The right to bear arms

[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/...-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/...-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"

[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/environme...asoline?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.