The right to bear arms

[Emil Miller]

Yes, that might be what the judges were told but they rejected it. Martin's case wasn't dismissed, it was commuted to manslaughter on the grounds of diminished responsibility - if anything Martin is a great example of why gun control is needed. He was suffering from a paranoid personality disorder and he shouldn't have had a gun (both legally and practically). His self defence argument never washed and it certainly was not the basis on which his sentence was amended to manslaughter. This is what LJ Woolf said:


From this report: http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2001/oct/30/tonymartin.ukcrime


But by your logic the commission of a crime disbars you from the protection of the law. It makes you an outlaw. So why should Martin be any more deserving of sympathy than the burglars? Why is his back story relevant, if the burglars' are not? You would argue that the burglars setting foot on Martin's property should disbar them from any protection under the law, it should in your words:

Therefore surely Martin forfeits his rights to protection under the law by means of his possession of an illegal weapon? He was a criminal before anyone set foot on his property. By your logic he is as deserving of his murder conviction as the burglar is of his death because 'By his criminal act the murderer forfeits his rights' is equally true. Had he not illegally possessed the weapons the events which led to his murder conviction would not have occurred.

And that's before you even get into the facts of the case. Martin's story did not tally with the forensic evidence. For example you said:




Yes, that's what Martin said, but there was significant evidence that Martin was lying. Perhaps there would be scope for sympathy had the burglar had been found dead at the foot of Martin's stairs having died from a single gunshot wound to the chest. But in fact the burglar who was killed, who was a 16 year old boy, was found dead outside the property having suffered multiple gunshot wounds to the legs and a fatal wound to the back. Did Martin need to 'defend himself' from a boy who was running away? Or was he enacting his paranoid fantasy of gunning down a 'thieving gypsy'? This image of Martin as an innocent man just protecting his property having 'surprised' some burglars and fired at them in the dark from the top of his stairs is a conveniently sympathetic image but not really commensurate with the facts of the case or his own history of gun related violence, his apparent mental illness and the poor state of his property that he was seeking to 'defend' from others but apparently couldn't be bothered taking any care of himself.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2000/apr/20/tonymartin.ukcrime2

There were no winners in that story, and certainly no heroes and if it's the best example you can give of why people should have guns to protect themselves from burglars, it's a pretty poor one.

Not surprisingly the Guardian article is contradictory. It states that his neighbours found him to be weird:'

'Many people in the Fen villages near Emneth in Norfolk believed the "weird" farmer to be harmless. But others, who had heard him espouse his hatred for burglars and what he would do with them if he caught them, had taken to giving Martin a wide berth.'

Much later in the article we get:

'But many are firmly behind the farmer. Outside the Emneth Spar, a pensioner said: "All Fen people would have done the same thing. Fen people are independent people.'

"I would have blown them away myself. We all wanted him to get off because they got what they deserved. Fen people would have blasted them away."

Your assertion that Martin's illegal gun ownership is on a par with burglary is, quite frankly, absurd. Both of the burglars had a string of convictions for various offences and, whereas Martin's threats as to what he would do to burglars may have kept potential local wrongdoers at bay, the thieves had travelled 60 miles in order to commit their crime.
Of course, had he not been in possession of a firearm he wouldn't have been charged with murder. On the other hand, without the firearm he might have been killed himself and therefore decided to act first.
Nobody,except Martin, can know the exact circumstances in which he killed one of the burglars but if somebody is faced with two intruders in the dark who have no right to be on one's property there is no time for the kind of casuistry beloved of people like the now retired Lord Woolf and his legal cohorts as well a certain section of the press, when life and limb are at stake one acts instinctively regardless of the outcome. I would, in all probability, have done something similar if not the same.

[Varenne Rodin]

That's a standard letter he will have sent out by the hundred - I wonder if he even read yours.


Yeah. I doubt it. I doubt he does anything. I'm not surprised. They only send form letters.

[ennison]

The suggestion that teachers should be armed to shoot potential murderers is the type of suggestion that gun loving loony tunes would of course come up with. Guns are meant for killing people easily. People (and teachers are of that type) are all capable of anger and violence. Having lots of guns available makes it more likely that anger leads to fatal violence. Fists and stones may break ones bones but bullets blast ones brains out.

[Volya]

The suggestion that teachers should be armed to shoot potential murderers is the type of suggestion that gun loving loony tunes would of course come up with. Guns are meant for killing people easily. People (and teachers are of that type) are all capable of anger and violence. Having lots of guns available makes it more likely that anger leads to fatal violence. Fists and stones may break ones bones but bullets blast ones brains out.

I think that similarly to how trying to ban all guns is a knee-jerk reaction, so is trying to arm all teachers. Both of them will, in my opinion, only lead to more trouble. As usual, compromise is the better solution. Stricter regulations on what kind of gun you can buy and who can buy them, but allow (as an example) teachers who are lawfully allowed to concealed carry in other places to carry their weapon in school as well. After all if they're deemed safe to have one in public, why not in a school - if they want to massacre some children, they'll bring in their gun anyway.

[ennison]

Allow teachers to carry guns in school! Well I guess it's always useful to get an opinion on humanity from outside.

[Sancho]

It's a good thing teachers didn't pack heat when I was in High School. I'd'a been toast.

[Delta40]

Despite all this grim discussion, Merry Christmas everyone.

[Sancho]

And a very merry Christmas to you, Delta, and Happy Holidays, everybody, from Atlanta, Georgia - actually a rural area 40 or so miles south of the city of Atlanta. Down here Christmas is a time to spend time with family and friends, exchange gifts, overindulge on a Christmas feast, reflect upon our good fortune and remember those we lost last year.

It's a lovely winter day in Dixieland - foggy, rainy, cool. A cold front is about to pass. Kids are out anyway, bombing around on their new bikes, shooting hoop with their new basketballs, and terrorizing Sancho's cat. A gentle breeze is rustling the pine trees. A flock of black birds just exploded out of Sancho's back pasture. And the air is filled with the sharp report of gunfire. I'm not kidding. It's a hillbilly tradition down south. My neighbors are all half lit and sighting in their brand new high-powered rifles. I think I just heard the distinctive crack/echo of a Wetherby 7mm mag from over at Duane's house. It's what he's always wanted. And I know it's what Brenda got him for Christmas because she's had it hidden at my house for the past few months.

Emil, you won't be surprised to know that there aren't a lot of burglaries in my area. It's assumed that everybody is well armed. A popular yard sign amongst the rednecks is: This Doublewide is Protected by Smith & Wesson. I don't even need a gun. I mean, if everybody else has gotten the small pox vaccination, why should I bother?

[qimissung]

Well, not really a very good argument, Sancho, as there is a rise in the number of children getting whooping cough and some other serious illnesses because their parents are afraid of the vaccines , but point taken, nevertheless. :D

I'm watching my favorite Christmas movie, "The Christmas Story." It's not about the birth of Jesus, but about a little boy who wants a Red Ryder BB gun for Christmas, and his attempts to convince his parents to get him one.

He almost, but not quite, shoots his eye out toward the end of the movie.

[Delta40]

It's Boxing Day here now and the streets are still dead like they were yesterday. That's the sad part of Xmas in Perth because the mercury goes through the ceiling so I didn't hear or see one child yesterday. Everyone was indoors with their air-con. In the evening though, the barbies were going at full bore and the air smelled delicious!

I enjoyed some Christmas programs on tv, including A Moody Christmas which is about an Australian guy who lives and works in London but flies home to Australia each year to be with his dysfunctional family at Christmas. It's quite funny, no guns and a gradual digging up of the backyard with each year to put in a pool.

My resolution is to spend at least one Xmas in the Northern Hemisphere and have a snowball fight.

[qimissung]

We are having a white Christmas here in Texas, Delta! I don't know that the snow would make very good snowballs since it's the first (and probably the last) snow of the season, but your welcome, anyway!

[JuniperWoolf]

It's a good thing teachers didn't pack heat when I was in High School. I'd'a been toast.

-_- My mother looked over my shoulder as I was reading this comment and then we had a huge argument over gun policy. We aren't even American. God I hate Christmas.


He almost, but not quite, shoots his eye out toward the end of the movie.

Nuh uh, there was this icicle and it fell off the garage and it hit him.

[stlukesguild]

In spite of the horror in Connecticut... or perhaps I should say in addition to the horror of that single day of carnage we might also consider this:

http://www.alternet.org/news-amp-politics/260-school-children-killed-chicago-3-years-where-are-tears-them

As someone who has had more than a few current and former students witnesses to or victims of shootings (most of my students know what a drive by shooting looks and sounds like and what to do) I question just how knee-jerk a reaction it is to call for an end of easy access to guns... especially to automatic and semi-automatic weapons.

[JuniperWoolf]

We had guy who just moved from Detroit start middle school in my town. Once in the parking lot a car backfired and he hit the pavement. First it was confusing, then it was funny, then it was sad.

[qimissung]

In spite of the horror in Connecticut... or perhaps I should say in addition to the horror of that single day of carnage we might also consider this:

http://www.alternet.org/news-amp-politics/260-school-children-killed-chicago-3-years-where-are-tears-them

As someone who has had more than a few current and former students witnesses to or victims of shootings (most of my students know what a drive by shooting looks and sounds like and what to do) I question just how knee-jerk a reaction it is to call for an end of easy access to guns... especially to automatic and semi-automatic weapons.

Well, it is kind of a knee-jerk reaction, but it's also a place to start.

Juniper, this is from Wikipedia:



Ralphie goes out to test his new gun, shooting at a paper target perched on top of a metal sign, and predictably gets a ricochet from the metal sign. This ricochet ends up hitting his cheek and glasses, sending them flying and knocking out a lens. While searching for the glasses, Ralphie inadvertently steps on and crushes the other side. He concocts a story about an icicle falling on him and breaking his glasses, which his mother believes, thanks in part to Ralphie's realistic sobbing.

[Eiseabhal]

I cannot believe the idea of teachers being encouraged to take guns to school. In a civilised country a teacher doing that would be sacked at once. Any teacher doing that would also have proved he/she was unfit to keep a weapon at home. Guns are for killing people. There are gun owners who are on the outer fringes of sanity and actually long for the opportunity to shoot someone... anyone. The argument that I've heard that it's not guns but people that kill people is a pointless statement since nobody disputes that it is the human being who pulls the trigger . Most mass killings are not carried out with the jawbones of asses but most gun lovers are asses. And frankly I suspect there is more than a little sexual deviancy in the gun lover.

[qimissung]

This article says the ban on assault weapons was effective:

http://www.salon.com/2012/12/26/banning_assault_weapons_works/

Well, Eiseabhal, I don't know what to say to you. I can only hope and hope and hope that the people in the United States see the NRA's suggestion for the insanity that it is. Unfortunately, I suspect things will get worse before they get better. People who are for gun control are extremely vociferous. Even though the first words of the 2nd amendment refer to a "well-regulated militia," people insist that it has a personal meaning beyond that, an idea that has, most unfortunately, been upheld by our Supreme Court.

You'd think the cry of the people would overwhelmingly be "Never again!" but such is not the case. I have never understood why the NRA is so intent on it's mission. I think in large part the idea is simply to better regulate guns, not get rid of them entirely.

[YesNo]

http://www.salon.com/2012/12/26/banning_assault_weapons_works/


One quote from this article I found interesting:


An October 2012 study from Johns Hopkins, which looked at newer data than Koper’s, concluded that that “easy access to firearms with large-capacity magazines facilitates higher casualties in mass shootings.”

Guns with "large-capacity magazines" may be the best ones to target for a ban.

[Volya]

One quote from this article I found interesting:


An October 2012 study from Johns Hopkins, which looked at newer data than Koper’s, concluded that that “easy access to firearms with large-capacity magazines facilitates higher casualties in mass shootings.”

Guns with "large-capacity magazines" may be the best ones to target for a ban.

I would have to say that's another poor, misleading article. All it shows is that with stricter laws there will be less high-capacity magazines in circulation (that the police know about). In Australia it says 'Gun-related homicide plummeted by 59 percent between 1995 and 2006, with no corresponding increase in non-firearm-related homicides' but it says nothing about the total violence and crime levels.

'Following implementation of the ban, the share of gun crimes involving AWs [assault weapons] declined by 17 percent to 72 percent across the localities examined for this study' - it declined from 17 percent... to 72 percent?

I think another problem with the entire debate, is that the pro-gun and anti-gun people both twist statistics and meanings so that they fit their view - both the NRA and the anti-gun lobby are guilty of this. If a study were to be published that actually contained all the statistics, and gave reasoning for both sides of the argument, it would be much easier to come to a conclusion.

[YesNo]

The problem is to make the environment safer for children. I don't think a ban on guns entirely will succeed in the USA, but perhaps a ban on guns with large capacity magazines is possible.

[ennison]

A right-wing journalist in the Times of London writes today that guns are fun (cove's name rhymes with sonofa*****) He knows this because he loved playing with guns when he was a boy. Well I guess we can take Peter Pan's opinion on board too. He quotes an American gun lover as saying that watching "melons die is fun". There is a level of immature thinking involved in those who believe owning a large powerful gun makes life safer. There are too many flaws in human nature to make easy gun access anything other than a social evil.

[qimissung]

The youngest child shot, the first to be buried:


"And in a harrowing description of Noah’s corpse laid to rest, some idea is given of the damage the assault weapon wrought on his young body:
The family placed stuffed animals, a blanket and letters to Noah into the casket. Lastly, Veronique put a clear plastic rock with a white angel inside — an “angel stone” — in his right hand. She asked the funeral director to place an identical one in his left, which was badly mangled. Noah’s famously long eyelashes, which she spoke about in her eulogy, rested lightly on his cheeks and a cloth covered the place where his lower jaw had been."

[Sancho]

A right-wing journalist in the Times of London writes today that guns are fun (cove's name rhymes with sonofa*****) He knows this because he loved playing with guns when he was a boy. Well I guess we can take Peter Pan's opinion on board too. He quotes an American gun lover as saying that watching "melons die is fun". There is a level of immature thinking involved in those who believe owning a large powerful gun makes life safer. There are too many flaws in human nature to make easy gun access anything other than a social evil.

Agreed. My advice to guys who like guns is always - why don't'cha join the army? They've got lots of guns.


Well, not really a very good argument, Sancho, as there is a rise in the number of children getting whooping cough and some other serious illnesses because their parents are afraid of the vaccines , but point taken, nevertheless. :D

I'm watching my favorite Christmas movie, "The Christmas Story." It's not about the birth of Jesus, but about a little boy who wants a Red Ryder BB gun for Christmas, and his attempts to convince his parents to get him one.

He almost, but not quite, shoots his eye out toward the end of the movie.

Yep. I'm aware of the pandemic (maybe it's an epidemic, or perhaps just a fad) of soccer moms not inoculating their kids because of the latest "science" they've heard about. Anyway, I was just talking trash about vaccinations. I've had my small pox vaccination and I've got a scar on my left arm to prove it. I'm that old. And from my time as a GI, I've also had just about every other vaccination under the sun squirted into me, compliments of Uncle Sam.

You know, I've never seen that movie. But I've watched National Lampoon's Christmas Vacation a dozen times. Naturally, I most closely identified with Eddie (played by Randy Quaid).


Eddie: Every time Catherine revved up the microwave, I'd piss my pants and forget who I was for about half an hour or so.


Art: [to Rocky] You got a kiss for me?
Eddie: Better take a rain check on that, Art - he's got a lip fungus they ain't identified yet...


Eddie: (talking to Clark about his daughter, Ruby Sue) She falls down a well, her eyes go cross. She gets kicked by a mule. They go back...I don't know.

What were we chatting about again? Oh yes, guns. They're a problem all right. I don't know what to do, but I'm convinced that this latest school shooting will change the debate. And I'm certain that our left-leaning president, who isn't facing reelection, would happily affix his name to any serious gun-control legislation that hits his desk. It's just one of the reasons I voted for him.

[qimissung]

I wasn't trying to bust your chops or anything, Sancho, honestly, just pointing out a weakness in your analogy. I wouldn't be a card-carrying English teacher if I didn't do that!

I did not watch that one this year, but it's a perennial favorite. What does that say about us as a country, I wonder? :lol:

[prendrelemick]

A right-wing journalist in the Times of London writes today that guns are fun (cove's name rhymes with sonofa*****) He knows this because he loved playing with guns when he was a boy. Well I guess we can take Peter Pan's opinion on board too. He quotes an American gun lover as saying that watching "melons die is fun". There is a level of immature thinking involved in those who believe owning a large powerful gun makes life safer. There are too many flaws in human nature to make easy gun access anything other than a social evil.

David Aaranovich is right wing in an English way - which means he's a lefty-pinko-bleeding-heart-liberal by GOP's standards. (I happen to follow him on twitter) And he is right, guns are fun, hunting is fun, clay pigeon shooting is fun, I used to go rabbiting with a .410 at the age of twelve - they were the best of times, I still go now. Let's not pretend that guns aren't fun.

But to own one is a big responsibility. Which should be thought of as a privilege rather than a right.

[Sancho]

^ "I betcha he's even got a commie flag tacked up on the wall inside of his garage."


I wasn't trying to bust your chops or anything, Sancho, honestly, just pointing out a weakness in your analogy. I wouldn't be a card-carrying English teacher if I didn't do that!

No worries, Qimi. My mother was an English teacher. And grammatically speaking, she was a tyrant. Also she was wicked-fast with a wooden spoon. My noggin still has dents in it from her thowcking me with that spoon for poor subject/verb agreement. As for vaccinations and national health policies - "Well, I, uh, don't think it's quite fair to condemn a whole program because of a single slip-up..."

Ah, what the heck. Since I seem to be doing quotes today (Charlie Daniels above in response to Mick's British politician - "he's a friend of them long-haired hippie-type pinko fags..."), I might as well keep going. I don't much like the idea of everybody playing fast and loose with handguns anymore than I like governments aiming nukes at each other. It's another analogy with some serious flaws, Qimi.

From Dr. Stangelove:


President Merkin Muffley: General Turgidson, I find this very difficult to understand. I was under the impression that I was the only one in authority to order the use of nuclear weapons.

General "Buck" Turgidson: That's right, sir, you are the only person authorized to do so. And although I, uh, hate to judge before all the facts are in, it's beginning to look like, uh, General Ripper exceeded his authority.

...

General "Buck" Turgidson: Uh, we're, still trying to figure out the meaning of that last phrase, sir.

President Merkin Muffley: There's nothing to figure out, General Turgidson. This man is obviously a psychotic.

General "Buck" Turgidson: We-he-ell, uh, I'd like to hold off judgement on a thing like that, sir, until all the facts are in.

President Merkin Muffley: General Turgidson! When you instituted the human reliability tests, you assured me there was no possibility of such a thing ever occurring!

General "Buck" Turgidson: Well, I, uh, don't think it's quite fair to condemn a whole program because of a single slip-up, sir.

Not to mix metaphors or anything, but guns and nukes are similar in that once the cat's out of the bag, it's hard to stuff the genie back into the bottle.

[qimissung]

^ "I betcha he's even got a commie flag tacked up on the wall inside of his garage."



No worries, Qimi. My mother was an English teacher. And grammatically speaking, she was a tyrant. Also she was wicked-fast with a wooden spoon. My noggin still has dents in it from her thowcking me with that spoon for poor subject/verb agreement. As for vaccinations and national health policies - "Well, I, uh, don't think it's quite fair to condemn a whole program because of a single slip-up..."

Ah, what the heck. Since I seem to be doing quotes today (Charlie Daniels above in response to Mick's British politician - "he's a friend of them long-haired hippie-type pinko fags..."), I might as well keep going. I don't much like the idea of everybody playing fast and loose with handguns anymore than I like governments aiming nukes at each other. It's another analogy with some serious flaws, Qimi.

From Dr. Stangelove:



Not to mix metaphors or anything, but guns and nukes are similar in that once the cat's out of the bag, it's hard to stuff the genie back into the bottle.

Ah, Dr. Strangelove and genies. I approve, Sancho. If we don't figure out a way to stuff those two imposters back in their proverbial bottles, that cat in the bag is going to be screeching like a banshee. And it might be the end of the world as we know it.

OT, Sancho, have you ever thought of writing? You don't post much on here, but you certainly seem to have a gift for written humor which is incredible difficult. Heck, maybe you could be the next Mark Twain or Terry Southern.

[Sancho]

Thanks, Qimi. I do like to fool around with words, but I'm way too busy and not nearly disciplined enough to try to publish anything. And, hey, I won't never be no Micky Spillane. I'll admit, though, it's a thrill for me when I get somebody on this site to laugh. Also, from time to time, it's fun to get under somebody's skin. But I swear I had no intention of getting Juniper and her mom to arguing about gun control in the USA on Christmas day. Sheesh!

[qimissung]

You just got lucky on that one I guess, lol.

Um, hey, Juniper, if you ever re-visit this thread, can you explain why, exactly, that rather innocuous statement by Sancho provoked an argument on gun control between you and your mother? Inquiring minds, and all that.

[prendrelemick]

Had a few days off to think about this issue. I've been following Michael Moore's twitterings - and the contrary replies - and reading various articles published by Americans. Mostly to find a rationale for keeping things as they are.

The consensus seems to be that the NRA position that more guns are needed to keep people safe is ridiculous and insults the intellegence. - like drilling a hole in a sinking boat to let the water out. But there are some more thoughtful articles from those against gun control. Michael Moore, inspite of his reputation, pointed out that it was only the arrival of armed police that ended the Newtown massacre, an instance where guns did save lives. He also notes the the state of Connecticut has some of the strongest gun control laws in America.

What came over most strongly was the need to change attitudes towards the gun in America. Gun control can be a start but the problem is deeper rooted. Violence itself is deeper rooted compared with the rest of the world. Americans both fear violence and venerate it as the ultimate answer. Dirty Harry's magnum sets the world to rights.

I don't like cutting and pasteing large amounts of text, but this thread has about run its course and this extract (from Michael Moore again) seems pertinant and takes the debate on to the next step. He outlines 3 reasons for the violence and fear of violance rife in America.

". POVERTY. If there's one thing that separates us from the rest of the developed world, it's this. 50 million of our people live in poverty. One in five Americans goes hungry at some point during the year. The majority of those who aren't poor are living from paycheck to paycheck. There's no doubt this creates more crime. Middle class jobs prevent crime and violence. (If you don't believe that, ask yourself this: If your neighbor has a job and is making $50,000/year, what are the chances he's going to break into your home, shoot you and take your TV? Nil.)

2. FEAR/RACISM. We're an awfully fearful country considering that, unlike most nations, we've never been invaded. (No, 1812 wasn't an invasion. We started it.) Why on earth would we need 300 million guns in our homes? I get why the Russians might be a little spooked (over 20 million of them died in World War II). But what's our excuse? Worried that the Indians from the casino may go on the warpath? Concerned that the Canadians seem to be amassing too many Tim Horton's donut shops on both sides of the border?

No. It's because too many white people are afraid of black people. Period. The vast majority of the guns in the U.S. are sold to white people who live in the suburbs or the country. When we fantasize about being mugged or home invaded, what's the image of the perpetrator in our heads? Is it the freckled-face kid from down the street – or is it someone who is, if not black, at least poor?

I think it would be worth it to a) do our best to eradicate poverty and re-create the middle class we used to have, and b) stop promoting the image of the black man as the boogeyman out to hurt you. Calm down, white people, and put away your guns.

3. THE "ME" SOCIETY. I think it's the every-man-for-himself ethos of this country that has put us in this mess and I believe it's been our undoing. Pull yourself up by your bootstraps! You're not my problem! This is mine!

Clearly, we are no longer our brother's and sister's keeper. You get sick and can't afford the operation? Not my problem. The bank has foreclosed on your home? Not my problem. Can't afford to go to college? Not my problem.

And yet, it all sooner or later becomes our problem, doesn't it? Take away too many safety nets and everyone starts to feel the impact. Do you want to live in that kind of society, one where you will then have a legitimate reason to be in fear? I don't."

[Emil Miller]

Had a few days off to think about this issue. I've been following Michael Moore's twitterings - and the contrary replies - and reading various articles published by Americans. Mostly to find a rationale for keeping things as they are.

The consensus seems to be that the NRA position that more guns are needed to keep people safe is ridiculous and insults the intellegence. - like drilling a hole in a sinking boat to let the water out. But there are some more thoughtful articles from those against gun control. Michael Moore, inspite of his reputation, pointed out that it was only the arrival of armed police that ended the Newtown massacre, an instance where guns did save lives. He also notes the the state of Connecticut has some of the strongest gun control laws in America.

What came over most strongly was the need to change attitudes towards the gun in America. Gun control can be a start but the problem is deeper rooted. Violence itself is deeper rooted compared with the rest of the world. Americans both fear violence and venerate it as the ultimate answer. Dirty Harry's magnum sets the world to rights.

I don't like cutting and pasteing large amounts of text, but this thread has about run its course and this extract (from Michael Moore again) seems pertinant and takes the debate on to the next step. He outlines 3 reasons for the violence and fear of violance rife in America.

". POVERTY. If there's one thing that separates us from the rest of the developed world, it's this. 50 million of our people live in poverty. One in five Americans goes hungry at some point during the year. The majority of those who aren't poor are living from paycheck to paycheck. There's no doubt this creates more crime. Middle class jobs prevent crime and violence. (If you don't believe that, ask yourself this: If your neighbor has a job and is making $50,000/year, what are the chances he's going to break into your home, shoot you and take your TV? Nil.)

2. FEAR/RACISM. We're an awfully fearful country considering that, unlike most nations, we've never been invaded. (No, 1812 wasn't an invasion. We started it.) Why on earth would we need 300 million guns in our homes? I get why the Russians might be a little spooked (over 20 million of them died in World War II). But what's our excuse? Worried that the Indians from the casino may go on the warpath? Concerned that the Canadians seem to be amassing too many Tim Horton's donut shops on both sides of the border?

No. It's because too many white people are afraid of black people. Period. The vast majority of the guns in the U.S. are sold to white people who live in the suburbs or the country. When we fantasize about being mugged or home invaded, what's the image of the perpetrator in our heads? Is it the freckled-face kid from down the street – or is it someone who is, if not black, at least poor?

I think it would be worth it to a) do our best to eradicate poverty and re-create the middle class we used to have, and b) stop promoting the image of the black man as the boogeyman out to hurt you. Calm down, white people, and put away your guns.

3. THE "ME" SOCIETY. I think it's the every-man-for-himself ethos of this country that has put us in this mess and I believe it's been our undoing. Pull yourself up by your bootstraps! You're not my problem! This is mine!

Clearly, we are no longer our brother's and sister's keeper. You get sick and can't afford the operation? Not my problem. The bank has foreclosed on your home? Not my problem. Can't afford to go to college? Not my problem.

And yet, it all sooner or later becomes our problem, doesn't it? Take away too many safety nets and everyone starts to feel the impact. Do you want to live in that kind of society, one where you will then have a legitimate reason to be in fear? I don't."


Interesting that Moore suggests that when people earn $50.000 per year they are not going to steal other people's property.
Interesting because, far from the average citizen earning that amount, according to these figures (always open to interpretation of course)it corresponds to the amount that every person in the USA owes if the Public Debt is divided among them.



The Outstanding Public Debt as of 31 Dec 2012 at 01:16:57 PM GMT is:


$16,352,150,369,302.63

The estimated population of the United States is 314,151,703
so each citizen's share of this debt is $52,051.89.

The National Debt has continued to increase an average of
$3.82 billion per day since September 28, 2007!

[prendrelemick]

Now that is scary.

We used to say that whatever the debt , America is good for it

[Volya]

prendrelemick, I think that Moore is definitely right in saying all this. Sadly it seems to me that if you tried to solve those three problems, there will inevitably be more crazed idiots screaming 'Communism! Socialism! The horror!'

[Emil Miller]

Now that is scary.

We used to say that whatever the debt , America is good for it

And so they were, the trouble is that they continued saying it long after it had lost its meaning.

[prendrelemick]

prendrelemick, I think that Moore is definitely right in saying all this. Sadly it seems to me that if you tried to solve those three problems, there will inevitably be more crazed idiots screaming 'Communism! Socialism! The horror!'


You are quite right. Also, it's all very well saying - all we need to do is solve poverty! Like that is going to be easy.

[Sancho]

Simple. Just end poverty. Voila. No problem.

Reminds me of a Steve Martin monologue on an old SNL episode, How to be a millionaire and never pay taxes:

You, can be a millionaire, and never pay taxes!
You, can be a millionaire, and never pay taxes!
You say, "Steve, how can I be a millionaire, and never pay taxes?"
First - Get a million dollars.
Now you say, "Steve, what do I say to the tax man when he comes to my door and says, 'You, have never paid taxes'?"
Two simple words. Two simple words in the English language: "I forgot!"
How many times do we let ourselves get into terrible situations because we don't say "I forgot"?
Let's say you're on trial for armed robbery. You say to the judge, "I forgot armed robbery was illegal."
Let's suppose he says back to you, "You have committed a foul crime; you have stolen hundreds and thousands of dollars from people at random, and you say, 'I forgot'?"
Two simple words: Excuuuuuse me!!"

Anyway, selling a program of collectivism to Americans may be a tougher sell than one of gun control. Guns are just guns but individualism goes to our very core. It is our identity. It's how we see our ourselves and how we'd like to be seen by others (if we really cared what anybody else thinks about us). It's one of the ideas that drives innovation and it's one of the pillars that makes this place the land of opportunity. You can call it a national myth; you can call it whatever you like, but the idea that the individual can rise above his or her humble roots and make a grab at the brass ring has been one of the engines that has driven this country from the get-go. Even further, I'd say that here the individual can rise up, make a grab for the brass ring, miss wildly, fall back into gutter, and then reinvent one's self and rise up again.

Even for all the flag waving here, by and large self has always come before country in the U.S. of A. I think Europeans find this odd. A few years ago, down in Guatemala, I fell into a drunken conversation with a couple of Dutch guys about just this subject. We all acknowledged that the Dutch have more a sense of community than Americans. We didn't argue that it was a better way, but just that it was different. Frankly, I like the idea of living life without a net, taking chances - bigger risks mean bigger rewards. Of course, bigger risks also mean more devastating consequences for failure. But hey, take a chance - Custer did.

And of course the United States does have a safety net. Despite the statistic in the previous post, I don't think many people go hungry here. The underprivileged aren't underweight, but the poor do eat poorly, from a nutritional standpoint. Poor folks in the United States tend to be fat, like Michael Moore.

[Delta40]

Lol. Poverty is relative Sancho - now where's the closest McDonald's?

[prendrelemick]

.

Even for all the flag waving here, by and large self has always come before country in the U.S. of A. I think Europeans find this odd. A few years ago, down in Guatemala, I fell into a drunken conversation with a couple of Dutch guys about just this subject. We all acknowledged that the Dutch have more a sense of community than Americans. We didn't argue that it was a better way, but just that it was different. Frankly, I like the idea of living life without a net, taking chances - bigger risks mean bigger rewards. Of course, bigger risks also mean more devastating consequences for failure. But hey, take a chance - Custer did.

And of course the United States does have a safety net. Despite the statistic in the previous post, I don't think many people go hungry here. The underprivileged aren't underweight, but the poor do eat poorly, from a nutritional standpoint. Poor folks in the United States tend to be fat, like Michael Moore.


To hear Mr Moore talk you would think that Europe was a cross between Shangri-la and Utopia - without the bad bits.

Threre's been a shooting in Switzerland - 3 dead 2 injured. Switzerland has very relaxed gun laws, But within a properly run militia, all males (I think) have to do military service and keep their gun at home. The shooter was a ward of court who had, had his guns taken away in 2005. He had got hold of a vintage carbine for the attack. The victims are thought to be relatives of his.

Switzerland is a country awash with guns, nobody knows how many because there is no licencing there. But random shootings and domestic shootings hardly ever happen. Somebody in America should look very closely at Switzerland and find out why.

[Volya]

I would imagine it's primarily to do with the culture rather than the laws. Japan has some of the strictest gun laws in the world, and gun crime is very rare (from what I'm aware).

An interesting article on gun law:
http://kontradictions.wordpress.com/2012/08/09/why-not-renew-the-assault-weapons-ban-well-ill-tell-you/

[Emil Miller]

Threre's been a shooting in Switzerland - 3 dead 2 injured. Switzerland has very relaxed gun laws, But within a properly run militia, all males (I think) have to do military service and keep their gun at home. The shooter was a ward of court who had, had his guns taken away in 2005. He had got hold of a vintage carbine for the attack. The victims are thought to be relatives of his.

Switzerland is a country awash with guns, nobody knows how many because there is no licencing there. But random shootings and domestic shootings hardly ever happen. Somebody in America should look very closely at Switzerland and find out why.

Interestingly, there have been reports in the media that the Swiss are beefing up their military because they fear invasion from people trying to get in if it all goes belly-up in Europe as is looking increasingly likely.

[prendrelemick]

I would imagine it's primarily to do with the culture rather than the laws. Japan has some of the strictest gun laws in the world, and gun crime is very rare (from what I'm aware).

An interesting article on gun law:
http://kontradictions.wordpress.com/2012/08/09/why-not-renew-the-assault-weapons-ban-well-ill-tell-you/

Yes, an interesting article - but essentially missing the point. Making a start is the point I think. Saying no more assult weapons (however you define them) will signal a change in attitude by the authorities. I too am a lefty gun owner by the way.


Emil : If Europe goes tits up the Swiss will too. Remember "We're all in this together":rolleyes:

[Volya]

Yes, an interesting article - but essentially missing the point. Making a start is the point I think. Saying no more assult weapons (however you define them) will signal a change in attitude by the authorities. I too am a lefty gun owner by the way.


But as the article argues, an assualt ban will (although signalling a change I suppose) do very little to deter gun crime and mass shootings. Surely it would be better to introduce new policies that will actually work.

[DavidWebb41571]

One terrible side effect of having a vast, influential, and liberal media is that tragedies, such as the one that took place in Connecticut a few weeks ago, become a springboard for the agendas of politicians desperate for something, anything that will help their case and in the process demonize their opposition.

I listened to a broadcast on Christian radio yesterday (*GASP!) and the host stated that the core issue of most, if not all, of the mass shootings in America dating back to 2011 Tucson, Arizona shooting involving Giffords (beyond even that, I'm sure) was NOT guns; it was the mental/emotional problems that were undiagnosed or ignored in the shooters themselves. I also read somewhere in this forum that there is a parallel between buying guns and buying alcohol; does the government have the right to close liquor stores because of those who are irresponsible enough to drink and drive? Prohibition didn't work out all too well, if I remember correctly. Ergo, the government does not reserve the right to take away guns. What would be wise, and what I can agree too as far as gun policy, would be an increase and consummation of background checks for those purchasing firearms. And if people with mental problems are thoroughly assessed and barred from having firearms due to their documented and unstable nature, then cases such as Sandy Hook or Virginia Tech would most likely not occur. I am not saying that all people with mental health issues are dangerous, but some clearly fall in to that category.

And, just to state something that should be common sense, I want to point out that when a government takes, or threatens to take, guns away from law-abiding citizens, they do just that. Criminals will always find a way to procure weapons, so really, the government kills the very people they are trying to protect by disabling a person's ability to defend themselves from an armed intruder/evil-doer.

And with that, I hope you all had a wonderful Christmas/holiday and that you are not spending too much of your free time shoveling driveways (make sure to bend at the knees, not the back.)

[prendrelemick]

We may be going back over ground already covered here. The Sandy Hook shooter had known mental / emotional problems, and had received treatment, he would've probably failed a Connecticut background check. But if a country is awash with guns it's not difficult to get hold of them. He used his mother's guns. I think a surfit of guns are the problem and a blaise attitude about them.

The link between alcohol and guns seems a bit tenuous, a handgun is a weapon designed for the purpose of killing people.


I was going to bring up illegally held guns if the thread kept going. I read that in New York the authorities have made it practically impossible to legally buy a handgun there any more. (is this true?) And since then gun murders have fallen by over 60%. This is counter intuitive - there must still be millions of handguns in New York, unyet the measure seems to be working.

Meanwhile, how about taxing bullets to pay for mental health provision?

[qimissung]

are trying to protect by disabling a person's ability to defend themselves from an armed intruder/evil-doer

How many times have we seen this argument-and yet, as I have already stated, in a country awash with guns, this rarely seems to help. We have plenty of guns now, remember?

Someone suggested regulating bullets. Also, a few pages back I posted a link to an article that looked at the former ban on assault weapons.

[Volya]

We may be going back over ground already covered here. The Sandy Hook shooter had known mental / emotional problems, and had received treatment, he would've probably failed a Connecticut background check. But if a country is awash with guns it's not difficult to get hold of them. He used his mother's guns. I think a surfit of guns are the problem and a blaise attitude about them.

The link between alcohol and guns seems a bit tenuous, a handgun is a weapon designed for the purpose of killing people.


I was going to bring up illegally held guns if the thread kept going. I read that in New York the authorities have made it practically impossible to legally buy a handgun there any more. (is this true?) And since then gun murders have fallen by over 60%. This is counter intuitive - there must still be millions of handguns in New York, unyet the measure seems to be working.

Meanwhile, how about taxing bullets to pay for mental health provision?

It's not difficult to get guns anywhere as long as you're determined enough and prepared to talk to some dodgy people.

The comparison between alcohol and guns I wholeheartedly agree is a silly one. Although I am pro-gun I also find this argument silly.

Also, you should never look at statistics for gun homicide as a sign regulations are working. Look at the overall homicide rate.

[prendrelemick]

I really wish I'd found this at the beginning of this thread. It touches on what Volya said above^ .How can we tell regulations are working, there are so many variables.

http://www.motherjones.com/environment/2013/01/lead-crime-link-gasoline?page=1


Its a long article that explains the rise of violent crime in the 60's 70's and 80's and its decline in the 90's onwards, on the levels of lead in the environment.

The author claims the correlation is exact from Country to State to City down to Neighbourhood. Areas that lagged behind in adopting lead free petrol, lagged behind in falling crime figures.

It's fairly convincing stuff, HOWEVER I don't know who or what "MotherJones" is . It may be a pressure group with an anti-lead agenda.

However it does weaken the gun control argument, and shows that stats are good at finding effects - but not causes.

[Sancho]

Mother Jones is a serious publication and I don't think they have any specific agenda with respect to leaded gasoline, but they are an unabashedly liberal magazine. If I had place them on the political spectrum, I'd put them somewhere to the left of The Guardian.

As for the correlation between low-lead gas and crime - uh, I don't know, man. There were too many other factors back then, it seems to me, that had a more relevant effect: Vietnam, Civil Rights legislation, recession, OPEC crisis - just to name a few off the top off my head. Besides, the United States went to unleaded gas long before Europe did and I don't think the correlation holds up over there.

But speaking of stat's, I did read one a while back that rang true: the murder rate has gone down in the U.S. in a direct reverse relationship to the quality of Emergency Medical Services. That is to say, victims who would've died on the street a two decades ago, are now surviving because of good EMTs. Related to that statistic, not as many soldiers are dying from battlefield wounds now as did in previous wars.

[YesNo]

It probably wouldn't hurt to remove the rest of the lead in the environment.

[Sancho]

...However it does weaken the gun control argument, and shows that stats are good at finding effects - but not causes.

Ah hah! I'm catching your drift now, Mick. It was too early yesterday morning when I posted. Also I ate way too many paint chips as a child.

[cacian]

Arms or weapons' primary and ultimate motive is to destroy. Anything after that is tragically obvious.

[Volya]

A weapon doesn't have a 'motive'. Different weapons have different purposes (although they are in general all ultimately used to kill something or another).

Interesting book I'm reading at the moment: 'The Better Angels of Our Nature' by Steven Pinker. It's not primarily to do with gun law, it's about the decline of violence throughout history (I would recommend you all to read it, it's a good book).
One of the points it raises is that violence and crime will generally rise when people - criminals and the innocent - no longer trust and believe in the law and order of their government/state.

[Sancho]

Anybody else here a hopeless insomniac? Well anyway, last night at around 2am I was laying in bed, staring at the ceiling, mightily trying to get back to sleep, but I finally gave up and flipped on the TV. And there was Piers Morgan "debating" gun control with Alex Jones, a right-wing radio shouter. What fun.

First a little background: Piers is a British dude who has a talk show on CNN. He took over Larry King's slot a few years ago when Larry retired. He was formerly an editor for The Daily Mirror, and in my opinion he's pretty good, but his relative pommyness grates on certain element of the society here. Anyway, ever since the shooting at Sandy Hook, Piers has been on a gun-control rant, and more power to him as far as I'm concerned, but the last thing a bunch of dumb, gun-toting rednecks want to hear is a Nuevo Redcoat trying to take their guns away. So Alex Jones circulates a petition to have Piers Morgan deported - and he gets a bunch of siggies, (probably the same signatures that were on the petitions to secede from the union after the last election).

So, Piers invited Alex onto his show. And that's where El Sancho got involved, with his insomnia and his TV remote.

For the first thirty seconds or so everything was fairly civil. But then Jones went totally ape - a veins popping, eyes bugging, spittle flying, red-in-the-face rant. What a crackup. Piers, for his part, maintained his cool. He kept a stiff upper lip (but I swear I saw his chin quiver a couple of times).

So anyway, CNN went to commercial and during the break they got rid of the crazy man and replaced him with Alan Dershowitz, who among other things is a Harvard Law Professor.

Dershowitz said something like this: In the legal profession, we don't call someone like that a witness. We call him an exhibit.

Morgan came back with something like this: That's exactly the kind of guy I don't want to have guns.

[Sorry about paraphrases, I'm too lazy to look up the actual transcript.]

Anyway, it was entertaining - kinda like a train wreck is entertaining.

[qimissung]

Anybody else here a hopeless insomniac? Well anyway, last night at around 2am I was laying in bed, staring at the ceiling, mightily trying to get back to sleep, but I finally gave up and flipped on the TV. And there was Piers Morgan "debating" gun control with Alex Jones, a right-wing radio shouter. What fun.

First a little background: Piers is a British dude who has a talk show on CNN. He took over Larry King's slot a few years ago when Larry retired. He was formerly an editor for The Daily Mirror, and in my opinion he's pretty good, but his relative pommyness grates on certain element of the society here. Anyway, ever since the shooting at Sandy Hook, Piers has been on a gun-control rant, and more power to him as far as I'm concerned, but the last thing a bunch of dumb, gun-toting rednecks want to hear is a Nuevo Redcoat trying to take their guns away. So Alex Jones circulates a petition to have Piers Morgan deported - and he gets a bunch of siggies, (probably the same signatures that were on the petitions to secede from the union after the last election).

So, Piers invited Alex onto his show. And that's where El Sancho got involved, with his insomnia and his TV remote.

For the first thirty seconds or so everything was fairly civil. But then Jones went totally ape - a veins popping, eyes bugging, spittle flying, red-in-the-face rant. What a crackup. Piers, for his part, maintained his cool. He kept a stiff upper lip (but I swear I saw his chin quiver a couple of times).

So anyway, CNN went to commercial and during the break they got rid of the crazy man and replaced him with Alan Dershowitz, who among other things is a Harvard Law Professor.

Dershowitz said something like this: In the legal profession, we don't call someone like that a witness. We call him an exhibit.

Morgan came back with something like this: That's exactly the kind of guy I don't want to have guns.

[Sorry about paraphrases, I'm too lazy to look up the actual transcript.]

Anyway, it was entertaining - kinda like a train wreck is entertaining.

:lol: I hope that little lullaby sent you back to snoozeland!

Seriously, do they think that someone is going to come around in a big truck and confiscate all their precious guns? I'm sure there will be plenty to go around once everything is said and done.

My own son and I had a little tete a tete about the subject of gun control. Maybe they were discussing it at his job, I don't know, but he suddenly started in on Obama-"I wish I'd never voted for him," etc. and didn't he have more important things to do like balancing the budget and global warming?

And I responded, ahem, somewhat sarcastically, but also with an eye to getting him to see reason, i.e., they are not going to take away all the guns-and I said "Don't worry. This is America, where the right to own guns will always trump the lives of little children." Needless to say, it did not seem like a convincing argument to him. I really don't have a problem with acknowledging how he feels, but why exactly are he and other gun proponents so bug-eyed about this? I don't get it. My son doesn't even own a gun. He would like one, though.

But I also think that what I said is true.

[Delta40]

Omg Sancho I watched that clip on Youtube and have to say if I was American, I would not want him to be my spokesperson on ANY issue whatsoever! His ability to engage in debate is non-existent and his body language is ludicrous. What an embarrassment.

[prendrelemick]

Couldn't sleep, up at 4.30am to pour some Chicken liqueur into a chicken and apricot stand pie I made last night. It smells goood.

Alex Jones has been entertaining us for a couple of days now, he is the best spokesman for gun control I've ever seen. Anyway, whatever happens we DON'T want Piers back.

[qimissung]

Couldn't sleep, up at 4.30am to pour some Chicken liqueur into a chicken and apricot stand pie I made last night. It smells goood.

Alex Jones has been entertaining us for a couple of days now, he is the best spokesman for gun control I've ever seen. Anyway, whatever happens we DON'T want Piers back.

Why not? I don't know much about him other than he was a judge on American Idol, which I don't watch, but he seems OK. He's thinking of returning, anyway. He's taken some heat on this issue, although I haven't really been following it.

[Sancho]

^ Haha. Oh great, Mick, you guys run him out of town, so he comes over here and gets the hillbillies all riled up. And they're a prickly bunch already.

Anyhoo, I agree with Delta, and I'll take Piers any day over Alex. At points during the interview he offered to take Piers shooting, then he challenged him to a boxing match, then he put on an awful English accent, and finally (I s**t you not) he called him a Redcoat.

I never did get back to sleep, Qimi. After the show I wandered out to the garage and rearranged my toolbox. I seem to missing a 5/16 inch box-end wrench. The horror.

[Delta40]

Personally I think Piers should stick with the X Factor. He hasn't got any gumption but he can at least contain himself and yes with folk like Alex Jones, the need for gun control is only strengthened. Out of interest what is O'Reilly's position on the issue? My brother thinks he is God.

[prendrelemick]

Here's a bit more of the Piers Morgan legend.

Piers Morgan: I was disappointed you didn't sing the National Anthem when you received your Olympic Gold Medal.

Bradley Wiggins: I was disappointed you weren't arrested and jailed for hacking phones at The Daily Mirror, but there you go.

[Basil]

I don't much care for Piers Morgan, but I'll give him credit: "Why do you want to deport me?" is as good an opening question to an interview as I've ever heard.

[Sancho]

Basil, you're back! Good to hear from you.

Speaking of cycling, Mick, I hear Lance is going to talk to Oprah today. I don't know what he's going to say, but I'll bet he doesn't dig himself out of that hole he's gotten himself into. Reminds me of a joke bullet statement from a military performance report:

"This officer has reached bottom, and has begun to dig."

I honestly don't watch much TV news. I prefer print media or NPR. But then Piers and O'Reilly don't really do the news; they do opinion. I don't know what "Papa Bear's" opinion is on gun control, but I can probably make a guess that'll fall within the standard deviation. That said, I've never watched The O'Reilly Factor, but when I hear him speak elsewhere he sounds like a reasonable man. I don't usually agree with him, but at least he sounds reasonable, unlike the shouters - Rush Limbaugh et al. I'll give him this much - he's got brass - he'll show up on The Daily Show from time to time, and he maintains his cool and holds his own against Jon Stewart.

But then "reasonable" is relative. The other night, shortly after Alex Jones left, Piers had Maricopa County Sheriff, Joe Arpaio on. At the time, even Sheriff Joe seemed reasonable. He said to Piers, "Hey, don't lump me in with that last guy."

[prendrelemick]

Just watched Jon Stewart doing guns. We could do with a show like that over here.

[qimissung]

I watched the video, or most of it anyway. oh. my. god. That guy is insane! And hilarious. :smilielol5::smilielol5::smilielol5:

[Volya]

Just watched the Piers Morgan/Alex Jones 'debate' (a very one-sided debate...). Now I'm gonna admit, Alex Jones does seem mentally unstable. You really don't come across in a good light if you spend your entire time ranting without letting the opponent get a word in, especially when you mock them as well.

However despite that, Alex Jones was still right in most of what he said in regards to gun control. The problem is he sounds crazy and he acts crazy, so all the little debate did was make gun owners seem like nuts.

[Delta40]

Piers would have been better to just let Alex go off like a full automatic till his clip was empty then show the audience his bullet proof vest before going to break laughing his butt off.

[Emil Miller]

Alex Jones is a sure fire sign that the US is heading for the exit but I can't help liking a guy who shuts down Piers Morgan.

[Sancho]

Man! You guys really dislike Piers, eh?

What little I know about him and what little I've seen of him, I sort of like the guy - in the same way Americans who despised George Bush sort of liked Tony Blair - smooth delivery. Dubya would say something raw and grammatically awkward, and then Tony would dress it up and make it look respectable:

Dubya: We're gonna kill all the terr-rists! It's a war agin terr-rism. Yer either wit us, or yer wit the terr-rists!

Tony: Right, so, in the best interest of the people of the United Kingdom and the people of the United States, with whom we share a common history as well as many familial bonds, and indeed in the best interest of all right-thinking people the world over, we have decided to enter into an endeavor which shall have long-lasting and beneficial consequences to all peoples mentioned earlier in this sentence, and therefore...blah blah blah...blah blah blah...

Dubya: Yeah!

[billl]

It's common to think to oneself "Wow, what a douche..." while watching Piers Morgan Tonight, but Alex Jones is the rare guest to be the target of this thought, usually it'd be Piers. He uses that "smooth delivery" like a used car salesman or corrupt lawyer, and consistently makes the show interesting/entertaining by delivering variations on "have you stopped beating your wife" in the guise of an eloquent innocent, only inadvertently veering into insulting insinuations that would NEVER have occurred to him...

I say let's keep him over here, it's entertaining and who knows what delicious moments we'll have if the phone-hacking takes him down eventually. Not worth watching, but easily the equal of the later Larry King years.

[prendrelemick]

That's it billl. That is why I don't like him, he's sneaky and ruthless dressed as an eloquent smoothie, dishonest if you like. So he comes out strongly in favour of gun control, and you wonder - is he doing this because of his conscious, or is it to promote Piers Morgan? Then you think - has he even got a conscious?

I got a similar feeling about Alex Jones, how much of that was a performance? Was he being the simple passionate all American a la George Bush? Perhaps they were both performing for their respective audiences.

[Reader of Books]

As an American liberal with many liberal friends, I can't find anyone who likes Piers Morgan, even if we do agree with many of his (professed) views. Honestly, he makes liberals look bad because he reinforces the stereotypical image many conservatives have constructed--pompous, arrogant, and all-around unlikeable. In one interview he told Jesse Ventura (one huge nutballs) his argument was "facile," and it was, but the way he said it just sounded so pretentious. I wish he'd go away.

[Emil Miller]

http://youtu.be/q8D7vribc5c


You can't say fairer than that.

[Volya]

That is gold Emil :D I hope Piers Morgan sees it

[qimissung]

Yeah, I was watching the video again with my son, and he loved that Alex Jones shut Piers down. "That's what Piers would be doing to him, if he let him," he said. He loved that Alex Jones "owned" Piers Morgan.

Well, this Alex guy has a show, so both of them know a little something about showmanship of a certain kind.

My son said the same thing Volya did, that if you looked past the craziness he made some good points. I did a teensy bit of research and found this:

http://www.naturalnews.com/022930_drugs_antidepressant_drug.html

Which links to my concerns that mental health issues are not being addressed.

[Emil Miller]

It's obvious that a certain amount of kidology is going on in the televised debates about gun control because the media commentators on both sides of the argument have TV ratings to consider. Nevertheless, they do articulate both sides of the argument in a manner that might seem offensive to some but does forcibly reflect the division that exists on the issue. Of course one would wish for a reasoned debate on the problem but in upper-middle class discussion it becomes all to often duplicitous circumlocution.
This is why, though one may deplore his abrasiveness, Alex Jones speaks for millions of people with whom self-regarding liberals are unable to connect. I know that I am intruding here on a national scenario that doesn't directly concern me but whatever the USA decides to do on this issue, and not that of outsiders, remains the only possible solution to this problem.

[Sancho]

^Well said, and yet,


http://youtu.be/q8D7vribc5c


You can't say fairer than that.

I feel dumber for having watched that, Emil. Perhaps we should rethink the 2nd and the 1st amendments.


Yeah, I was watching the video again with my son, and he loved that Alex Jones shut Piers down. "That's what Piers would be doing to him, if he let him," he said. He loved that Alex Jones "owned" Piers Morgan.

Well, this Alex guy has a show, so both of them know a little something about showmanship of a certain kind.

My son said the same thing Volya did, that if you looked past the craziness he made some good points. I did a teensy bit of research and found this:

http://www.naturalnews.com/022930_drugs_antidepressant_drug.html

Which links to my concerns that mental health issues are not being addressed.

Does anybody here remember when cigarettes were good for you? "They open the lungs for better breathing." It'll probably be another generation or two before they figure out just how much damage has been done by all the antidepressants they've pushed on grammar schoolers.

My little 8-year-old nephew was diagnosed with ADHD. Seems he was having trouble sitting still in school. To my brother's credit, he refused to medicate the little fella with Ritalin or anything else.
He told the doctor, "That boy ain't got ADHD; he's got STD."
The doctor said, "He's got a Sexually Transmitted Disease?"
"No, Doc, he's got Sh*t To Do. It's why he can't sit still."

[Scheherazade]

My little 8-year-old nephew was diagnosed with ADHD. Seems he was having trouble sitting still in school. To my brother's credit, he refused to medicate the little fella with Ritalin or anything else.
He told the doctor, "That boy ain't got ADHD; he's got STD."
The doctor said, "He's got a Sexually Transmitted Disease?"
"No, Doc, he's got Sh*t To Do. It's why he can't sit still."https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zDZFcDGpL4U

(Particularly 3:37-5:37)

[Sancho]

I enjoyed that video, Scher. I think it's exactly what my brother intuited about ADHD. Anyhow, the little guy is doing just fine without the pharmaceuticals.

[YesNo]

http://youtu.be/q8D7vribc5c


You can't say fairer than that.

This is the first time I've heard of Alex Jones. That video pretty much discredits him.

[Scheherazade]

I enjoyed that video, Scher.If you like that video, Sancho, you might find Ken Robinson's other lectures on youtube also interesting, eg, "Do Schools Kill Creativity?" (https://www.youtube.com/watch?annotation_id=annotation_148916&feature=iv&src_vid=iG9CE55wbtY&v=r9LelXa3U_I)or "Bring on the Learning Revolution (https://www.youtube.com/watch?annotation_id=annotation_148916&feature=iv&src_vid=iG9CE55wbtY&v=r9LelXa3U_I)!" He is a wonderful speaker who raises very interesting points about education systems.

I apologise for derailing the discussion!

[Calidore]

I apologise for derailing the discussion!

And you a mod. :hand:

[Scheherazade]

And you a mod. :hand:I know, I know... It is just that education is a topic I am very passionate about and Ken Robinson is da man!

Going back to the topic... Maybe if we were to change our education system, guns would not be such a big problem.

(Yes, a last minute save)

[Sancho]

Bah, this conversation jumped the tracks a long time ago. Besides, straying off topic is one of the things that makes life interesting.

I, for one, am glad Scher shared, and I agree: Ken Robinson is El Hombre. If we'd've had teachers like him when I was in school, I wouldn't have been sitting there contemplating shooting myself half the time. (Shucks, it ain't hard staying on topic.)

But speaking of jumping the tracks, here's an educational video from Sancho's day:

http://youtu.be/8zFS7TFzlro

[qimissung]

Yeah, guys, I hear you on medicating children. You know most schools in the United States actually did away with recess? It really makes you wonder if they actually understand children. As it happens, I have two offspring who have been diagnosed with ADHD and ADD, inattentive type, so I do believe that the condition exists. We did not use medication when they were young, mostly because we didn't know then that they had it; that is not to say they did not have difficulty with school. My youngest one started taking medication in middle school. One teacher actually said that the before and after difference in his behavior was like a miracle. He opted not to take it in high school, and I won't go into the struggle he had to graduate, but he did.Sometimes he would fail a class, then pass the state mandated tests with flying colors. Go figure.

Interestingly and importantly, they sort of know now that those meds help everybody, which is why it's hard to keep Adderall on the shelves. And the medication was never meant to be used alone. It was supposed to be used in conjunction with behavioral therapy. My point being that they still don't have many effective ways of treating ADD-yet another mental health issue.

Oh yeah, Sancho, School House Rock rocks!

[prendrelemick]

Saw a doco once about a boy who went ape when fed potatoes.

By the way, as OP this is exactly how I'd hoped the thread would go.

Education is part of the whole and that animated video of Ken Robinson's lecture was just amazing. However DISCIPLINE is anpther factor, when do we start with that? How is that learned/taught, the self discipline to curb yout natural inclinations and engage with society as it is, NOT how you'd like it to be.



Update: A shooting in a Californian school. Two shots fired, one student badly injured, then the gunman was persuaded to give up his weapon.

Perhaps the significance of this was that he was armed "only" with a shotgun, that's two shots (usually.) If he could've squeezed off 30 rounds in a few seconds, who knows how high the body count would be.

[Volya]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LJdhAm_oUUs&feature=share

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4TEBy6KPjVw

^Two videos of Piers Morgan vs RATIONAL gun owners as opposed to a paranoid maniac.

prendrelemick: In America, as far as I'm aware, they are allowed shotguns with much higher capacity than here in the UK. And if the guy had chosen NOT to give up his weapon...?

[cacian]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LJdhAm_oUUs&feature=share

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4TEBy6KPjVw

^Two videos of Piers Morgan vs RATIONAL gun owners as opposed to a paranoid maniac.

prendrelemick: In America, as far as I'm aware, they are allowed shotguns with much higher capacity than here in the UK. And if the guy had chosen NOT to give up his weapon...?

By the sound of it and sorry to say they sound like they cannot get enough of it. Guns are pests and the only way to them is to scrape them off completely but I guess that is one true impossibility. Once one knows the way to a gun one could never erase it.
Guns are suicidal and have a negative effect on people in general. It is not good.

[Emil Miller]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LJdhAm_oUUs&feature=share

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4TEBy6KPjVw

^Two videos of Piers Morgan vs RATIONAL gun owners as opposed to a paranoid maniac.



So whether the Alex Jones method is used or that of those shown here, the result is still the same i.e. Piers Morgan getting shot down in flames. It must be particularly galling for the self-proclaimed occupiers of the moral high ground to see those ignorant rednecks refusing to knuckle under to their intellectually superior and righteous position on the issue.

[Sancho]

That's a variation of an old trick down south: do an awe-shucks country-boy routine to lull the pretentious New Yorker into state of self admiration, and then take him for all he's worth. Works every time. My mother, a big-city girl from Chicago, learned that trick the hard way at a used car lot in Aiken, South Carolina.

Volya is correct, and rednecks prefer high-capacity pump shotguns. There's even such a thing as a semi-automatic shotgun (sometimes ya just gotta say, WTF!?).

There's an attitude I'd like to see changed here and I think the gun-control advocates could work with it: it's the assumption that a gun guy is a tough guy. This is just my observation, but of the people I know who habitually carry a handgun, every one of them is a coward.

I'll say it again, Guns are for Cowards. (soldiers, the police, and possibly mothers protecting their babies excepted)

I've got some add campaign ideas:

"Hey there, little feller, that's a mighty big pistol yer packin'."

or

A normal citizen has a conversation with a gun goon:

"Hey, gun guy, how come all your friends call you 'Raisins'?"
"Donno. For some strange reason, they gave me that nickname at the gym in the shower one day."

[Volya]

cacian: I'm sorry, but that's completely ridiculous.

And Sancho, I don't know any gun owners, so I can't really judge, but that does seem like a generalization. I wouldn't call owning a gun for self-defence 'cowardice'.

[YesNo]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LJdhAm_oUUs&feature=share

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4TEBy6KPjVw

^Two videos of Piers Morgan vs RATIONAL gun owners as opposed to a paranoid maniac.

prendrelemick: In America, as far as I'm aware, they are allowed shotguns with much higher capacity than here in the UK. And if the guy had chosen NOT to give up his weapon...?

I don't normally watch news, so this is my first encounter with Piers Morgan. Perhaps there is something about him that is annoying you and Emil, but I don't see it in these two videos.

In the debate with Ben Shapiro, a side issue seemed to be "bullying". I agree with Morgan that Shapiro seemed more like a "bully" than Morgan did. Part of this bullying was the way Shapiro framed the banning of assault rifles as a left-right political issue. This is more of a public health issue on the order of banning cigarettes in public buildings. As Morgan noted, even Ronald Reagan, a former, conservative US President, wanted these weapons removed.

Both Shapiro and Joshua Boston argued that US citizens should have assault rifles to protect themselves against the government, however, I don't see any way that these weapons could protect anyone from a government gone mad, regardless of what one sees in some action movies. Using them would amount to suicide not revolution. Defense against such a government would have to be more clandestine.

Watching the previous video with Alex Jones made me wonder if he has assault weapons. I think we should be more worried about people like Jones with these weapons than some hypothetical demonic government.

[Sancho]

Agreed, I've always thought the tyrannical government argument was just a weak excuse for more guns.


...And Sancho, I don't know any gun owners, so I can't really judge, but that does seem like a generalization. I wouldn't call owning a gun for self-defence 'cowardice'.

Well now, that's just it. Just about every other idea on how to defend yourself against violence is better than packing a piece - avoiding the bad part of town, for instance - or running away - or kicking your attacker, right in the nuts. There're lots of clever ways to thwart an attacker without ventilating him. But once you have a pistol, it becomes your go-to option, and its effects are generally irreversible. If you kick somebody in the package, by contrast, he'll get over it. And you can reason with him while he's curled up in the fetal position on the sidewalk: "Now what was that you were saying about wanting my wallet?"

I don't know if you-all over there have followed the George Zimmerman and Trayvon Martin case, but essentially what happened was one night a young black guy gets to trash-talking a neighborhood-watch guy and the neighborhood-watch guy pulls out a gun and shoots him dead. He's claiming self defense. He should be claiming lack of moral fiber.

[Volya]

I'm not entirely sure where I stand on the matter of being able to carry a pistol around. But I think you should be allowed to own guns - even semi-automatic 'assualt' guns - in your house. In most cases I'd guess the criminal is carrying some sort of weapon, be it a knife or a crowbar. And if you're old, or weak, or ill, you won't stand a chance. A gun is the most efficient way you can stop the intruder taking your stuff, or worse.

EDIT:
YesNo, Piers is definitely the bully there. In all the debates I've seen with him on gun control, he has claimed or implied that by wanting to own guns they're condoning the mass shootings that occurred and that they don't care about the children who died. It is also somewhat of a left-right political issue, given that those who are more right-wing tend to favour gun-ownership, and those on the left are more pro gun-control (in general, obviously there will be exceptions).

[Sancho]

Well sure, the old and feeble have earned the right to act in a cowardly manner. (Also, as mentioned above, mothers protecting their babies) But a young, able-bodied man who needs a concealed weapon to feel safe when out and about, should just stay home instead, and knit a sweater or something.

[Gilliatt Gurgle]

Wow, folks are still firing away on this.


...I'll say it again, Guns are for Cowards. (soldiers, the police, and possibly mothers protecting their babies excepted)
...

Now come on Sancho, I might be afraid of the missus, but I'm not afraid of a paper target at 300 yards, or beer cans, pumpkins or a feral hog if the need came about.

For what it's worth, a refresher on this gun toten member's persepctive on owning a gun. see post 14, 54, 139 and 250.

EDIT - clarify - "toten" means I own three guns, but I do not carry on my person. They are for the reasons posted previously. Besides the 03-A3 would be spotted a mile away.


Sancho, you might appreciate 250.

[Sancho]

Wow, folks are still firing away on this.

Now come on Sancho, I might be afraid of the missus, but I'm not afraid of a paper target at 300 yards, or beer cans, pumpkins or a feral hog if the need came about. ...

Busted!

Awe shucks, Gill, I like plinking too. And after 28 years in various branches of the military, I've accumulated a number of firearms. Although, I'm not sure where they are and I'm pretty sure they're all rusty by now. The last time I actually shot a weapon was on an Army range down in Houston a couple of years ago - the taxpayers paid for it, and yes, I shot expert in rifle and pistol.

Also I'm pretty sure I'm a coward.

[Gilliatt Gurgle]

I got the gist of your message Sancho; how would one honestly react if they were carrying outside the home.

Inside the home, I would like to think that I would be in a better poistion to evaluate the situation before taking the ultimate step.
Besides, I would have exhausted many prior steps in deterring a home invader before firing a weapon assuming I had enough warning i.e. sounds of breaking in.
Hitting the lights, yelling, dog barking (the dog is old and hard of hearing that's why I put it third), firing a warning shot if need be (just make sure you know where the bullet is going)
Of course, one major first step is to seek out a "safe"(er) place to live if you can afford to as you mentioned above, which we did back in the mid '90's.

[Volya]

I think that although people might say carrying in public should be allowed because muggers might have guns or knives, if you are being held at gun/knifepoint, I don't think you'll have time to draw your gun before they get you first. And if you draw your weapon before then, you might be drawing it on an innocent person.
Another argument for allowing people to carry is to prevent mass shootings - presumably the carrier will whip out his gun and shoot down the shooter. However although this may work, you need to weigh up whether or not in total it will save lives or cost more.

I feel reasonably confident that I could defend my home without a firearm, however I would feel more confident if I did have one, because an intruder may have a knife and without a ranged weapon the odds are whether or not you manage to neutralize the attacker, you'll still get cut. Another reason would be if there were multiple intruders.

[OrphanPip]

While I agree that people should have a basic right to own weapons, and keep them within their home, there is good reason to think that guns are probably not very effective at making people safer.

Arthur Kellerman, an epidemiologist, produced a very extensive study of homicide cases in Ohio and Tennessee, and found that people who owned guns were more likely to be murdered than those who did not have guns. In fact, a gun in the home was apparently as much of a risk factor in being murdered as living with a convicted felon. Kellerman's argument to explain why this heightened risk factor exists is that gun ownership in the home drastically increases cases of domestic violence related murder, combined with a negligible impact on protecting people from criminal activity (most people are murdered by someone they know).

[prendrelemick]

I have three shotguns in the house, but they are locked up and beyond practical use for emergency burglar shooting.

By the way I found out yesterday I've been carring an illegal weapon for years. I have a little Opinel penknife, the best pocket knife I've ever owned, simple ,light, excellent steel, BUT because it locks open it is illegal to carry in a public place in the UK.

[Paulclem]

I think that although people might say carrying in public should be allowed because muggers might have guns or knives, if you are being held at gun/knifepoint, I don't think you'll have time to draw your gun before they get you first. And if you draw your weapon before then, you might be drawing it on an innocent person.
Another argument for allowing people to carry is to prevent mass shootings - presumably the carrier will whip out his gun and shoot down the shooter. However although this may work, you need to weigh up whether or not in total it will save lives or cost more.

I feel reasonably confident that I could defend my home without a firearm, however I would feel more confident if I did have one, because an intruder may have a knife and without a ranged weapon the odds are whether or not you manage to neutralize the attacker, you'll still get cut. Another reason would be if there were multiple intruders.

You don't need a ranged weapon - anything will do - chair, toilet brush, bottles of perfume from the extensive stock in the bathroom, shower gel, shampoo - imagine that lot raining down on an intruders head. It's not called "head and shoulders" for nothing. (Ranged weapon? - been playing on the x-box again? : )

If they have a gun, barricade the door/ stairs - hard to hit what they can't see - hopefully.

I can understand attitudes to guns. The best fun in the Territorial Army was the shooting, particularly the SLRs we had at that time and the General Purpose machine Guns. (I also got to fire 108mm Howitzers which was fantastic fun). But then, that was in very controlled conditions. The knowledge that this stuff can kill a lot of people makes the fun dangerous in itself in a mixing business and pleasure way.

The thing with domestic ownership is how handy with it are you as well. In a stressful situation are you likely to shoot yourself, family or the other? The army has very strict rules for live firing ranges and still people get killed and wounded. When I was in the TA we were told we'd be imprisoned if we misused or were negligent with any weapons.

It's a difficult situation in the US. I don't think more will help, but will a reduction or stricter control be popular enough?

[Volya]

Paulclem, if they have a knife then I don't want to be within stabbing distance. I doubt you'd have enough to time to barricade a door. When I'm older I think I'll get a crossbow rather than a gun, since you don't have to go through all the fuss of paperwork and licensing and it seems like it can do just as well for defence as any other gun (for sale in the UK).
I personally don't think banning guns or mass-ownership of guns has the largest effect on crime rates. There are other factors that are much more important, which is really what the government should be focused on tackling.

PS
X-box? Nah, PS3 all the way ;) (but I honestly don't play it that much - why bother leveling up on computer games when you can be leveling up on life)

[Delta40]

I imagine during a high stress situation, you would really want a steady hand with a cross bow...

[Paulclem]

Paulclem, if they have a knife then I don't want to be within stabbing distance. I doubt you'd have enough to time to barricade a door. When I'm older I think I'll get a crossbow rather than a gun, since you don't have to go through all the fuss of paperwork and licensing and it seems like it can do just as well for defence as any other gun (for sale in the UK).
I personally don't think banning guns or mass-ownership of guns has the largest effect on crime rates. There are other factors that are much more important, which is really what the government should be focused on tackling.

PS
X-box? Nah, PS3 all the way ;) (but I honestly don't play it that much - why bother leveling up on computer games when you can be leveling up on life)

You misunderstand me - you rain all the shampoo/ perfume bottles and the liquid from bleach/ toliet cleaner/ bathroom spray/ mould spray etc on them. No need to get close if you're up stairs. Two gun Volya with the bathroom spray in one hand and the mould spray in the other. Most unpleasant on the skin and eyes.

As for barricading a door - get the mattress off and get yourself behind it. Stuff the sheets under the edge of the door so it sticks - by the way - an easy eway to lock a door if you don't want intruders. Come n Volya - where's your imagination!! I jest.


I imagine during a high stress situation, you would really want a steady hand with a cross bow...

Much better with the bleachy spray.

[Emil Miller]

I was reading some time ago about a gun that was quite rare. It was a small calibre handgun that was about 4.5 inches long and lethal at close quarters. So just the thing to carry in one's pocket for the careful owner in a liberal democratic society. As someone who has been attacked by members of our wonderful inclusive society, I only wish that I'd had that weapon with me at the time because, whatever the 'liberal' authorities had done to me, the evil trash would have been deservedly six feet under. This is not a note of bravado but something that has been reasoned through and a statement of fact.

[Volya]

I imagine during a high stress situation, you would really want a steady hand with a cross bow...

I wouldn't imagine it's any more difficult than using a gun - point and pull the trigger. Although I dare say it takes longer to reload than a gun.

Paul, well I can see how it's a viable option, but personally I think I'd prefer something with a bit more 'oomph' to it, the bottle of perfume might just make them more angry. But each to his own I suppose :)

Another option is to just get a big dog. We have a fairly large dog, she's a loveable cuddly girl really, but I guess she might look more intimidating to a stranger. I know a lot of people on our road have dogs, largely due to the fact that they're mostly old rich pensioners who are lonely, but the high proportion of German Shepherds among them suggests it may also be to scare off any burglars.

EDIT: One other point about gun laws. Although gun laws aren't going to stop all criminals, it would seem that it means they're used less often. From what I'm aware the majority of criminals in the UK use knives not guns.

[Paulclem]

I wouldn't imagine it's any more difficult than using a gun - point and pull the trigger. Although I dare say it takes longer to reload than a gun.

Paul, well I can see how it's a viable option, but personally I think I'd prefer something with a bit more 'oomph' to it, the bottle of perfume might just make them more angry. But each to his own I suppose :)

Another option is to just get a big dog. We have a fairly large dog, she's a loveable cuddly girl really, but I guess she might look more intimidating to a stranger. I know a lot of people on our road have dogs, largely due to the fact that they're mostly old rich pensioners who are lonely, but the high proportion of German Shepherds among them suggests it may also be to scare off any burglars.

EDIT: One other point about gun laws. Although gun laws aren't going to stop all criminals, it would seem that it means they're used less often. From what I'm aware the majority of criminals in the UK use knives not guns.

You probably wouldn't have one loaded though - string slackening.

I also think you are underestimating the power of domestic cleaning fluids. Have you ever got washing up liquid in your eye? I have, and it is very debilitating and painful. Just imagine what jojoba perfumed shampoo will be like, and that's before we get onto the toilet duck and bathroom spray. Even perfume is a most unpleasant irritant. Failing that, you could throw the dog down at them. Knife? Call that an effective weapon? (Sprays bleach mould and mildew remover) - now that's what I call an effective ranged weapon.

[Scheherazade]

It has been more than 25 years since I actually handled a rifle anything other than dusting purposes. My father was a keen huntsman (huntsperson?) Even though it was not (and probably is still not) a common practice where we lived, he wanted me to be able to handle the rifle since we had 3 at home (also it might have been a ruse to get me clean them). I did go hunting with them but I decided it was not for me by the time I graduated from highschool when I was around 16 years old. I am glad I learnt how to shoot (not sure how much of that "learning" I have retained) but I don't have any burning desires to own one.

I really don't see the point.

[prendrelemick]

You don't need a ranged weapon - anything will do - chair, toilet brush, bottles of perfume from the extensive stock in the bathroom, shower gel, shampoo - imagine that lot raining down on an intruders head. It's not called "head and shoulders" for nothing. (Ranged weapon? - been playing on the x-box again? : )

If they have a gun, barricade the door/ stairs - hard to hit what they can't see - hopefully.

I can understand attitudes to guns. The best fun in the Territorial Army was the shooting, particularly the SLRs we had at that time and the General Purpose machine Guns. (I also got to fire 108mm Howitzers which was fantastic fun). But then, that was in very controlled conditions. The knowledge that this stuff can kill a lot of people makes the fun dangerous in itself in a mixing business and pleasure way.

The thing with domestic ownership is how handy with it are you as well. In a stressful situation are you likely to shoot yourself, family or the other? The army has very strict rules for live firing ranges and still people get killed and wounded. When I was in the TA we were told we'd be imprisoned if we misused or were negligent with any weapons.

It's a difficult situation in the US. I don't think more will help, but will a reduction or stricter control be popular enough?

Now that's what I call a deterrent!

[Sancho]

While I agree that people should have a basic right to own weapons, and keep them within their home, there is good reason to think that guns are probably not very effective at making people safer.

Arthur Kellerman, an epidemiologist, produced a very extensive study of homicide cases in Ohio and Tennessee, and found that people who owned guns were more likely to be murdered than those who did not have guns. In fact, a gun in the home was apparently as much of a risk factor in being murdered as living with a convicted felon. Kellerman's argument to explain why this heightened risk factor exists is that gun ownership in the home drastically increases cases of domestic violence related murder, combined with a negligible impact on protecting people from criminal activity (most people are murdered by someone they know).

I know I'm starting to sound like the needle's stuck in the groove, but guns are just too quick, too easy, and too dangerous. I've heard statistics exactly like that one, Orphan. I've also heard that statistically guns kept in the home for the purpose of defense are far more likely to used for suicide than to thwart a burglar. But using that line of argument is like trying to convince somebody that winning the lottery will be ruinous to them: "Yeah, I know, people are statistically less happy after they win the lottery than before - but I'm willing to take that chance."

Here are a few more stat's that pop up from time to time. I can't vouch for their validity:

A policeman wearing body armor is more likely to shot in the line of duty than a policeman not wearing body armor.

A bicyclist is more likely crash while wearing a helmet rather than not.

(Also, I hate to be curmudgeon, Paul, but was it a 105mm Howitzer? Perhaps an M-108, 105mm?)

[Paulclem]

No- you're right. 105mm. A typo.

[qimissung]

Here is another article, very even handed, written by a man who owns and sometimes carries, guns:

http://harpers.org/archive/2010/08/happiness-is-a-worn-gun/

It's called "Happiness is a Worn Gun: My concealed weapon and me." It won't solve the problem or resolve any arguments, but it really is a good look at the mindset of people who believe in guns (p.s. they are not all as crazy as Alex Jones!).

[Emil Miller]

Here is another article, very even handed, written by a man who owns and sometimes carries, guns:

http://harpers.org/archive/2010/08/happiness-is-a-worn-gun/

It's called "Happiness is a Worn Gun: My concealed weapon and me." It won't solve the problem or resolve any arguments, but it really is a good look at the mindset of people who believe in guns (p.s. they are not all as crazy as Alex Jones!).

The amusing thing is the way the he describes how the anti-gun lobby is viewed by gun carriers and their.... "resentment toward the airy-fairy elites who can enjoy the luxury of musing, sipping tea, and nibbling biscuits while the good people of the world have to work for a living and keep their guard up."

There's more than a grain of truth in the description but for real airy-fairyness, England beats the US hands down.

[Sancho]

^Gotta admit, you guys are some biscuit nibblers over there.


?...Switzerland is a country awash with guns, nobody knows how many because there is no licencing there. But random shootings and domestic shootings hardly ever happen. Somebody in America should look very closely at Switzerland and find out why.


?...However DISCIPLINE is anpther factor, when do we start with that? How is that learned/taught, the self discipline to curb yout natural inclinations and engage with society as it is, NOT how you'd like it to be...

I've been thinking about these comments. And what I've decided is, America is not Switzerland - and never will be. (Thank god) We're much bigger with a lot more diverse population. It's not that we lack discipline. (although we probably do) It's that we've got an innate suspicion of the rules. We don't look at laws and societal norms as something to reveled in or admired, but rather we look at them as something to try to get around. (I do anyway) And in this respect, I think we resemble Ireland more than England. I also think that, as a nation, we are relatively open to change. It's not usually pretty, but we do change, and this may be one of those times.

Anyway, have you ever stood on a street corner in Switzerland or Germany waiting to cross? Even if there's not a car for miles around, pedestrians will obediently wait for the light to change before stepping off the sidewalk. Now compare that to Manhattan. I'm getting a mental picture of Dustin Hoffman in Midnight Cowboy banging his hand on a Yellow Cab: "Hey-ay-AY! I'm walkin' here! I'm walkin' 'ere!"

I found the clip:
http://youtu.be/c412hqucHKw

Incidentally, a few years ago I was crossing a street in Stuttgart. It was probably eleven at night and not a car in sight. The light was red, but I went for it anyway. I know, I know, gutsy move. An old lady standing on the curb next to me, patiently waiting for the light to change, said to me, "Tsk, tsk, vhat vill the children think?" I'm not sure how she knew I was an English speaker.

[Delta40]

I thought Happiness is a Worn Gun was an excellent article. He gave a wonderful social context to the gun in America and I can really appreciate how a shift in attitude will be so difficult to achieve, especially when people with concealed weapons are tacitly considered to be 'guardians' endowed with the grave responsibility of protecting citizens who choose to live in 'condition white' mode. I believe this man because his honesty speaks out when he alludes to the hollywoodness of it all, how carrying a weapon alters his own outlook on life, revealing how crime data cannot definitively be ascribed to gun ownership and most of all, his growing concern about the informalities involved in obtaining a license to carry a weapon. Despite being pro-gun, he offers up points for everyone to mull over. Now he beats Alex Jones hands down....

[prendrelemick]

i agree with you Delta, an honest reasonable article. He is absolutely right about the allure of guns, I love the combination of tactile beauty and precision engineered functionality of mine. Every 5 years a policeman comes and asks me why I need them. What I don't tell him is that I think they are aesthetically beautiful, a coming together of oiled metal and polished walnut, I just like owning them.


Sancho: Crossing roads is difficult, you have to know which social group you belong to. The young rebel (ignorers of lights). The "setting proper example to minors" group. The "too busy to wait" group. Or like me, "the lights are just another example of this benighted so called progress thing and I want no part of it" group of old gits.

[Delta40]

Dan Baum has expressed concerns and a certain amount of insecurity as a citizen of his country. It's a common ground for people and invites discussion where everyone, progun or not can voice their concerns without attacking one another.

[Emil Miller]

Now this is what I call a very interesting video, I love the guy who says one of the weapons is ideal for targeting zombie craniums with small brains.

http://youtu.be/VM393EyIx-o

[YesNo]

I forgot about the zombies. Here's another educational video:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?NR=1&v=fw1A2vCsL0U

[Gilliatt Gurgle]

....He is absolutely right about the allure of guns, I love the combination of tactile beauty and precision engineered functionality of mine. Every 5 years a policeman comes and asks me why I need them. What I don't tell him is that I think they are aesthetically beautiful, a coming together of oiled metal and polished walnut, I just like owning them...

Aesthetics absolutely, that along with the historical and sentimental value I attach to mine.
There's something special in holding and firing a piece of history. In fact it's looking like we will be doing just that this weekend, since we postponed the Gurgle new year's celebration. There will be plenty of fireworks, bonfires, burning of the Mozartgeist and yes...shooting. This time I'll blow the dust off the old M1 Carbine. My brother will likely bring his 1894 Swedish Mauser.
The beer cans, pumpkins and feral zombies that happen to emerge from the woods, don't have a chance


Now this is what I call a very interesting video, I love the guy who says one of the weapons is ideal for targeting zombie craniums with small brains.

http://youtu.be/VM393EyIx-o


I forgot about the zombies. Here's another educational video:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?NR=1&v=fw1A2vCsL0U


Great videos!
I'm reminded of the scene with the reporter from Night of the Living Dead.
The best part is from 1:30 to about 2:45...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wxue16WMP2s

[Emil Miller]

Aesthetics absolutely, that along with the historical and sentimental value I attach to mine.
[QUOTE]There's something special in holding and firing a piece of history. In fact it's looking like we will be doing just that this weekend, since we postponed the Gurgle new year's celebration. There will be plenty of fireworks, bonfires, burning of the Mozartgeist and yes...shooting. This time I'll blow the dust off the old M1 Carbine. My brother will likely bring his 1894 Swedish Mauser.
The beer cans, pumpkins and feral zombies that happen to emerge from the woods, don't have a chance

Beats playing whist.



Great videos!
I'm reminded of the scene with the reporter from Night of the Living Dead.
The best part is from 1:30 to about 2:45...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wxue16WMP2s

It's OK if you live in the wide open spaces but there's not much room in England to contemplate long range rifles, especially in London. I haven't yet seen a zombie, that's if we discount those who spend most of their spare time in front of the TV, but looking at some of the sights shambling along London's streets, I get the impression that it's only a matter of time.
In which case I would seriously consider the Zombie Slayer for close quarter use.

[Emil Miller]

All's well that ends well.


http://youtu.be/GGOmtyTJ2f0

[prendrelemick]

But not in Albuquerque.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-21110435

[YesNo]

All's well that ends well.


http://youtu.be/GGOmtyTJ2f0

I understand the clerk was shot as well as one of the robbers. The robber was killed. It was all recorded and the police quickly found the other robber. It makes me think that if the clerk did not have a gun, the robbers would have been caught based on the recorded evidence and no one would have been shot. This didn't really end well.

[cacian]

But not in Albuquerque.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-21110435
Why did I read that as burlesque?:smilewinkgrin:

[Emil Miller]

But not in Albuquerque.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-21110435

Well you win some and you loose some but you can be sure that the Californian robbers will not be carrying out any more armed robberies.



I understand the clerk was shot as well as one of the robbers. The robber was killed. It was all recorded and the police quickly found the other robber. It makes me think that if the clerk did not have a gun, the robbers would have been caught based on the recorded evidence and no one would have been shot. This didn't really end well.

There's no guarantee that they would have been caught by the recorded evidence.

[deryk]

For protection against an unfair government. Plain and simple. An intelligent and well armed populace is not an easy one to control.

Do you think it's a realistic expectation that citizens with small arms would have any impact against systems like predator drones? The notion seems a tad more wishful than reasonable. I don't think the citizenry has been able to compete with the military in well over a century.

[YesNo]

There's no guarantee that they would have been caught by the recorded evidence.

That's true. If they only got a few hundred dollars worth of cash the police might not have been motivated to go after them as quickly as if someone were shot.

[YesNo]

Do you think it's a realistic expectation that citizens with small arms would have any impact against systems like predator drones? The notion seems a tad more wishful than reasonable. I don't think the citizenry has been able to compete with the military in well over a century.

I'm pretty sure citizens would lose against the government quickly.

However, why should we assume that if the government goes nuts those who own guns would be against the government? They may just as easily agree with the nutty government.

[prendrelemick]

yesterday a man at a gun show slipped and shot himself.

NRA- Guns don't kill people, Icy sidewalks kill people!

[Delta40]

yesterday a man at a gun show slipped and shot himself.

NRA- Guns don't kill people, Icy sidewalks kill people!

Am I allowed to laugh aloud?

[Basil]

Icy sidewalks are the silent killer no one wants to talk about.

[qimissung]

Do you think it's a realistic expectation that citizens with small arms would have any impact against systems like predator drones? The notion seems a tad more wishful than reasonable. I don't think the citizenry has been able to compete with the military in well over a century.

lol. Also, Romania and Ceausescu. I believe the citizenry there simply gathered in the square before his official residence and took their country back, without any guns whatsoever. Obviously there was a bit more to the story than that, but that is what essentially happened.

Check out the Albert Einstein Institution which promotes nonviolent resistence:

http://www.aeinstein.org/

And the book "From Dictatorship to Democracy" by Gene Sharp which is available for download in 27 languages on that website.

[prendrelemick]

I also remember Boris Yeltzin and unarmed citizens facing down tanks when The Russian Generals tried to seize power in Moscow.

I reckon soldiers don't like shooting their unarmed mates. Whereas armed militia are a different matter.

[Sancho]

Well said, Mick.

Boris had brass, and so did the guy in Tianamen Square facing a line of tanks with - a shopping bag. Those guys had chutzpah. They engaged in the kind of civil disobedience that would make Henry David Thoreau proud; a gumbah with an AR-15 (probably bought with money borrowed from his kid's college fund), not so much.

[prendrelemick]

By the by, Stephen King has "published" via Kindle Singles his thoughts on gun ownership. I haven't read it, but I saw some excerpts and comments the other day. He owns several hand guns but generally welcomes gun control and is fairly scathing on those who are against. "Guns" available for 99p at Amazon.

[bIGwIRE]

I'd like to weigh in as a man born and raised in the north woods of America.
Up here hunting is a large part of our culture, and every household I can think of contains at least one rifle. My wife and I have several. We "role our own" bullets and I have my come ups taped to the side of my. 308. In other words, I take my responsibility of ethical hunting seriously, and spend time improving my skills as a rifleman.
That said, for me, rifle hunting is more "harvesting" than it is hunting.
Anyone who truly loves hunting and the challenge it brings will be out there with a bow and arrows, not a rifle.

As far as rifles for self defense or fighting crazy governments, it isn't really my thing.
I don't believe it is my right to decide if another man lives or dies, and flight/evasion is usually a better tactical decision anyway. Many people I know, in north central USA, feel the same as me.

So, I like my guns, but I don't love them. I think Europe has some good ideas. I'd trade my guns for topless beaches any day. Heeee!

[prendrelemick]

Bigwire. I think you are the demographic that the NRA are trying to scare, they are after your hearts and minds, they are trying to connect ALL gun owners with those who want to keep oozies under the bed. In fact if the proposals are passed as they are you will not be affected - and quite right too.

[bIGwIRE]

Bigwire. I think you are the demographic that the NRA are trying to scare, they are after your hearts and minds, they are trying to connect ALL gun owners with those who want to keep oozies under the bed. In fact if the proposals are passed as they are you will not be affected - and quite right too.

Its easy to feel bullied from both sides of this issue. I've heard from one side, even in this very thread, that if I fight to keep an assault rifle I'm sacrificing little school kids....wth??... while the nra and the like say if I don't I'm sacrificing my freedom......again.....wth??
For me, I just try to stick by my values and out of the politics, ignoring the scare tactics and passive aggressive threats from both sides.

[prendrelemick]

Waking up this thread because of the Ex LA cop, who lost his job and because he feels a sense of injustice, is shooting his former collegues. It is a situation that sums up the whole deadly combination of factors, that from here seems peculiar to America. Firstly, there is a confidence in violence that runs through society from the Government down-a belief that violence is the answer. You can put things right with violence. So the ex cop has a grievance and resorts to violence.

Then the is the cult of the individual over and above society. The cop feels he has a right to declare war on the LA police. It's his call as a free and independent citizen. and if people get killed, it's unfortunate but there are always casualties in war.

And finally, there is all that freely available weaponry, enableing him to persue his war easily and effectively.

[Volya]

Waking up this thread because of the Ex LA cop, who lost his job and because he feels a sense of injustice, is shooting his former collegues. It is a situation that sums up the whole deadly combination of factors, that from here seems peculiar to America. Firstly, there is a confidence in violence that runs through society from the Government down-a belief that violence is the answer. You can put things right with violence. So the ex cop has a grievance and resorts to violence.

Then the is the cult of the individual over and above society. The cop feels he has a right to declare war on the LA police. It's his call as a free and independent citizen. and if people get killed, it's unfortunate but there are always casualties in war.

And finally, there is all that freely available weaponry, enableing him to persue his war easily and effectively.

I agree with everything said here. Also saw that the police shot two women because they thought they were the shooter... seems like a difficult mistake to make, considering the shooter is a large man...

[qimissung]

And your point is?

It's not going to change, predrelmick. There was a story on the news last night that a local gun manufacturer cannot keep up with the current demand for guns. My son said that would go on for at least two years.

Here's something else:



The article is titled "How many people have been killed by guns since Newtown?"


http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/crime/2012/12/gun_death_tally_every_american_gun_death_since_new town_sandy_hook_shooting.html

[Ecurb]

I think that Muslim women should have the right to bare arms, even in Iran.

[Sancho]

Hindu women too, particularly in Dehli.

[Sancho]

Waking up this thread because of the Ex LA cop, who lost his job and because he feels a sense of injustice, is shooting his former collegues. It is a situation that sums up the whole deadly combination of factors, that from here seems peculiar to America. Firstly, there is a confidence in violence that runs through society from the Government down-a belief that violence is the answer. You can put things right with violence. So the ex cop has a grievance and resorts to violence.

Then the is the cult of the individual over and above society. The cop feels he has a right to declare war on the LA police. It's his call as a free and independent citizen. and if people get killed, it's unfortunate but there are always casualties in war.

And finally, there is all that freely available weaponry, enableing him to persue his war easily and effectively.

I found this clip from Full Metal Jacket. It may have applicability with respect to our present shooter out in California.

http://youtu.be/a5IWK9sRYTs

[prendrelemick]

I think that Muslim women should have the right to bare arms, even in Iran.


Hindu women too, particularly in Dehli.


It does seem extremely desirable to arm the weak. That's how it starts, I bet our rogue ex policeman sees himself as a victim.

A far better idea is to have a strong rule of law based on equality and justice.

[qimissung]

Hey, I'm a woman. I guess I need a gun.

Makes me think of a scene in some movie where they all end up with their guns pointed at each others head. Hehe.

[Ecurb]

I support women's rights to bare arms, and bare faces, too (in case anyone didn't get my earlier homophone). Here in Oregon, the right to bare not only arms, but the entire body is considered a First Amendment right, not a Second.

[prendrelemick]

Doh, I completely missed that !

[Sancho]

I support women's rights to bare arms, and bare faces, too (in case anyone didn't get my earlier homophone). Here in Oregon, the right to bare not only arms, but the entire body is considered a First Amendment right, not a Second.

Haha!

Good won.

[Gilliatt Gurgle]

It was only a matter of time for the classic “bearing of arms” jokes to surface.

Seriously though, I find it strange that we should be discussing the rights to any part of a bear, perhaps their hide for a rug begins to make some sense, but their arms…that’s stretching it.

[Emil Miller]

http://imageshack.us/a/img18/1383/xbrm3a.jpg

[cacian]

After few thoughts I think yes one can have the right to bear whatever they wish including arms but what what they do not have to is the right to pull the trigger.

[prendrelemick]

I see the Former Police Officer Dorner situation has been brought to a suitably violent end. Little old ladies in pick-up trucks may safely drive once more.

[tonywalt]

I find it so typical that there is a reopening of the investigation into the greviences of the shooter. Really?!?!

I always have to smirk at 'ad hoc' reactionary government decisions. Was the investigation re-opened because he killed people and there was a Media Frenzy? Yes:frown5:. Now a bunch of money and resources have to be re spent all over again. Typical.

Eh, give it a few days and we will be on to something else more sensational.

[prendrelemick]

I read the statement he posted a few days ago, and he may have had a good case for the LAPD to answer - that he was sacked for reporting a collegue who assulted a prisoner . He begins fairly clear and collected, but seems to decend into a rambling, angry tirade, blaming everyone. (paranoia?) On balance I would say he over-reacted.

[Paulclem]

I find it so typical that there is a reopening of the investigation into the greviences of the shooter. Really?!?!

I always have to smirk at 'ad hoc' reactionary government decisions. Was the investigation re-opened because he killed people and there was a Media Frenzy? Yes:frown5:. Now a bunch of money and resources have to be re spent all over again. Typical.

Eh, give it a few days and we will be on to something else more sensational.

You're right Tony. Oscar Pistorious - South Africa's double amputee Olympic sprinter - arrested on suspicion of shooting his girlfriend dead.

[qimissung]

I find it so typical that there is a reopening of the investigation into the greviences of the shooter. Really?!?!

I always have to smirk at 'ad hoc' reactionary government decisions. Was the investigation re-opened because he killed people and there was a Media Frenzy? Yes:frown5:. Now a bunch of money and resources have to be re spent all over again. Typical.

Eh, give it a few days and we will be on to something else more sensational.

I see your point, Tony, but my understanding is that he was a whistleblower, and I have to wonder why the LAPD couldn't be bothered to look into the allegations rather than summarily firing him. Not that I think he had a good reason to go kill innocent people over it, but that doesn't mean he wasn't wronged.

[tonywalt]

I see your point, Tony, but my understanding is that he was a whistleblower, and I have to wonder why the LAPD couldn't be bothered to look into the allegations rather than summarily firing him. Not that I think he had a good reason to go kill innocent people over it, but that doesn't mean he wasn't wronged.


I agree Quimmisung, more than you think.

He likely did have a legit grievance and I bet the cops did kick a homeless guy. It just seems so crazy when the police chief is speaking with venom about the pursuit of the accused (it's obvious they were going to shoot him from the press conferences-I found the gung ho language unsettling) and then stating that the grievance case was re-opened. It supports my belief that the police ostracize and squash people who do not graze with the pack.

On Cops: I am on friendly terms with quite a few cops at my local pub and my observation is that they Love being cops- and the charge of Authority and Action sits very well with them. . Last night they spoke of cracking down on ganja dealers on Island. I listened silently with one eye sneaking glances at the rugby match and the other eye stationed to their boring conversation.

[qimissung]

Yes, I've heard there can be a very thin line between being a cop and being a criminal.

[prendrelemick]

A little more on the Pistorious thing. It turns out he owned a lot of guns, he had a machine gun by the door and loaded pistols on the sideboard. The details are not known yet, but there was a domestic argument.

Those who insist that guns don't kill people - people kill people can't deny that a domestic argument with loaded guns present is not a safe situation.

[OrphanPip]

The statistics are pretty straightforward, a gun in a home is more likely to be used against a member of the household than against a criminal.

[BienvenuJDC]

The statistics are pretty straightforward, a gun in a home is more likely to be used against a member of the household than against a criminal.

I don't believe your statistics. Anyone can claim to do a study. The accuracy of such a claim could never be proved.

[OrphanPip]

I don't believe your statistics. Anyone can claim to do a study. The accuracy of such a claim could never be proved.

That's a convenient way to handwave away anything that you don't want to believe rather than engage with data critically. But, whatever.

[BienvenuJDC]

That's a convenient way to handwave away anything that you don't want to believe rather than engage with data critically. But, whatever.

It's also convenient to make a blanket statement that the statistics prove your point

[osho]

In fact the right to bear arm is perilous. People can feel safe no doubt by holding arms but there are dangers and,people are not always in the same state of minds and the likelihoods of misusing arms is very high. Children are more likely to misuse. In fact today we live in complex social constructs. We have polices and armies to protect us. Of course a country need to let its people hold arms if it fails to protect them specially in times of civil wars. Therefore, in normal situations to let people arms become great threats.

[qimissung]

http://www.salon.com/2013/02/28/texas_school_employee_shot_in_gun_safety_class/

I don't know whether to

:eek::willy_nilly::frown2: or simply :lol::lol::lol::lol::lol:

I have to admit I am having a 'what is this world coming to' moment. This,apparently, is going to be the solution.

[Volya]

Accidents happen, I don't see how that article has a huge impact on the issue of gun control.

[qimissung]

It's not that. It's that they are moving forward to arm teachers. I do have a problem with that.

[Volya]

Ah, well I'd agree that it's not the best solution...

[prendrelemick]

They're arming school janitors! Are they mad, don't they watch Scooby-doo?

[prendrelemick]

Can't pass gun laws. Won't reform the filibuster. Can't fix anything that needs fixing. What is the Senate actually for?

It seems to be a self serving entity existing within a bubble concerned only with it's own little dramas and interests. Real life cannot enter, and must look down from the public gallery in puzzlement and sorrow.

[prendrelemick]

I was going to wake up this thread (again) but it's all been said. Just Google Jon Stewart's take on Charleston. -"We'll still do Jack****"...... Yeah, that's us!"

[Sancho]

In the wake of the Charleston Church shooting, I see that Southern Republicans are lining in droves up to pull the Confederate Battle Flag down from the South Carolina State House grounds, but not a single spineless one of them has mentioned the elephant in the room - GUNS.

So again, (and I think posted this earlier), - guns are for cowards, and by extension for Republicans.

[Ecurb]

Guns are not necessarily 'for cowards'. That guy who shot it out with the police station in Texas was no coward -- to use just one example.

I agree, Sancho, that owning a personal protection firearm is (slightly) cowardly for most people (there are exceptions). That's because most statistics suggest that we are slightly safer (and our families are slightly safer) if we don't own a personal protection firearm. It's cowardly to irrationally pander to one's fears.

ON a literary website, however, we should use words accurately. I remember G.W. Bush calling the 9/11 terrorists "cowardly" when the only thing we knew about them is that they were courageous. It seems to me that there's a temptation to call macho behavior "cowardly" because it denies the transgressors a virtue they covet. However, in the case of the 9/11 terrorists, it was ridiculous. Owning guns can be cowardly (if it involves irrationally pandering to one's fears), but it is not necessarily cowardly. In general, terrorists (including Dylann Roof) are not cowardly. Cowardly bigots and whackos are afraid to act out their evil fantasies; Roof was not. Cowardice would, perhaps, have been one quality Roof would have benefited from (as would the rest of us).

[Sancho]

There are exceptions to every rule. In my original post on this thread I think I said, "'cepting the police and soldiers." But based on our recent history, I'm not even sure about the police anymore. Perhaps a woman with small children walking through a dangerous neighborhood late at night might need an equalizer, but of course that begs the question ... What's she doing there in the first place?

At any rate, I'll stick with my original assessment - guns are indeed for cowards. And Roof is a tremendous coward - he shot unarmed civilians. Had he wanted to act on his poorly thought-out theory of racial inequality in an uncowardly manner, he could have stripped to waist, walked into that church, put his dukes up, and said something like, 'I'm here to fight all you negroes.'

They'd've probably just shewed him away.

What about the man who shoots a Kodiak Bear? Brave? I say coward. The bear doesn't have a gun, therefore it's not a fair fight. Now a guy in a loin cloth hunting bears in the tall grass on Kodiak Island with nothing but a Bowie Knife - that dude has cajones, not much between the ears, but a big ole pair of swinging...oh never mind.

Yes, this is a literary web site, and words have meaning, and I meant what I said.

[Ecurb]

You have a strange notion of what constitutes cowardice, Sancho. Obviously, attacking a Kodiak bear with one's bare hands takes more courage than shooting it with a 30/06 from 100 yards. But how does shooting the bear indicate "cowardice"? Not all activities for which courage is unnecessary are "cowardly".

Shooting unarmed civilians is not "cowardly". True: it is not as courageous as trying to kill them all with your bare hands, but so what? Most things we do are not as courageous as other potential things we might do. That doesn't make them "cowardly". Clearly, Roof put himself at far greater risk by murdering nine people than he would have if he had simply stayed home and posted racist screeds on his website, or had gone shopping at Piggly Wiggly. Are all shoppers in every Piggly Wiggly store "cowardly" because they could be fighting Kodiak bears with bowie knives instead of buying loaves of bread?

Saying a man who shoots a Kodiak bear is "cowardly" because it takes MORE COURAGE to hunt the bear with a bowie knife is ridiculous. It's like saying the man who eats dinner with his wife and children is cowardly because he could be shouldering his way in amongst the hungry lions to feast upon raw zebra on the African veldt. It's a non sequitur.

You may have meant what you said, but what you said makes no sense.

[Sancho]

Here's another rule of thumb for ya, E' - conversations with pedants are always tedious.

Coward is a word generally used as a pejorative, with is how I meant it and which you pointed that out as well. But here's the greater issue and the point of my earlier post today: conservative politicians would rather talk about removing the confederate battle flag from the South Carolina State House grounds than do the hard work of gun-control legislation.

You see, they're deflecting the focus from something hard to something easy, which is act of cowardice, in my opinion. Kind of like deflecting this argument from a discussion about Republican political maneuvering into some weird, pedantic, Bill-Maher-ish rant about what constitutes cowardice. And I'm guessing a reflexive response by you whenever you hear the word used in the way I used it.

[Ecurb]

Here's another rule of thumb for ya, E' - conversations with pedants are always tedious.

Coward is a word generally used as a pejorative, with is how I meant it and which you pointed that out as well. But here's the greater issue and the point of my earlier post today: conservative politicians would rather talk about removing the confederate battle flag from the South Carolina State House grounds than do the hard work of gun-control legislation.

You see, they're deflecting the focus from something hard to something easy, which is act of cowardice, in my opinion. Kind of like deflecting this argument from a discussion about Republican political maneuvering into some weird, pedantic, Bill-Maher-ish rant about what constitutes cowardice. And I'm guessing a reflexive response by you whenever you hear the word used in the way I used it.

Well, yes, when I read people (including you) use words incorrectly my "reflexive response" is one of disapproval. Once again, you present a false dichotomy. Is everyone who supports removing the Confederate flag from the South Carolina Capitol "cowardly" deflecting the focus from gun control? Personally, I support both removing the Confederate flag and passing strict gun control legislation, and I don't think that either position is "cowardly" (they're not courageous, either). Dozens of politicians support removing the Confederate flag, and many of them ALSO support gun control. Are only the Republicans who support removing the flag "cowardly", or are all of the Democrats who support removing the flag cowardly as well?

I suppose that politicians refusing to address controversial issues because addressing them risks losing votes constitutes a (minor) form of moral cowardice. Still, based on your Kodiak bear example, that's not exactly what you were saying in your previous posts.

[Clopin]

Incidentally people seem a bit confused about what gun control can and can not do. In Canada there was a recent shooting carried out with firearms which were illegally purchased and held, but this didn't stop everyone on Facebook from clamouring for stricter gun regulation.

The guns were already illegal and yet they were used to kill someone, oops, what do we do now?

[Clopin]

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_politics_in_Switzerland

I've also never been convinced that 'more guns means more gun crime' (though it seems reasonable to me that firearms be a little harder to obtain than they are in the U.S at the moment). I mean virtually every household could reasonably be expected to contain kitchen knives which could be turned into quite dangerous weapons at any moment (actually even stock glasses for drinking out of can be deadly or extremely dangerous when turned into a weapon), but crimes which make use of these implements are relatively rare.

[Ecurb]

I agree,Clopin. There are clearly no magic bullets to prevent mass murder (to use a trite, but appropriate, metaphor). Nonetheless, I bet limiting the sales of assault weapons would help. I saw an article that showed that Switzerland is the one European country that is armed to the teeth, and although they don't approach the U.S. in gun violence rates, they're still high by European standards. The real question, though, is not the "gun violence" rate, but the overall violence rate, and the extent to which easy access to guns might make violent crimes more deadly. More guns (I'm certain) means more gun crimes; does it mean more deadly crimes? (I bet it does, but I'm not sure.)

However, not everyone who opposes gun control is a heartless bastard who is glad that black preachers have been murdered and flies the Confederate flag from his pickup. We probably shouldn't allow horrific public tragedies to influence our decisions on gun control one way or the other.

[Clopin]

In Switzerland .21 of a person dies by gun related homicide per 100'000 of the population, in America the ratio is 3.55/100'000. So Usanians, while being about one and a half times more armed than the Swiss, see about twenty times the gun violence resulting in deaths (accidental deaths in every country seem to be pretty small compared to homicides).

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_firearm-related_death_rate

Countries like Japan, Norway and Hong Kong have basically no gun violence to speak of which is interesting. I buy some correlation between fewer guns and fewer gun crimes but it's definitely not a one to one ratio and it can't be extrapolated that way.

[Sancho]

Ecurb, you ignorant slut.

Your poor understanding of the concept of cowardice and bravery is only eclipsed in stupidity by your poor reading comprehension, and perhaps your basic misunderstanding of how human language works.

The flag issue is a red herring meant to deflect attention from the real issue, the hard issue, the issue that will cost a Republican Senator his seat if he supports it - gun control. And it will take a Republican to do it, a Republican with spine, someone who knows it'll cost him a steep price but he does it anyway, because it's the right thing to do. That would be bravery, the opposite of cowardice. Gun control is part of the Democrat's platform, which of course requires no special bravery to support. You seem to sort of get it in your last paragraph, but the false dichotomy you attributed to me was purely your invention, a result of your poor reading comprehension.

So someone facing danger or adversity and knowing the consequences and doing it anyway is brave, but someone facing the exact same situation but being blissfully unaware of any personal danger is not brave. A trembling soldier who is about to go over the top and has lost control of his sphincter, but goes over the top anyway, is brave. A soldier who has no clue what awaits him as he charges over the top of the trench but does it with his chest puffed out and his chin set firmly is not brave.

I don't think it's too much of a leap to say that if brave man faces danger and knows the consequences, a coward also knows the consequences but puts others (even bears) in danger instead of himself.

A man who shoots an unsuspecting Kodiak Bear (probably one he baited) from a safe distance (and probably from up in a tree) is a coward. He's not less courageous than the Bowie-Knife guy; he's just not courageous at all. Worse yet, he's a phony-brave man.

A grown man who beats a child is a coward.

A man who shoots a bunch of unarmed church-goers is a coward.

And I hate to agree with Dubya, but he was right - the 9-11 attackers were cowards too. Yes they knew they would die in the attacks, but they were also convinced that their deaths would take them to paradise. Good for them. The people they murdered just went to their deaths in a pile of rubble.

Let's get around to language. When I call a pseudo-tough guy a coward, it's an insult. That's how I mean it, and that's how it's typically received. (And that's when I usually prepare to duck a punch) but it's not using the word incorrectly. It's possibly using the word creatively. When Rush Limbaugh calls Barrack Obama a Socialist, it's an insult. It has very little to do with the philosophy of Socialism. To only use words in a narrowly-defined, academic manner is a dull use of the language and not the way human language works anyway. And possibly it's silly.

And "silly" is a good example of a word whose meaning has changed dramatically over the years. It used to mean something akin to "pious". Then it morphed into something like "touched by God". Then it morphed into something like "touched in the head". And finally it worked its way around to meaning, well, "silly".

Words change over time and so do symbols. I've watched the meaning of the Confederate Battle Flag change in my life time. I grew up in Columbia, South Carolina. I watched the flag go up on top of the State House dome, and then I watched it come down, only to be placed in a more prominent place in front of State House. I've watched it go from the sort of thing old women put on the graves of their long-dead ancestors who died in the war, to a bumper sticker on a pickup truck that dragged a black man to his death in Jasper, Texas, which is why it takes no extraordinary bravery for a Southern Republican to call for its removal. For once, they'll be agreeing with the president, it belongs in a museum.

At any rate, E', ( if you're still reading) I was just yanking your chain with the ignorant-slut comment. Also I know your reading comprehension is just fine, maybe a little formal for an informal forum, but just fine nonetheless.

By the way, me and the old lady are about to leave the South for good in the next couple of months. We're moving to the Pacific Northwest - your neck of the woods. Wanna grab a coffee sometime?

[Ecurb]

It is doubtless true, Sancho, that Dubya was simply trying to insult the 9/11 terrorists, but its strange that he insulted them with the one epithet that we know is false. Calling people about whom we know nothing except that they are extremely brave "cowards" is, if nothing else, interesting.

If the Kodiak bear hunter brags about how courageous he is, a few insults might do him some good. And beating children takes some courage, these days: look at what happened to Adrian Peterson when he did it.

Most important, we should remember the lessons we learned from Custard, the Cowardly Dragon. Belinda, Ink, Blink and Mustard got all the credit for bravery -- but who gobbled up the pirate? Still, since Custard had a "Mouth like a fireplace, chimney for a nose,/ And realio, trulio, daggers on his toes...." he was heavily armed. Are you suggesting that (like Dylann Roof and Adrian Peterson) Custard was actually a coward, because he possessed such armaments? If so, I call "Heresy!" (For those who were abused as children in that your mommies never read you "The Tale of Custard the Dragon", here's a link: http://www.eecs.harvard.edu/~keith/poems/Custard.html )

Here in the Pacific Northwest we don't have a problem with racism because everyone is white (except a few Native Americans and East Asians). We do have lots of guns, though, and a hefty smattering of gun-nut survivalists. Where are you moving? The Northwest is a big place, but I go to Portland fairly often. Coffee, of course, is our regional passion (along with microbrewed beer and pot, which is now legal in Oregon and Washington). Forget Starbucks, though. Here in Oregon, we hate everything from Washington, because our lives are so idyllic that we have nothing better to do.

[Sancho]

Well, of course Custard is the only truly brave one in the poem. Belinda, Ink, and Blink are the phony-brave. And the Pyrate (the only one with a firearm) is the coward. Custard, like my trembling soldier going over the top, despite knowing the consequences, faces his aggressor with grit. Even though Custard is well armed, he must close with the enemy. The Pyrate, by contrast, holds a stand-off weapon (and a bottle of rum for courage), and merely needs to flick his finger to kill his enemy - the coward's way. Although in the poem it seems he is too drunk to hit what he's aiming at. And that's good news for Custard but no slight on his bravery.

So I think bravery can be perspectival, and also a function of proximity to the threat. Most of us think of an Army Sniper as a brave man, but I've known foot infantry soldiers who consider the sniper business to be somewhat cowardly. You see a sniper hides himself and fires his weapon from a great distance. The foot soldier has to look the enemy in the eye. Of course an Army Sniper could look at an Air Force Fighter Pilot in the same way a foot soldier looks at a sniper. And I suppose a fighter pilot could look at a Predator Drone Pilot, who is sitting in a trailer in Nevada killing people 4000 miles away, with contempt. By the same token a man with only a knife might consider a man with an M-4 a weak-kneed panty waist, and a man with only his fists...I can take this to absurd levels, but I can find no way to assign bravery to a man who beats a child. That man is a coward, despite the societal repercussions he will face. Now the child who places himself between his little sister and his drunken abusive father is truly brave.

Ah well, if I could figure out how to get to work from Eugene, I'd move there in an instant. Great place. My wife has relatives over in Springfield. We're presently working on a short-sale house in Gig Harbor, WA and short sales can take a while. I'll be working in Seattle and she'll probably be working in Olympia. I'm relatively familiar with area south of Seattle, being as I spent a fair amount of time at Fort Lewis years ago.

As for, Portland...I'm in. I've had the pleasure of spending several fine, rainy afternoons browsing the stacks at Powell's on Burnside. And I agree, those people up there do seem to have an unusual affinity for a good cup of Joe. You know what goes well with coffee - ice cream! Last year, on a hot summer night, I left Powell's and in a moment of weakness stopped at Ruby Jewell's scoop shop a couple of blocks away. Mmm-Mmm good.

[ennison]

The argument that you can turn broken sticks into weapons is silly. Lets drop some firewood to the Kurds and some broken glass. That'll frighten these Jihadi coves. Yanks hate and fear themselves and their governments. So they need ****-extensions to feel better, more secure. It'll give their opponents something to pry from their cold dead paws. What's a few thousand domestic shootings. It's a price worth paying to live in the land of the brave und the Frei. Gawn yerselves. Blood s funky fun. How come this comes under "discussion" and "serious"

[Pompey Bum]

Someone's had his wee dram o' Yank hatred this morning, eh? ;-)

[prendrelemick]

I strongly suspect I'm a coward, but have never been tested. If I was threatened with some sort of deadly violence I think I would react with some fairly pathetic grovelling or some intense running away, or some such. Andy Mac Nab (ex SAS) discribes more than once how difficult it is to get up and move under fire, when all you want to do is bury yourself deep into the ground. You train and train and train, but only when the time comes do you find out - you either got it or you aint. Someone said a brave man dies but once, a coward a hundred times, but according to Andy it's the same fear for both - some control it better than others.

[Sancho]

Oh, I don't know, Mick. I believe that a brave man is also a humble man, not a braggart. Knowing what I know of you, I'm sure that anybody stupid enough to threaten your family would not enjoy facing your wrath.

If I were to continue my above theory of bravery as a function of proximity to the threat, I'm going to have to consider internet tough-guys. I propose that they are a group who falls squarely in the phony-brave category, ^ennison for instance.

And the funny thing about this post is that by calling him out, I'm also putting myself in the phony tough-guy category.

Which is probably true.

[Pompey Bum]

If I were to continue my above theory of bravery as a function of proximity to the threat, I'm going to have to consider internet tough-guys. I propose that they are a group who falls squarely in the phony-brave category, ^ennison for instance.

Since I made the earlier semi-snarky remark about ennison, I want to add that I respect him and greatly enjoy his posts. I have never found him cowardly and did not mean to (nor did I) imply it. I have a low tolerance, though, for Yank bashing, especially when applied to such a polarizing issue for my country. But ennison is a hyperbolic cat, and I was just giving it back to him in a spirit of rough-ish fun.

Sancho, you're cool, too.

Is it me, or are the LitNet regulars acting a bit pissy these days? :)

[Sancho]

Haha!

Pompey, you may be right about pissy-ness. Probably got my panties all in a bunch. Honestly I'm just trying to have a little fun.

Hey, here's a cool video of a brave soldier, named Fluffy:

http://youtu.be/mv3tJXpDlEM

[Pompey Bum]

Yeah, it's too bad Clopin and Ecurb aren't around. Those two always manage to hug it out. Heh heh. :grouphug:

Thanks for the video, too. I'd seen it before, but it's still pretty inspirational. I wonder if the person with the camera really should have been filming it, though. Blackbears are supposed to be cowards, but I still wouldn't want one in my living room.

[prendrelemick]

The Victoria Cross is awarded for "valour in the face of the enemy." I've been looking at some of the citations -they almost beggar belief. From WW1 up to today, single handedly charging machine gun nests might get you one, though nowadays saving wounded collegues under fire is more the thing. In Victorian times, continuing to direct artillary with both your legs blown off would do. The common factors seem to be; showing complete disregard for personal saftey, acting on ones own initiative and being sucessful (though not necessarily alive) in acheiving the goal.
There are other kinds of bravery I'm sure, but putting your life on the line for a common benefit is the gold standard.

[prendrelemick]

Groundhog day.

[Kemijost]

Some nut was running from the cops through the woods after firing on one officer after a road rage incident in our usually Mayberry type town. Rumour was he still had a gun. The helicopter from the police was practically landing in the field in front of the house, he was so low, but he kept circling around. Until my husband called and said "lock the doors and don't go outside" I thought it was a medivac in progress. After the prison break last summer, which had everyone freaked out in these parts for weeks, I was made very nervous. And as my husband had run out with the fire department looking for the guy, I wanted some peace of mind:willy_nilly:, so I loaded my husband's hunting rifle. I had been watching too much "Game of Thrones this week, as I was recupping from a nasty virus, so I was, without a doubt, ready to hold down the fort.

Mind you, I am anti-gun in general. I am not anti-hunting, but that is another story.

The thing is, the genie is out of the bottle. There are sooo many guns around, how do we control them all? The sheer number of weapons is monumental, and they make thousands more each day. Conflict.

[prendrelemick]

"The thing is, the genie is out of the bottle. There are sooo many guns around, how do we control them all? The sheer number of weapons is monumental, and they make thousands more each day. Conflict. "

Suppose you make a start, anything, just the smallest of starts.

[Sancho]

How about deterrents for crimes committed with guns. We could bring back public executions and mutilations. We could dust off the old rack, the wheel, and maybe even the iron maiden. I know there's a cat-o-nine tails around here somewhere. That might help. Perhaps we could just remove all the trigger-fingers of all the convicted felons in all the prisons here. Now where's my meat clever?

Mmm, wait, uhh ... this thread is in the serious-discussion area.

Sorry.

[HCabret]

'
How about deterrents for crimes committed with guns. We could bring back public executions and mutilations. We could dust off the old rack, the wheel, and maybe even the iron maiden. I know there's a cat-o-nine tails around here somewhere. That might help. Perhaps we could just remove all the trigger-fingers of all the convicted felons in all the prisons here. Now where's my meat clever?

Mmm, wait, uhh ... this thread is in the serious-discussion area.

Sorry.
The death penalty is an extremely ineffective deterrent to crime. Crime has gone down since 1977, not up.

[Sancho]

'
The death penalty is an extremely ineffective deterrent to crime. Crime has gone down since 1977, not up.

I was joking

[prendrelemick]

Or just remove one tiny word from the 2nd amendment and you get "The right to keep bear arms".

[Sancho]

Roar!

[Kemijost]

"

Suppose you make a start, anything, just the smallest of starts.

Hand guns are a no no. If they come in, I leave. It's understood. That's always been my small start.

I wouldn't care if I get shot. I have a partial death wish, anyway. But kids live here. They have all taken the hunter safety course. and friends don't have access to the cabinet where the rifles are. and the kids are much more concerned with blogging for human rights and playing Mario cart on the Wii.

[HCabret]

I was joking
You do realize that this thread is in a section called "SERIOUS Discussions", don't you?
Or am I just missing something?

[Sancho]

You do realize that this thread is in a section called "SERIOUS Discussions", don't you?
Or am I just missing something?

Mmm, yes, you're just missing something:


How about deterrents for crimes committed with guns. We could bring back public executions and mutilations. We could dust off the old rack, the wheel, and maybe even the iron maiden. I know there's a cat-o-nine tails around here somewhere. That might help. Perhaps we could just remove all the trigger-fingers of all the convicted felons in all the prisons here. Now where's my meat clever?

Mmm, wait, uhh ... this thread is in the serious-discussion area.

Sorry.

The last part.

But if I might digress into seriousness for a moment, it does seems to me there is a fundamental difference between the death penalty where somebody is strapped to a gurney and and given a lethal injection and an execution where somebody is strapped to a rack in a public square and stretched until his spine cracks and his innards spill out.

[prendrelemick]

Hand guns are a no no. If they come in, I leave. It's understood. That's always been my small start.

I wouldn't care if I get shot. I have a partial death wish, anyway. But kids live here. They have all taken the hunter safety course. and friends don't have access to the cabinet where the rifles are. and the kids are much more concerned with blogging for human rights and playing Mario cart on the Wii.

That's a good start.
Also,

What is a well regulated militia?
Does licencing/registering guns infringe a person's right to bear arms?

For me to own a shotgun, I had to have referees of unblemished reputation and a police interview and inspection to get a licence. It took about three months (for background checks) and then the same process has to be gone through every 5 years. The conditions of the licence are strict too. It sounds difficult, but its no problem really.

I suppose these are infringements to having a gun, but we Brits don't have a "right" to them anyway.

[TheFifthElement]

It would, perhaps, be a step towards a solution if the right to bear arms was limited to the kind of arms which were available at the time the amendment was written.

[prendrelemick]

Awful news this morning from Colorado.

Ideologically driven murderer attacks a soft target, shoots random unarmed people at an abortion clinic, in order to make a statement. Terrorism pure and simple.

[bounty]

the initial shooting(s) took place outside a planned parenthood in an area where other businesses exist. he ended up inside the planned parenthood when responders appeared.

there is absolutely no evidence at this point the shooter was "ideologically driven" or was "making a statement."

and to that last point, if he wanted to make a statement, he wouldn't be killing "random people." he'd be either killing the people who ran the clinic, or the protestors out in front of it.

[prendrelemick]

Ok, the incedent has been reported differently over here. we'll just call it murder for now.

[bounty]

theres reporting like that here too.

i think its pretty easy sometimes when there are such strong feelings involved to jump to easy conclusions. this one's got the double whammy of guns and abortion, so maybe all the more so.

[HCabret]

theres reporting like that here too.

i think its pretty easy sometimes when there are such strong feelings involved to jump to easy conclusions. this one's got the double whammy of guns and abortion, so maybe all the more so.
The attack began inside the PP clinic when the terrorist burst in and began shooting people. This fact has been widely reported and corroborated by police sources. http://www.politico.com/story/2015/11/shooting-reported-at-colorado-planned-parenthood-216230 https://www.washingtonpost.com/apps/g/page/mobile/national/timeline-what-we-know-about-the-shooting-in-colorado-springs/1892/ http://www.sacbee.com/latest-news/article46899985.html

If this isn't terrorism, then I don't know what terrorism is.

[HCabret]

The terrorist was quoted as saying "no more baby parts" after he attacked the Planned Parenthood clinic. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-nation/wp/2015/11/28/investigators-search-for-motive-in-planned-parenthood-shooting-that-left-three-dead/

[bounty]

its possible he did say that about "no more baby parts"---but i'll be more inclined to believe it when I see a transcript of him saying so, an affidavit, or at least a corroborated and recognizable source as opposed to "unidentified law enforcement sources."

This is a direct quote from the ny times article:

“Just minutes earlier, on Friday morning around 11:30, a gunman had gone to the parking lot of a Planned Parenthood center here and unleashed a barrage of bullets, turning a bustling snow-covered shopping center into a tableau of chaos and fear that lasted for more than five hours.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/11/29/us/colorado-springs-planned-parenthood-shooting.html

according to that then, he did not walk into a planned parenthood and start shooting people. if we are to believe the ny times, the shooting, as I said in my first post, began in the parking lot.

I don't know what the truth is, but im inclined to believe the parking lot based on the fact that there aren't 20 or 30 dead people, especially doctors, nurses and administrators INSIDE the planned parenthood.

and lydgate, sorry---"conservative politicians spreading lies?" the law allows for pp to sell body parts. pp sells body parts. medical research companies buy body parts from pp. my goodness you might as well say calling the sky blue is a lie.

"assault weapon" aside for a moment (I don't know what he had as I write this), the same, or more damage could have been done with a shotgun or a hunting rifle. want to ban those too?

[prendrelemick]

The language of hatred, begets hatred.

[prendrelemick]

I can't get the the links over here, but this quote was reported on Twitter from the NYT allegedly. - "He was a gentle man who occasionally abused the women he knew".???


Anyway, back to normality (sort of) have any GOP candidates said anything about it yet? Twitter was full of people supporting the shooter.

[tailor STATELY]

I love green skies.

A company on the other side of the river from home , StemExpress https://www.google.com/search?num=100&newwindow=1&client=opera&q="stemExp who was allegedly buying FBP, has cut all ties with Planned Parenthood after bad press and local picketing. They were mentioned in the undercover exposés. Coincidence ?

They are evidently in litigation according to one source http://www.lifenews.com/2015/08/14/stemexpress-cuts-ties-with-planned-parenthood-after-expose-videos-show-sales-of-aborted-babies/
“StemExpress, a for-profit company partnered with over 30 abortion clinics, including Planned Parenthood, to harvest and sell aborted baby parts and provide a “financial benefit” to Planned Parenthood clinics, is attempting to use meritless litigation to cover-up this illegal baby parts trade, suppress free speech, and silence the citizen press reporting on issues of burning concern to the American public,” CMP said in a statement.

re: "GOP candidates said anything about it yet?" - Yeah. I believe Trump/Carson/Bush have repudiated the senseless act while maintaining their stances on Planned Parenthood.

Ta ! (short for tarradiddle),
tailor STATELY

[prendrelemick]

"Baby parts", that's the same emotive phrase the shooter used, is that where he got it from I wonder?. Others call it Foetal tissue, it only goes to show what's in a name.

[tailor STATELY]

Firstly, the fact a company cuts ties with an organization doesn't prove the organization participated in a specific activity.

Litigation is prolly public record. Perhaps I'll accept your challenge and become pro-active; follow the money, etc. to whatever end. We have a saying in my neck of the woods though: "Where there's smoke there's probably fire". Nixon: "I'm not a crook"... Clinton: "I did not have sex with that girl." Just need to have the will to dig deeper.

I chose my source from the google search near the top of results; perhaps I can find a result that shares no bias (yeah, that'll work). I welcome any help in this endeavor.

btb - I do so love green skies.

Addendum: re: "a legitimate news source": This made me laugh.

Ta ! (short for tarradiddle),
tailor STATELY

[tailor STATELY]

What is clear with this shooting--and murders an bombing of abortion clinics--is we have a serious domestic terrorist problem with anti-abortion extremists.... A bit over-the-top here. Your focus is too narrow and lends itself to declaring an extremist agenda in and of its own, in my humble estimation.

Mental health policies, homelessness, under-privileged/disadvantaged/disaffected peoples, degradation of the family, treating life as if it doesn't matter, elitism, bullying, ... ad infinitum/ad nauseum - contribute to those who incline to atrocities. Sane people don't kill people (personal/familial defense perhaps excepted in extreme cases).

My agenda: Peace, love, and respect for all life.

Ta ! (short for tarradiddle),
tailor STATELY

[prendrelemick]

A bad one in california this morning.

In most countries, if you disagree with something, or have an argument at work, you can't go home pick up your assult rifle and start shooting people. You just have to get over it.

[tailor STATELY]

Neither terrorism nor disgruntled employee rampage ruled out yet. CNN coverage hitting all angles non-stop. Adding home-made bombs and tactical gear to the mix skew my thoughts to terrorism; though CNN likened this combination to Columbine-like retribution. Maybe it's both ? Insanity none the less.

:tailor

[prendrelemick]

Since I started this thread I've read thousands of words from hundreds of pundits on the issue of gun control and mass killings. The most thoughtful and intelligent articles come out of America (for and against).

This is probably the best one I have read.
http://theweek.com/articles/446582/there-no-catastrophe-ghastly-that-america-reform-gun-laws

"There is no catastrophe so ghastly that America will reform its gun laws." by Tim Kreider.

[HCabret]

Shootings will continue unabated in this country for the forseeable future. This is unfortunate.

I have resigned my self to the inevitable rise of American-style fascism, which promotes a popular culture of violence and death, along with denegration of women (and women's rights), LBGT people (and LBGT rights), minorities (and the rights of minorities), immigrants (and the rights of immigrants), and political dissidents (and the right to challenge the status quo). Read the comments sections on the Washington Post or on almost any popular news organization's facebook pages and you will see that violent vitriol is extremely common and seems to be generally accepted. The 'Cult of Political Incorrectness' bolts into action whenever the common pedagogy is challenged or even the suggestion of reform is hinted at. If you even mention the possibilty of common sense gun control measures, or any sort of reform which aims to prevent violence from occuring in the first, you are shot down with a variety of scripted and thus oft-repeated responses.

The second amendment will remain and the violence will continue.....

[Sancho]

Good link, Mick. I especially liked the part where he agreed with my earlier theory that - guns are for cowards.

That said, considering all the blood being spilt over here, and being a cowardly man myself, I may have to start packing heat, just so's I can return fire if need be.

Joking of course. I've become totally convinced that the human species is, by its very nature, way too emotionally driven to be trusted with firearms. (I'm thinking we're probably not well equipped to drive a car either.)

[prendrelemick]

Good link, Mick. I especially liked the part where he agreed with my earlier theory that - guns are for cowards.

That said, considering all the blood being spilt over here, and being a cowardly man myself, I may have to start packing heat, just so's I can return fire if need be.

Joking of course. I've become totally convinced that the human species is, by its very nature, way too emotionally driven to be trusted with firearms. (I'm thinking we're probably not well equipped to drive a car either.)


And there it is, Sancho's cracked it. There is the problem.


By the way, can we have your President when you've finished with him.

[The Atheist]

"There is no catastrophe so ghastly that America will reform its gun laws." by Tim Kreider.

Given Texas' reintroduction of open carry, there's no doubt on that one.

[Danik 2016]

I've become totally convinced that the human species is, by its very nature, way too emotionally driven to be trusted with firearms. (I'm thinking we're probably not well equipped to drive a car either.)
:iagree:

http://www.ibtimes.com/accidental-gun-deaths-involving-children-are-major-problem-us-2250568

[Clopin]

And yet firearms will always be in the hands of people, whether they're the police, the national army or criminals who will acquire them. Why are these types of people the only ones fit to carry firearms? Have governments demonstrated proper use of military force in the recent past? Have the police demonstrated that they are most of the time overwhelmingly more able to use firearms responsibly than the general public?

The second amendment exists to prevent government tyranny.

[Clopin]

Shootings will continue unabated in this country for the forseeable future. This is unfortunate.

I have resigned my self to the inevitable rise of American-style fascism, which promotes a popular culture of violence and death, along with denegration of women (and women's rights), LBGT people (and LBGT rights), minorities (and the rights of minorities), immigrants (and the rights of immigrants), and political dissidents (and the right to challenge the status quo). Read the comments sections on the Washington Post or on almost any popular news organization's facebook pages and you will see that violent vitriol is extremely common and seems to be generally accepted. The 'Cult of Political Incorrectness' bolts into action whenever the common pedagogy is challenged or even the suggestion of reform is hinted at. If you even mention the possibilty of common sense gun control measures, or any sort of reform which aims to prevent violence from occuring in the first, you are shot down with a variety of scripted and thus oft-repeated responses.

The second amendment will remain and the violence will continue.....

What a joke.

[New Secret]

Will someone please explain to me why this is so important.

If there is a sudden seize of power then the common American will be armed to deal with it with militias and independent action. It's a means to fight back. Without firearms if the government is seized then we can't resist and then we must surrender to the new rule.

[prendrelemick]

It's the militias I'd be worried about.

[Sancho]

I know this is a serious discussion, but I think Archie Bunker may be on to something here:

https://youtu.be/-lDb0Dn8OXE

Wonder who Arch' would've voted for in the election.

[Pompey Bum]

I know this is a serious discussion, but I think Archie Bunker may be on to something here:

https://youtu.be/-lDb0Dn8OXE

Thanks Sancho. I remember watching that episode when it was first aired, and I have often thought of it since. It is in effect the same argument for allowing handguns on college campuses. That seems to me like a serious debate (I mean one that deserves serious consideration of both sides), and it has amused me to remember the wild laughter at Archie Bunker's similar suggestion.


Wonder who Arch' would've voted for in the election.

Well, I heard Hillary Clinton swear up and down during the debates that she was fine with the Second Amendment. But I figure even Archie would have known she was lying. ;-)