Gun Controll question.

[Liar]

The trouble is that there is no guarantee that functioning democracies shall last. At the moment that Mugabe was installed as prime minister of "Zimbabwe", it was at its most democratic point in our history. Afterward, democracy vanished as quickly as it had been instituted. It was one of the most short-lived democracies ever, not counting perhaps the Provisional Government in Russia under Kerensky. The point of an armed populace is to discourage a police state before it can even start.

And you see that as a probable scenario on your home turf?

 

[starrkers]

The problem here, though, Liar, is what happens to all the guns already out there?

In countries where very strict gun control has been around forever, it's not a big deal, but if it were to suddenly tighten up here, there would be millions of guns left in the hands of not-so-law-abiding folks in addition to the police.

What happens then, when the only ones without guns are precisely the people that should be able to have them?

That is exactly the problem that is occurring in my small part of the world.

 

[ChristopherMaxwell]

And you see that as a probable scenario on your home turf?

Both the US and the UK are moving toward Big Brother....frankly, it's a race to see who can get there first. The only difference is that far more Yanks than Brits are armed. Bloody shame. I love the Brits, they're a great people, but they're inviting tyranny....and in typical tyrant fashion, New Labour started with tighter gun controls, using the Dunblane incident as an excuse (never mind that gun controls were already rather strict in the UK, anyway). Now they're getting even worse. And people wondered why I refused to back Labour, Old or New. Never trusted the bastards further than I could throw them.

 

[Roxanne Appleby]

I've been trying to avoid engaging this issue for a few days because it seems fitting to do so, but I don't know if I have the willpower. Any chance of putting the further debate on hold until the weekend?

 

[R. Richard]

What does that have to do with anything?

Good lord, you ramble sometimes.

Sherry:
I am trying to point out to you that removing a desired commodity from legal sale just creates criminal businesses that will satisfy the demand. The imposition of gun control not only does not reduce crimes in general, it actually increases murder as the criminal businesses fight for control. If you don't believe me, read history during US prohibition.

 

[Huckleman2000]

I like the Chris Rock solution.
Make bullets cost $1000 each.

 

[yevkassem72]

I like the Chris Rock solution.
Make bullets cost $1000 each.

So, only the rich are armed? Oh, yes, that is a great idea. Besides, it was tried before with the Thompson submachine gun, under Roosevelt. It didn't stop the gangsters, who were already rich.

 

[Weird Harold]

After the Port Arthur massacre (nutjob killed 35 and wounded 37 at a tourist attraction) gun laws were considerably tightened in Australia, with an attempt to make them the same in all states (This didn't quite come off).
...
Have these laws made a difference?
Only to the law abiding citizens that surrendered their guns. It is now bloody difficult to get a firearm for a legitimate purpose and within the law.
I can get any number of black firearms of all types tomorrow if I ask the right people.

The thing I don't understand about gun control -- especially increased gun control in response to a massacre or particularly tragic incident like the eight-year old girl caught in a gang cross-fire a couple of years ago her in Las Vegas:

Why should I be punished and deprived of my legally-owned guns because of the actions of a criminal?

Why should I be made a criminal for owning guns which were legal when I purchased them because panic-stricken law-makers pass a new law in response to panicked voters demanding "something must be done..."?

...In my opinion, anyone should get pretty much anything they wanted. I see no reason why someone shouldn't have anything short of military weapons such as machine guns, ATGW or LAWS. If they can prove they can handle them responsibly.

Why should I be forbidden to own ANY weapon without some probable cause to believe I would misuse it or discharge it accidentally?

The issue goes beyond "gun control." Why should I have to provide identification and have limits placed on whether I can by two products with the same ingredient because other people misuse those products to make an illegal substance? i.e. I can no longer buy original formula Sudafed and Actifed at the same time because both contain psuedophedrine HCL. Despite the that fact that 30-some years of experience tell me I'm going to need both at different times to make it through pollen season.

In my fifty-plus years, I've seen numerous things banned and/or restricted because a minority of people misuse them. From by point of view, it is an ever-growing trend of using prohibition to turn responsible, law-abiding citizens into criminals by turning simple possession of things they already have into a crime.

The Prohibition era should have taught us that prohibition dosn't work -- and to be fair, the lessen does seem to have stuck with regard to alcohol; it just hasn't sunk in as a general principle.

The only thing the War on Drugs, "Gun Control," laws against prositution, and all of the other various laws banning or regulating the possession or sale of any commodity, has done is provide criminals with a stock list of commodities that people want and will pay more to get on the Black Market than they would if they could obtain them legally.

 

[starrkers]

All the extra laws do is make more criminals rich and powerful, and more ordinary citizens criminal by default.
We owned four firearms when the laws changed. Three of them were made illegal. And my husband's licence was revoked (we lived in the city at the time and had no legally acceptable reason to need a licence).
Three of the guns were surrendered. The fourth went to his brother (an army sergeant - he was licensed and had suitable storage)
Now we are back in a rural area. My husband is currently going through the ridiculous hoops to get his licence back. And we'll have to buy new firearms, which he can't even touch until he's licensed, let alone order. And he won't be allowed to order them until he's given a permit to buy them, and won't be able to take them until three months after he orders them (or is it pays for them...I can't remember).
They will have to be kept in a locked police approved locked cabinet. The ammo will have to be kept in a separate police approved locked cabinet. And I'm not allowed to have access to them unless I get a gun license too.
All this so we've got something to kill the foxes when they get into the chook house...

 

[drksideofthemoon]

. Gun control is a law(s) that keeps guns out of the hands of the law abiding.

Interesting. Cho Seung-Hui was one of the law abiding when he purchased his weapons. Too bad someone didn't keep them out of his hands.

 

[elsol]

And you see that as a probable scenario on your home turf?

I see it as likely.

 

[starrkers]

Interesting. Cho Seung-Hui was one of the law abiding when he purchased his weapons. Too bad someone didn't keep them out of his hands.

And therein lies the problem of gun control. It is not possible to legislate against future loss of sense, sanity and self control.

 

[Liar]

Interesting. Cho Seung-Hui was one of the law abiding when he purchased his weapons. Too bad someone didn't keep them out of his hands.

That was kind of my point in an earlier post. (Not sure if it was on this thread or another one. No matter.) There is no clear line between "law abiding" and "criminal". Most of us could be the latter, if the circumstances were not on our side.

Yes, even maniacs on murdering sprees, although that takes circumstances we're most likely to never even come close. Rwanda being the latest case in point, where everyone and their mother murdered everyone and their mother in incomprehensible numbers. And everyone and their mother is not a single, isolated psycho that got his inner freak triggered. It's ordinary people.

 

[Liar]

I see it as likely.

The American Revolution 2.0 in my lifetime? I bet against it, except for the fringe that's living it already.

But anything is possible.

 

[oggbashan]

Attitude, not legislation

The UK's ratio of gun related deaths and injuries to population is 40 times smaller than that in the US.

Switzerland has an even smaller ratio.

The UK has some of the most repressive gun control laws anywhere. Since those laws were introduced, gun crime has continued to grow, but at a slow rate. The laws appear to have had no effect whatever on gun crime at the expense of irritating, annoying and penalising the law abiding community.

Every able bodied adult male in Switzerland is expected to keep a semi-automatic rifle at home. Gun crime there is minimal except that they have had a single massacre by an insane individual.

What is the difference? Attitude towards guns. In the UK, guns are for sport including game shooting. In Switzerland the requirement for the rifles is to provide a militia. In some areas of the US, guns are sold as almost as fashion accessories and kill rate, power etc. are selling points. What is the point of selling weapons and ammunition that are designed to pierce protective vests?

Parts of the US need to address the psychology of gun ownership. Hollywood needs to think seriously about the message it is selling with shoot-em-up blockbusters. The old style western was a morality tale set in a mythical place and time. Today's thrillers are set in real places in real time yet massive overkill and destruction are shown as normal.

The best defence against an overlarge government removing individual freedoms is not massive firepower in the hands of the citizens, but active participation by those citizens in the democratic process. Voting, not shooting, defends the community from its elected rulers.

Og (who will be voting on May 3)

 

[rgraham666]

Thank you, ogg. You summed up my thoughts on the subject perfectly.

And for those who think another revolution is in order in the U.S., remember that revolutions most often throw up worse governments than the one they destroyed.

The U.S. was extraordinarily lucky in its revolution. It was carried out and led by a group of people unique in history.

The current revolutionaries have nobody the quality of Jefferson, Franklin or Washington among their numbers.

 

[SesameStreet]

Something we all need to think about is discussed in this article. Even if we don't have a gun we can try and defend ourselves. This week it was Virginia Tech. Next week it may be your workplace, the restaurant where you eat out on Friday nights, or even your church.

by Brooks Mick
The Virginia Tech Massacre's Lessons
April 17, 2007 01:59 PM EST



All the details of the Virginia Tech massacre are not in, but one thing is clear: Passive defense doesn't work very well. The shooter, by some reports, would walk into a classroom, shoot till his guns were empty, go back into the hallway, reload, AND THEN COME BACK INTO THE CLASSROOM AND SHOOT MORE PEOPLE! It is clear that, had there been one student or teacher with a concealed carry license and packing a Sig-Sauer .40 S&W pistol, the shootings might have been stopped much sooner and many more people left alive.

Two students survived because they barricaded the door to prevent the re-entry of the shooter. Another class suffered more injury because the students couldn't convince the teacher to barricade the door! If that teacher is not already shot and dead, she deserves to be prosecuted.

One professor, Liviu Librescu, an elderly Romanian who had survived the Holocaust in Europe during WW2, bravely rushed to the classroom door and held the door closed, was shot several times through the door, and died while his class escaped through the classroom windows. There was a real hero. Greater love hath no man than to place his own mortal body between the enemy and his beloved home, or words to that effect. Even greater love, perhaps, for a teacher to die to save the lives of students who are no relation at all.

If five or ten unarmed students had rushed the shooter and mobbed him and beat him to a pulp, some would undoubtedly have been wounded or killed, but the rest of the students would have been saved. Charge! Throw textbooks, staplers, anything handy. Pick up pens, pencils. Jump the shooter, tackle him, pile on, crush him to the floor with massed bodies, stab him in the eyes or neck with pencils or pens. (Click the ballpoints out first--makes a better stabbing instrument that way.)

I am reminded of Flight 93: Todd Beamer, Jeremy Glick, and all the other passengers who were brave enough to charge the hijackers and prevent that plane's crash into the Capitol Building or the White House.

I am reminded of our soldiers who have charged the terrorists, taking the fight to them overseas, rather than sitting passively at our desks waiting to be shot or bombed or gassed or nuked here in the USA. Certainly over 3000 of these brave Americans have died. But how many Americans would be dead if we had not gone on the offense? It is not quantifiable, but surely in the long run the death toll would be orders of magnitude higher.

Passive defense doesn't work well. It is better to go on offense. Sure, there will be some casualties, but far fewer than if one sits quietly and awaits attack.

http://www.theconservativevoice.com/article/24386.html

 

[rgraham666]

Actually it's highly unlikely that such a thing will happen.

But the fear and anger feel good, don't they?

 

[Huckleman2000]

Something we all need to think about is discussed in this article. Even if we don't have a gun we can try and defend ourselves. This week it was Virginia Tech. Next week it may be your workplace, the restaurant where you eat out on Friday nights, or even your church.



http://www.theconservativevoice.com/article/24386.html

Yes, the 32 dead victims and many more wounded were all a bunch of damn wimps! One real man like the writer, armed with a keyboard and a 12-year old's obsession with the makes and models of his chosen penis stand-in, would have saved the day!

What is it with the fevered fantasies of heroism and rescue? Compensating much?

 

[R. Richard]

Interesting. Cho Seung-Hui was one of the law abiding when he purchased his weapons. Too bad someone didn't keep them out of his hands.

Yes, he was THOUGHT to be law abiding [of course he was actually insane.] [People who were charged with looking deep into his soul and grading his literary efforts apparently couldn't tell that he was insane. Of course, a gun dealer couldn't be expected to know he was insane.]

Now, let us assume that gun control was in effect. If there was a legal way to obtain a gun, an intelligent university student would probably have found a way to leaglly obtain a gun. If there was no way to legally obtain a gun, I have to think that an intelligent university student like Cho Seung-Hui would be able to obtain one, ilegally in the street.

In short, I see no way to keep a gun out of the hands of someone like Cho Seung-Hui.

JMHO.

 

[R. Richard]

"Passive defense doesn't work well. It is better to go on offense. Sure, there will be some casualties, but far fewer than if one sits quietly and awaits attack."

Of course, 'going on offense' is better than passive [read no] defense. However, you seem to assume that a dozen or so people would just spontaneously get up and rush an armed man firing a gun at them. I don't think so.

I don't know about others, but I didn't really have the money to afford a gun when I was in college. In fact, I had to sell the guns I had in order to finance college. I suspect that a lot of students were in the same boat.

 

[ChristopherMaxwell]

The thing I don't understand about gun control -- especially increased gun control in response to a massacre or particularly tragic incident like the eight-year old girl caught in a gang cross-fire a couple of years ago her in Las Vegas:

Why should I be punished and deprived of my legally-owned guns because of the actions of a criminal?

Why should I be made a criminal for owning guns which were legal when I purchased them because panic-stricken law-makers pass a new law in response to panicked voters demanding "something must be done..."?



Why should I be forbidden to own ANY weapon without some probable cause to believe I would misuse it or discharge it accidentally?

The issue goes beyond "gun control." Why should I have to provide identification and have limits placed on whether I can by two products with the same ingredient because other people misuse those products to make an illegal substance? i.e. I can no longer buy original formula Sudafed and Actifed at the same time because both contain psuedophedrine HCL. Despite the that fact that 30-some years of experience tell me I'm going to need both at different times to make it through pollen season.

In my fifty-plus years, I've seen numerous things banned and/or restricted because a minority of people misuse them. From by point of view, it is an ever-growing trend of using prohibition to turn responsible, law-abiding citizens into criminals by turning simple possession of things they already have into a crime.

The Prohibition era should have taught us that prohibition dosn't work -- and to be fair, the lessen does seem to have stuck with regard to alcohol; it just hasn't sunk in as a general principle.

The only thing the War on Drugs, "Gun Control," laws against prositution, and all of the other various laws banning or regulating the possession or sale of any commodity, has done is provide criminals with a stock list of commodities that people want and will pay more to get on the Black Market than they would if they could obtain them legally.

Well stated. And for those who believe that revolutions are not a necessary last resort against tyrants disguised as democrats, just remember: Germany under the Weimar Constitution was one of the most democratic countries on Earth. It also had repressive gun laws. When Hitler, who essentially ignored the gun laws because he was able to with his SA, seized power, he promptly used that reality to bully the population into submission. And he used the Weimar Constitution to seize power in the first place.

As bad as revolutionaries might be that use force of arms, the ones who use constitutional means are always more menacing.

 

[Roxanne Appleby]

The UK's ratio of gun related deaths and injuries to population is 40 times smaller than that in the US.

Switzerland has an even smaller ratio.

The UK has some of the most repressive gun control laws anywhere. Since those laws were introduced, gun crime has continued to grow, but at a slow rate. The laws appear to have had no effect whatever on gun crime at the expense of irritating, annoying and penalising the law abiding community.

Every able bodied adult male in Switzerland is expected to keep a semi-automatic rifle at home. Gun crime there is minimal except that they have had a single massacre by an insane individual.

What is the difference? Attitude towards guns. In the UK, guns are for sport including game shooting. In Switzerland the requirement for the rifles is to provide a militia. In some areas of the US, guns are sold as almost as fashion accessories and kill rate, power etc. are selling points. What is the point of selling weapons and ammunition that are designed to pierce protective vests?

Parts of the US need to address the psychology of gun ownership. Hollywood needs to think seriously about the message it is selling with shoot-em-up blockbusters. The old style western was a morality tale set in a mythical place and time. Today's thrillers are set in real places in real time yet massive overkill and destruction are shown as normal.

The best defence against an overlarge government removing individual freedoms is not massive firepower in the hands of the citizens, but active participation by those citizens in the democratic process. Voting, not shooting, defends the community from its elected rulers.

Og (who will be voting on May 3)

I have seen reports from reasonably reliable sources that UK crime reports are politicized up the yingyang, and are not to be taken seriously. I don't have any conclusive evidence, though. Any thoughts/info on that?

 

[ChristopherMaxwell]

All the extra laws do is make more criminals rich and powerful, and more ordinary citizens criminal by default.
We owned four firearms when the laws changed. Three of them were made illegal. And my husband's licence was revoked (we lived in the city at the time and had no legally acceptable reason to need a licence).
Three of the guns were surrendered. The fourth went to his brother (an army sergeant - he was licensed and had suitable storage)
Now we are back in a rural area. My husband is currently going through the ridiculous hoops to get his licence back. And we'll have to buy new firearms, which he can't even touch until he's licensed, let alone order. And he won't be allowed to order them until he's given a permit to buy them, and won't be able to take them until three months after he orders them (or is it pays for them...I can't remember).
They will have to be kept in a locked police approved locked cabinet. The ammo will have to be kept in a separate police approved locked cabinet. And I'm not allowed to have access to them unless I get a gun license too.
All this so we've got something to kill the foxes when they get into the chook house...

Well stated. If I had it to do all over, call me a psycho or whatever, I'd have been armed when Mugabe's goons came onto my homestead, despite being the youngest of my family. And I'd have shot my sister's rapist dead before he had a chance to touch her. I'd have stopped him from raping her in the first place.

 

[oggbashan]

I have seen reports from reasonably reliable sources that UK crime reports are politicized up the yingyang, and are not to be taken seriously. I don't have any conclusive evidence, though. Any thoughts/info on that?

No matter how the figures are presented, the incidence of gun crime per 100,000 of population, and that includes replica, BB and toy guns used as a threat, is still 40 times less than in the US. If anything, our gun crime is overstated. Attempted theft by someone using a concealed banana is "gun crime".

Every UK shooting that involves death or serious injury is reported nationwide.

Og