.html

"Small arms and light weapons are defined as any that one or two people can carry, can be mounted on a vehicle, or loaded onto a pack animal. This classification ranges from machine guns to stinger missiles and includes rocket-propelled grenades and mortars."

[figee]

I just want to preface what I'm going to say by warning you that this isn't meant to stir, but is rather an observation by someone living in Australia, who has talked about gun laws in the US and the VT shooting with colleagues and friends over the past couple of days.  Although we are saddened by what has happened, most people I have spoken to are not really surprised.  The sense is that as long as guns are accessible, people will use them.

April 28th 1996, Martin Bryant walked into a cafe in Port Arthur, Tasmania and opened fire on diners.  Less than 20 minutes later, 35 people had been killed, a further 19 injured.  In 1997, the Howard government introduced tightened gun laws, which were further tightened in 2003.  These included an amnesty, where guns of all sorts could be handed in without penalty, gun registration, bans on certain semi - auto guns, genuine reason for gun ownership, safety training, safe storage and sp on.  The result has been complaints from farmers who now have difficulty controlling foxes and the like on their properties, but overall a far more secure society.

This is because we can walk down the street, rear end a car (accidentally), walk about at night, and not fear being shot.  This isn't to say that guns are unavailable, but I think about home invasions that occur - knives and bats are used, few people are killed.  Armed robberies, again few, if any fatalities.  In fact, in Australia, people are more likely to be shot by the police than by a criminal.  Not entirely comforting, but overwhelmingly, the people shot are also carrying guns.

Guns are available here, but they aren't common.  Few people handle them, toy guns are very rare, there isn't a gun culture here. 

So I guess I'm confused.  It seems sometimes as if the debate in the US is a bit like that over nuclear disarmament - they have 'em so we need 'em.  But if you can't get guns easily, it seems to me to create a much nicer place to be.  Having lived in Brtain, and seen the aftermath of Dunblane, and having visited the states, I always think about how lucky I am to live here.

[enviroabd]

The only really legitimate use I can see for rifles is hunting, and you can do pretty well hunting with a bolt action rifle. I can see no legitimate, persuasive use for handguns (yes, target shooting is legitimate, and I've done it, but I don't think the right to target shoot is persuasive compared to the public health implications).

Finally, I think the most interesting argument against guns is demonstrated by the stats about British bobbies, who (at least a couple of years ago) were routinely UNarmed.

Guns And Bobbies
Sunday, Jan. 19, 2003 By J.F.O. MCALLISTER/LONDON
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,409517,00.html

(excerpt)
Police in the U.S. are almost always armed; 230 died in the line of duty in 2001, compared to about 70 in Britain in the last 30 years. And avoiding an arms race with criminals (virtually all guns are illegal) has helped keep Britain's firearm-murder rate to less than one-thirtieth the U.S. level.

Second, it is interesting to note that the Second Amendment doesn't explicitly protect the right to bear arms.
(http://www.gpoaccess.gov/constitution/html/amdt2.html)
Text of the Amendment: A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

Discussion of the Amendment: In spite of extensive recent discussion and much legislative action with respect to regulation of the purchase, possession, and transportation of firearms, as well as proposals to substantially curtail ownership of firearms, there is no definitive resolution by the courts of just what right the Second Amendment protects. The opposing theories, perhaps oversimplified, are an "individual rights'' thesis whereby individuals are protected in ownership, possession, and transportation, and a "states' rights'' thesis whereby it is said the purpose of the clause is to protect the States in their authority to maintain formal, organized militia units.\1\ Whatever the Amendment may mean, it is a bar only to federal action, not extending to state\2\ or private\3\ restraints. The Supreme Court has given effect to the dependent clause of the Amendment in the only case in which it has tested a congressional enactment against the constitutional prohibition, seeming to affirm individual protection but only in the context of the maintenance of a militia or other such public force.

So, as I understand that, the idea to the Second Amendment was to have men (so maybe women have no Constitutional right to own guns?) armed and ready to defend the country, in the days before there was a standing army. And before there was a real police force.

[oldadjunct]

"Only had small arms"?  No, they have mortars and RPG's.  You really don''t seem to know what you are talking about.

Mortars and RPG's are in the category of small arms and light weapons. 

http://muse.jhu.edu/journals/sais_review/v025/25.1stohl.html

"Small arms and light weapons are defined as any that one or two people can carry, can be mounted on a vehicle, or loaded onto a pack animal. This classification ranges from machine guns to stinger missiles and includes rocket-propelled grenades and mortars."

I stand corrected.  I wanna get me some of them.  Cause that's what we are talking about here, right?  Stinger missles to keep us safe.

[anthroid]

Ask the cops--the ones who actually deal with those heavily armed criminals--whether they think it's a great idea for citizens to have guns at home.  Just ask them.  Guess what the answer is?  Guess what the answer is from the experts on criminal behavior????

NO.

Why?  Because, by and large, people who own guns, and people who don't, are idiots.  They shoot themselves.  They shoot neighbors coming over to borrow a cup of sugar.  They shoot their children, or their children shoot their friends.  They shoot everyone, in short, but the goddamn criminals.  Gun owning homeowners are a menace to society, in many ways a far greater menace than armed criminals who, face it, couldn't care less about your Panasonic CD player (as Prytania3 pointed out so well).

I am willing, however, to concede the impossibility of getting rid of all guns.  I'll take up the cry of (I think) grasshopper:  let's get rid of the bullets.  That's doable.  Let's do it right away.