The right to bear arms

[Varenne Rodin]

From The Onion (El Sancho’s favorite news source)



Sometimes, it seems to me, satire gets at social issues better than serious news, just as good fiction gets at history better than, well, history.

I think this shooting may be a debate changer in the United States. And, in my humble opinion, it’s been a long time coming. (Don’t give up on us yet, Varenne. We need your voice)

Thank you, Sancho.

[stlukesguild]

I'm just gonna point out that all those bombs and advanced weaponry have in the past been proved to be ineffective in fighting a guerilla force. Take a look at Vietnam, Afghanistan, Iraq, damn near every war the US has been in recently.

Unfortunately this... and similar comments reveal an absolute ignorance of history and warfare. The only reason the US forces didn't obliterate the Vietnamese or the Iraqis is because the goal was to win the hearts and minds of the enemy... or so the theory goes. In reality, the aim was to defeat the enemy with the least possible casualties in order not to outrage the international community... and especially our allies. There was no such thinking involved in WWII... or in the American Civil War where Sherman unleashed the concept of "total war" upon American Confederate civilians and military alike. You might want to examine just how well the passionate and motivated Confederate forces did... even with the help of brilliant generals... against the vastly superior technological/industrial might of the American north. And please tell me just how well the Germans eventually held out against the allied dominance of the air. Or just look more recently at Waco, Texas. A couple bumpkins from Idaho and Colorado armed with semi-automatics are not going to last against a division of attack helicopters, heavy armor, and the highly trained troops of the US military if they are given the go ahead to use whatever force necessary. How long do you imagine the Vietnam War would have lasted had the US employed the same sort of carpet bombing used during WWII?

The idea that we need weapons in order to protect ourselves against our own government is unrealistic in this current age... but I guess there are more than a few who feel that any number of children murdered each year is a small price to pay in order to still their personal paranoia concerning the statistically insignificant chance that they may be the victim of some violent attack in their quiet suburban home on the open range... or that the government might decide to begin rounding up all those who who voted the wrong way.

[Volya]

Luke; That being said, do you really think the government would employ such measures on their own people? After all, there's no point ruling a country if your populace is dead/can't work.

I agree with Varenne and others that the real issue here is a mental one. If we seek to stop any kind of evil, the root cause we should be looking at is WHY these people do it, not just taking away the tools they use, especially when said tools can in fact be used for good (and in this I mean everything, not just guns). If we can work out why these things happen, we can try and single out the people who are going to do it, predict when an attack could occur, and work out a way to prevent people from becoming like this.

[Delta40]

You're living in la la land Volya. Prevention is better than cure so what is the problem with gun control, including banning of some weaponry? It is going to be far more effective than trying to gaze into a crystal ball and predict who out of millions of people is going to blow away a bunch of innocent people. You're speaking in all or nothing terms Volya. People are proposing more responsible laws and a social change in attitude toward guns. They're not saying the US should be a gun free country.

[Sancho]

Thank you, Sancho.

You’re Welcome, and Thank You.

And just so everybody knows exactly what’s being debated - it's the 2nd amendment to the U.S Constitution. It says:

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

It’s a simple statement, also a maddeningly ambiguous one.

The first ten amendments are known as The Bill of Rights, designed to guarantee the natural rights of the citizens, and were a condition for the ratification of the Constitution by the States, way back then.

[qimissung]

I live in Texas. Our governor has some thoughts on how to make schools safer:

http://www.wfaa.com/news/politics/Pe...183885461.html

[prendrelemick]

A USA gunshop owner interviewed on BBC said yesterday was his busiest day ever. Americans really believe in the gun, it functions as a talisman, giving off a mystic aura of protection. This confidence isn't bourne out statistically (sorry, more Michael Moore stats). Gun carryers are 4 times more likely to be shot .



Meanwhile the NRA and other lobbists are switching from "Now is not the time to debate gun laws" to diverting attention on to Mental Health, and the Whitehouse are becomeing more vague in their statements. Expect video games to be blamed soon!

Talking of Videos, Utube has one of the last three Presidents saying the same thing as Obama after assorted massacres of innocents - "change must happen". It didn't.

[Lokasenna]

I live in Texas. Our governor has some thoughts on how to make schools safer:

http://www.wfaa.com/news/politics/Pe...183885461.html

Ye gods. Teachers carrying guns at all times? On what level is this not cretinous?

[TheFifthElement]

If we seek to stop any kind of evil, the root cause we should be looking at is WHY these people do it, not just taking away the tools they use, especially when said tools can in fact be used for good (and in this I mean everything, not just guns). If we can work out why these things happen, we can try and single out the people who are going to do it, predict when an attack could occur, and work out a way to prevent people from becoming like this.

Volya, your comment on guns having a 'use for good' aside (I'm struggling to understand how something which is designed purely to kill has a use for good?), it's a nice idea but I think you may have an overly optimistic view of how much you can really know about someone and why they do things and our ability to implement preventative measures. In amongst all the millions of people in the US, how are you possibly supposed to know the mind of every person who may or may not be disaffected who may or may not have mental illness (which is poorly understood in itself) who may or may not simply lose control? Look at the case of Anders Brevik - he has explained exactly why he did what he did but does it really make any sense to you? In Brevik's case the attack was pre-planned, but in the case of these mass massacres it's impossible to know whether the perpetrator has acted on plan or impulse. In fact unless they have left an explanatory note (which there may be in this case, but the authorities seem to be awfully quiet on that point) it's impossible to know anything about it at all. Even when you do know why someone has acted in the way they have, it doesn't mean that their action was justifiable or preventable. Guns enable people to react on an angry impulse in a fatally destructive manner and people can behave strangely (or out of character) when placed in situations of extreme stress. Take this example of a recent shooting in Alabama where a man shot 3 people (and was then, himself, killed) because he was angry about the care his wife was receiving at the hospital. Take the gun out of the equation and what might have happened? He may well have been angry. Perhaps he'd have thrown a chair or punched someone. Perhaps he'd still be alive, receiving care and support and his wife would be getting the treatment he felt she needed? In any event, there would be one more person still alive. Report here: http://www.globalpost.com/dispatch/n...tter-care-wife

Of course you need a two fold approach. You cannot ignore the mentality that leads to these events but the challenge of understanding it, pre-empting it and preventing it is far more insurmountable than simply removing the kind of weapons which enable people, at a distance, to obliterate the lives of so many people so easily in one fell hit. It's easy to throw out the tired old cliche 'guns don't kill, people do' but the fact is that armed with only a biro and a Swiss Army knife I'm not likely to be able to murder 27 people and terrorise hundreds of others. Take the guns away, and the instances of mass shootings will reduce. You don't even need to remove all weapons, I don't think anyone is suggesting that. But in all honesty, who actually needs an assault rifle in day to day life? And it is just as 'true' to say that 'guns don't kill people, people with guns do', and more honest, I think.

I find it very hard to reconcile myself to the idea that the right to possess an automatic weapon is of more value, is more important, than those 27 lives, and all the other lives which have been (and will continue to be) sacrificed at the alter of the gun.

This article from Charlie Brooker pretty much sums up how I feel about this whole dreadful state of events: http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisf...harlie-brooker

Twenty children shot at close range with an assault rifle. You could argue that the choice of weapon is irrelevant; that a truly unhinged individual would still find the means to kill. Maybe that's true; I don't know. All I know is that 20 children were shot at close range with an assault rifle, and that only a lunatic nation wouldn't try everything it could think of to make that less likely to happen again.

America, don't be helpless. Look at the faces. Feel how much it hurts. Try to stop it happening again.

[Delta40]

Obama's own words:

"Are we really prepared to say that we're powerless in the face of such carnage, that the politics are too hard? Are we prepared to say that such violence visited on our children year after year is somehow the price of our freedom? No single law, no set of laws, can eliminate evil from the world or prevent every senseless act of violence in our society. But that can't be an excuse for inaction."

[qimissung]

Obama's own words:

"Are we really prepared to say that we're powerless in the face of such carnage, that the politics are too hard? Are we prepared to say that such violence visited on our children year after year is somehow the price of our freedom? No single law, no set of laws, can eliminate evil from the world or prevent every senseless act of violence in our society. But that can't be an excuse for inaction."

And that is why I like Obama.

[Delta40]

I so hope he can stand by this sentiment.

[tonywalt]

Guns will decrease in popularity in the US when:

Tea goes down in poularity in UK, Football in Brazil, and la bella figura in Italy. The pilgrims jumped off the boat with guns it's part of the fabric of the culture- maybe not so much with this demographic(Onlit) - but believe we are not in the Main. From accross the other pond it looks crazy.

Do we have any regular onlitters born Texans on here? Or Louisiana born and raised? Mississippi ? I only point those three out as I lived down there and pretty familiar with the entrenched gun culture that is ever present there. Would be interested in their perspective.

[Lokasenna]

Qimi said she was from Texas earlier on, and she clearly has pretty strong views on this subject - I only know one Texan in the real world, and she is most definitely of the 'God, guns, and babies' variety.

[Volya]

As I believe I pointed out earlier, these massacres do not make up the majority of crime in the world. What they are is shocking and makes the head-lines, but mass shootings like these really should not be the main issue when deciding on gun law, or any law for that matter. What is more important, saving twenty lives in one event, or saving hundreds over time.

And if we are trying to use these events as the reason for change in law, surely we must look at the Bath School massacre, the deadliest school massacre in the US. The killer did not use guns, he used bombs. Bombs are very easy to make at home (all it takes is a google search to find out how), do you suggest we ban the sale of all products that can be used to make them?