A conversation the USA must have.

[redcloud]

In less than one week we had the shooting here at a suburban Portland mall and then the horrific events in Connecticut. I lived and taught in England when the Dunblane massacre happened and it was dealt with fast, sweeping changes almost over night. Those changes were not just instigated by the government....society as a whole came together and demanded change. When we returned to the States my wife and I were appalled at how easy it is for people to walk into schools. Considering that most public schools in Portland sit on public parks it means at any given time there are a lot of people hanging around the schools and almost impossible to secure who is coming in or out. When we questioned it with friends and even the principal everybody dismissed our concerns and made us feel as if WE were overly paranoid parents from Europe.

Whatever your politics I think we all need to come together and admit that our constitution needs to be amended. Enough is enough. The wider issue of why our society is so violent and self-centered is also a worthy discussion that we must have. Life has become far too self indulgent for many that we have forgotten to take care of those closest to us. The mentally ill wander the streets and most of us pass them by without a care. Our society has lost its moral fiber. We are a country that freaks out at the site of the human body yet don't think twice about violence. Kids spend hours playing ultra violent shooter games and parents don't think that it may have an impact on them. Add to this sickening mix the relative ease that one can attain an arsenal is, and will always be, totally wrong in my book. I understand some people hunt but the weapons I am talking about are the semi automatic and the assault rifle. I even question why the general populace need handguns. They too are only made for one reason...to kill people. Nobody other than military need these type of weapons. Yes, I admit that I am for strict gun control.

The only thing that separates a terrorist from these sick suicide mass shooters/murderers is a political agenda. Actually, the terror caused by the shooters makes them no different than a suicide bomber.

I am also sickened by the media and their embellishment on ghoulish details. I cannot watch anymore of the news and their constant churning and spewing of speculation and sensationalized stories. The whole things makes my stomach churn.

[spzretent]

The media are sickening. Camping out in this small New England town. Overrunning it. This town will never, ever be the same.
It is a ratings bonanza i'm sure. Maybe the media could do something constructive like really push for change. This is a tipping point.
Interesting how the 2nd Ammendment written in the late 1700's is used to make the argument for the right to bear arms. That was the late 1700's. Things are slightly different in 2012. It doesn't work.
This society is so desensitezed to the value of human life. I think this society is too far gone. Here in the US anyway. Here in Detroit, things are on pace to break the all time homicide record. No outrage what so ever.
I think this is a watershed moment in US political history. If these 26 innocent lives lost can slap this country back to reality and force change as well as make the divisive politicians re-learn how to work together to get things done it at least something might come out of this heartbreaking and horrific event.

[Hofstadter]

It is a ratings bonanza i'm sure.

[Hofstadter]

I think it's a pretty common thing to say that the media's insane coverage with this sort of thing is what makes it happen again and again... it gives the people what they want, to go out with a bang (alright that was not intended/fucked if it was, but I'll leave it).

I just had the sickening realization from yer comment though that continuing to give so much attention to these shootings, and in fact actually propagating them, is actually in the media's interest. Let me go throw up real quickly.

PS yes, yes, we better fucking get on gun control right now. honestly fuck anybody who says things like "now is not the time to politicize this" - of course this is the time to deal with this you dolt. Totally with ya redcloud/spzretent.

Any decent arguments (at least in yer eyes) for not changing the system? (jadams/semisynthetic?) Or perhaps how would you want it changed?

[Laz69]

I typed out a very long winded and emotional repone to this before i accidentally deleted it!!!!!

To summarise,

I am/was truly sickened by what happened... on so many levels. It really hurt to read/listen to this story.

They kid who did this was a fucking coward... he has picked the school as it was familiar to him and an easy target. It would, for him, be full of easy targets.

The suggestion that teachers should be armed is so WRONG that it actually made me angry that this suggestion was made.

I desperately hope that proper discussions and actions are taken on gun control in the US but i feel the government will be pissing in the wind again.

I've never been an advocate of blaming video games for these things, but i do, however, believe that these games can have an effect on people with mental health issues. They are not able to differentiate between reality and fiction like normally adjusted people and will desensitize and trivialise the act of killing, especially with the increased technology used and realism these games bring.

The ability to buy and access guns is the main issue here, along with some serious questions on parenting, mental health care and society in general.

"Survivalists"... people who think the end of the world is coming. I'd be questioning the mental health of these people first.

The NRA are suprisingly quiet... but they will be/are preparing for a storm.

And on a side note, the Westbro Baptist Church MUST be shut down. The fact that they were even thinking of petitioning the funerals of these kids is almost as evil as the massacre itself.

[spzretent]

This incident is bringing mental health to the forefront. That is apparently what was at the root of this. I am going to cut and past a quote from a friend of mine who I think nailed it.
So, I'm on my way to my daughter's middle school band concert this evening and my thoughts are still quite preoccupied with the recent tragic events in CT. My thought is that I never had any fears of being killed in school when I was a child, what in our society has changed so drastically in 30 years? Well, we used to have State run psychiatric hospitals for one thing, and as horrible as some of those places were, they served a purpose. They all closed because of budget cuts. Budget cuts? So put sick people out on the street, while more money gets siphoned to profiteering drug companies, insurance companies, and other entities that profit from the system, relax gun laws? Why? The politicians in this country need to figure this one out. We need social programs to help sick people, or at least lock them up if they are beyond help. Then we need to ban assault weapons, period. Politics, shouldn't have an argument in whether or not government can help fix this....who else is gonna do it? Wall Street?

Westboro? With our lack of gun laws i'm surprised no one has gone after them. Sick fucks.

[redcloud]

The streets of Portland are full of people who were once in hospitals. Why do they come to a city that is cold and rains so much? Because we are a tolerant city that doesn't push them out of sight out of mind. Every city has them but most push them on. Here they are very visible and they crowd certain areas of downtown because we have several soup kitchens within a couple blocks of each other. There are often people on the street corners rambling away to nobody or screaming at the top of their lungs. What do we do? We walk/drive past these people and ignore them. We most definitely need to address how to give them the help they need and deserve. Yet, another reason why I support health care that helps and takes care of all.

The idiotic response of "arming teachers" is appalling. I'm a high school teacher in a poor school with a challenging population. There is no way I would want armed teachers OR an armed principal in my school. Even at a rich school with a less challenging population it is entirely wrong to even propose that idea.

After the cinema shooting gun advocates said "if somebody in that cinema had a concealed weapon then not as many people would have died". This is total speculation and bullshit. Most likely, more carnage would have happened in the wild west shoot out that would have ensued. This very scenario played out at the Empire St. Building a few months back. Most of the innocents hit were caught in police fire. Police fire!? These are people who are trained for god's sake! Imagine in a chaotic and traumatic situation somebody with a concealed weapon who isn't even as well trained as police adding to the mix of bullets? In fact, somebody in Portland has since come out saying they did have a concealed weapon (w/license) at the mall, he apparently stood behind a pole and drew his weapon, had the gunmen in his sights but he made the decision not to shoot because he said "I couldn't live with myself if I missed and hit an innocent person".

Enough is enough and unless we really do unite on this issue it will sadly continue to happen.

[Laz69]

Seems the NRA have offered to get involved in discussions on this... suggestions that they are under internal pressure from members. Didn't see that coming...

[jadams501]

Interesting how the 2nd Ammendment written in the late 1700's is used to make the argument for the right to bear arms. That was the late 1700's. Things are slightly different in 2012. It doesn't work.

If these 26 innocent lives lost can slap this country back to reality and force change as well as make the divisive politicians re-learn how to work together to get things done it at least something might come out of this heartbreaking and horrific event.

Are you as quick to dismiss other outmoded elements from our 1700s-era Constitution, though, such as freedom of speech or the separation of powers? Not to be glib, but giving up fundamental enumerated rights is serious business. Guns are not just about hunting, but self-defense and self-reliance and something deep in the American character. I've been the victim of violent crime when no one was there to protect me, so this isn't an abstract issue for me.

It sounds good to hope that politicians will "work together to get things done" but people with honest differences of perspective will tend to disagree on what policies are best. This is a good instance where localities and states should decide for themselves what they find appropriate, because a one size fits all approach isn't appropriate for a diverse country. Assault weapons and some other gun bans may make sense in densely populated areas, if voters want it, and not in other places. The unfortunate reality is that none of the gun control laws being proposed would have prevented the tragedy in Connecticut or, indeed, the vast majority of mass shootings. The real problems are mental illness and the human propensity for evil, far more than particular firearms.

Well, we used to have State run psychiatric hospitals for one thing, and as horrible as some of those places were, they served a purpose. They all closed because of budget cuts. Budget cuts? So put sick people out on the street, while more money gets siphoned to profiteering drug companies, insurance companies, and other entities that profit from the system

It's a common misconception that state psych hospitals were shut down because of greedy budget cuts, and that's part of the reason, but it was also fashionable among the progressives of that time to rather blithely assume that many diagnoses of mental illness were "the man" cracking down on free thinkers. When you consider that homosexuality was considered a mental disorder, there's something to that position, but it was also excessively romantic. Shutting down the psych hospitals was bipartisan at the time. As for now... I'm not sure officials from a system as corrupt as ours can be trusted to distinguish insanity from opinions contrary to theirs.

Ultimately, it's an appealing hope that politicians could just put the best minds to work to "do something" about the darker side of the human condition, But the reality, and policy details, are very complicated, more than the corrupt politicians of our degraded time have capacity to handle thoughtfully or responsibly.

[redcloud]

Are you as quick to dismiss other outmoded elements from our 1700s-era Constitution, though, such as freedom of speech or the separation of powers? Not to be glib, but giving up fundamental enumerated rights is serious business. Guns are not just about hunting, but self-defense and self-reliance and something deep in the American character. I've been the victim of violent crime when no one was there to protect me, so this isn't an abstract issue for me.

Nobody needs to own an automatic or a semi-automatic gun. Nobody.

The real problems are mental illness and the human propensity for evil

Another reason why I believe in more socialized health care that helps take care of its society. I can almost guarantee that nobody on the streets of Portland with mental health issues has insurance. Who will pay for their care or their medicine? Nobody. This is why they roam the streets, sleep on the streets and don't get help. So, those who are against a more socialized health care system but believe that mental illness is more of the problem than the easy access to an arsenal....tell me how one proposes to pay for their care?

Look at the number of gun fatalities in the USA last year - 12,626. Compare that to other countries and then tell me that the easy access of guns doesn't exacerbate the problem. Canada's laws are probably the most similar to our country but even their gun laws are tighter than the USA's.

[spzretent]

Interesting how the 2nd Ammendment written in the late 1700's is used to make the argument for the right to bear arms. That was the late 1700's. Things are slightly different in 2012. It doesn't work.

Are you as quick to dismiss other outmoded elements from our 1700s-era Constitution, though, such as freedom of speech or the separation of powers?
No. I was strictly referring to the 2nd Ammendment. Are you saying that there will never be an instance where perhaps this country should take a second look at something in the constitution written in the late 1700's?

It sounds good to hope that politicians will "work together to get things done" but people with honest differences of perspective will tend to disagree on what policies are best. This is a good instance where localities and states should decide for themselves what they find appropriate, because a one size fits all approach isn't appropriate for a diverse country.
The Constitiution was for the entire country last time I checked. Delegating this to a state by state issue is changing the Constitution.

I also am of the opinion that assault rifles have no business being sold in this country. Nor extended clips. I would love to hear the argument for not imposing a ban or restrictions. That and the ease of buying guns with no background checks at gun shows.
I also believe the underlying issue in all this is a mental health issue. Unfortunately there are some people completely devoid of common sense like the shooters mother. Knowing she had a son that was "unwell" yet took him target shooting and apparently left him with access to her arsenal.

[semisynthetic]

I grew up in wide open spaces; beautiful woodlands, and firearms were always just another tool; it was the individual using ANY tool, who was held accountable for inappropriate activities. Ice picks ARE AWFUL when stuck in a persons head.

I found some interesting statistics, (but as usual, I am fairly confident that with such an Agenda Driven Investment), no one who would agree with me by changing their mind is likely;

Ergo, I will simply be happy to agree to disagree with most of what I have read.

It is too bad for the argument that the number of crimes leading to murder DO NOT INVOLVE firearms; but, uh, that would not fit with the Political Driven Agenda.

And, by the by; what happened to "FAST AND FURIOUS"? uh-oh, Nanny look bad. sshhhh.

I Wish You ALL a Wonderful Holiday Season;
whatever you might wish to call it.

[spzretent]

Thats why we have an open forum. Its healthy.

[redcloud]

I grew up in wide open spaces; beautiful woodlands, and firearms were always just another tool; it was the individual using ANY tool, who was held accountable for inappropriate activities. Ice picks ARE AWFUL when stuck in a persons head.

But, did you have a semi-automatic or a military style assault rifle? Maybe that is the difference. Making it harder to get a gun by tightening the laws, stricter and more thorough checks and a ban on particularly lethal military style weapons seems sensible and a decent compromise in my mind.

Ice picks ARE AWFUL when stuck in a persons head.

True. But, an ice pick wont destroy an elementary school, a crowded cinema or a packed mall in a matter of seconds like an AR-15.

[redcloud]

And the NRA's response is.....

"an armed guard in every school".

As expected, their answer to this insanity is more guns.

[runcible]

Ice picks ARE AWFUL when stuck in a persons head.

I don't think ice picks are designed to kill. Automatic and semi-automatic guns are. You could kill someone with a stone or your bare hands but that's not they are generally used for, but those type of guns are specifically made for killing. For me that's the end of the argument. Stop the sale of them.

I also grew up in the countryside where many regard shooting game as part of the culture. Anyone with a fire arm has to go through security checks and hold a licence, and rightly so. Anyone who buys an automatic or semi-automatic gun has to have considered the idea of shooting people which I just find plain weird.

[olan]

I've been reading the reports on the NRA statement. One word crops to my mind: Lunacy

I work in education. You need a calm, peaceful, caring environment to teach effectively. I am not sure turning schools & campuses into armed camps is going to make for a particularly nurturing environment......

[redcloud]

I work in education. You need a calm, peaceful, caring environment to teach effectively. I am not sure turning schools & campuses into armed camps is going to make for a particularly nurturing environment......

I couldn't agree more. Schools and classrooms need to be a warm and welcoming place where trust can been established and inviting for its students to be engaged, thoughtful learners. As it is, many kids walk into school totally unprepared to learn, distrusting of adults and lack the social/citizenship skills that every parent should give their children.

Armed guards and more guns in public places does not seem to be the answer nor the right message. In my opinion, it will be a very sad day if this becomes reality. I'm not surprised though that this was the response by the NRA.

[semisynthetic]

It is sad to say, and JUST in case we have a nut "lurking", it would have been easier to kill ALL OF those poor little children in that environment with (UNMENTIONED) household chemicals and other simple things one buys at the store. I mean, these kids were all locked up, right? They were HELPLESS in an airconditioned or heated school; there is always a way to DESTROY en masse; so, yes, an AR-15 is comparatively inefficient for a cold hearted killer, but, uh, they were all insane, right? They were not exactly "thinking all that clearly"; they had "limitations". All of those kids were TRAPPED. right? Those kids were TRULY VULNERABLE, right?
They were "Waiting for the Cavalry" (that had GUNS) that got there too late. Banks have armed guards; are children worth LESS? I would want a responsible and trained individual in this crazy world if my kids were still so small and easy targets for the insane. IF you are waiting for FORCE using "GUNS", why wait? It only increased
a sickening body count. So, it is OK to WAIT for trained responders, but NOT to have such a person on site? Weird.
FORGET about the 1700's; what the hell has happened in the last 30 years? Society slides down the toilet, the mentally ill are let loose, and the "gun" the awful gun is the easy "target". Great. Deep Thoughts.

I DO agree with many in the forum that a handgun or rifle, et cetera, is not for everyone. But unlike others on this forum, I do NOT wish to restrict freedom of speech, or any of the REST of the rights of the US Constitution simply because "I don't think ANYONE should have blah blah blah". I do not like dictatorship by whim anymore than by unknowing technocrats. I still remember the "Assault Weapon" debates when the learned US Senators from California were unable to simply insert a magazine into the "scary rifle". It was embarrasing to watch.

A LESS scary looking rifle, a rifle deemed "OK" at the time, used the same ammo as the scary looking rifle. Ignorance, driven by Ideology is of little use when discussing changing something as time tested as the Constitution.

But, to answer the question;
I had my first shotgun at the age of 7; I bought a pistol with money I earned, along with a "semi-automatic rifle", a year later from a farmer who owned land I hunted on; [there were fewer laws (AND LESS CRIME) in that era]. I would buy ammunition in the auto-parts store, as my grandfather waited for me in his vehicle. (I would love to ask a few rudimentary questions about weaponry just to show how little most of the people who seem to HATE guns simply do not know about them or their uses or the nuances that separate one type from another).

My grandfather took care of his land and projects; an area of about 100 square miles of Wilderness. Absolutely Beautiful; Waterfalls; Lakes, Creeks, Woodlands and Meadows that were filled with wildlife and the Wonders of Nature.

There were also dangers; wolverines, wolves, various poisonous snakes and (non) poisonous snakes. I did not rely on anyone
but myself, (and my grandfather to meet me at a predetermined point and time). It was Wonderful. It was Freedom and I learned A GREAT DEAL about self reliance; something which seems out of vogue.

Everyday, at 5:00 am, he would take me where I wanted to go, and with my "kit", some food, water and a knife, and so on, I spent the day, and sometimes the night, camped out in these woods. I would catch fish for lunch, maybe a rabbit for a slow roast w/ barbeque sauce.

When I was 9, I bought an M-1 carbine from a fellow back from Vietnam. It is a short stocked rifle that fires ".30 carbine" ammunition; effective, but not exactly a Howitzer.

NOW, it is a relatively difficult procedure to purchase certain weapons. Many of the rifles and other items I own require a $200 Tax Stamp, fingerprinting (for EACH WEAPON), and a considerable wait. Because I have some specialized permits, (THESE ARE NOT EASY TO OBTAIN), I can buy rifles, pistols and shotguns, that is, IF they are not NFA items, (go back to the $200 tax stamp, and the fingerprinting, et cetera). In some states, the populace have been deemed morons who must rely on Nanny to save your ass.

IF Nanny is late, you are in big trouble if a crackhead or lunatic decides that he/she does not agree with your sense of what is "allowable". They may just kick down your door, cut your family's throats, or whatever, an ax, a pistol, ( RARELY EVER a rifle; check the FBI. The insane man stole a rifle, and fortunately he knew not how to deal with a simple jammed weapon.)

It is not surprising that states that have concealed carry laws have lower crime rates than those that force the citizenry to rely on Nanny.
I submit, Compton California, STRICT GUN LAWS, (for those who obey laws); high murder rate though.

Where I live? VERY liberal gun laws (NOT GUN LAWS FOR LIBERALS; something went wrong when "liberal" and blah blah blah became confused), VERY LOW CRIME RATE, VERY LOW MURDER RATE Having Laws intended to allow individuals to protect themselves from an element of society you would probably NOT invite over to "watch the game".

Confused? I am not. Self dependence always gives the individual an advantage. It is just a good idea to be ready for the unexpected, even a madman who for some sick reason wishes to slaughter innocent children. Good thing the Police arrived, had a nice talk with him, a cup of tea, and discussed just why he did such a terrible thing. Wait - no, that isn't what happened, is it? The Police arrived ready to "stop" the murderer. Too bad someone wasn't there already to "stop" that murderer of innocents before it happened. Someone who was proficient with a tool that can be used for target practice, hunting, collecting, Historical Reference, or stopping a killer from committing mass murder.

I will not let ideology trump the protection of children; it is not unusual that a show of force alone makes a criminal move on; but, in the case of a completely insane murderer, "stopping" them is the correct answer; it should be done BEFORE they slaughter the children.
Forget the "IDEAL WORLD", it is just that; we live in the REAL WORLD that has some very mean and ugly individuals that care nothing for our "deep thoughts" and Idealistic banter.

I will leave Theory for papers and Philosophical discussions; when I was recently visiting a large city, just last year, and an attack on my person commenced, I only needed to draw a weapon I am quite proficient with, and licensed to carry to send that fellow scurrying away. First time in all of my life I needed to do that; otherwise, my toe-tag would have been what I had to offer to the conference I was speaking at; in academia; on the synthesis of Tryptans and other Bio-Active Indole derivatives. Ironically, some compounds showed progress at dealing with psychotic and violent behavior, without the
tremors induced by phenothiazine derivatives currently in use. Ironic, isn't it?

What would YOU have done? Is allowing an innocent person to be murdered "OK" in some areas because of Idealism? THAT is "Lunacy".

[Jasonsmith]

I'm glad that I don't live in a country where someone who uses so much red ink and upper case text has such easy access to firearms. From a distance (Europe), it seems that any attempt to have a reasoned debate on this subject always gets bogged down in the "what would you do if 20 Uzi-toting crackheads tried to gang-rape your 90-year-old disabled grandmother?" type of comment. It's up to you to choose: either restrict access to guns or accept that such frequency of such massacres will rise.

[semisynthetic]

Strange you should evoke such weird imagery.

Why not answer the question in "big red type"; I was about to be attacked; I had a Licensed Concealed Carry weapon;
what would you do? I mean, other than evade the question?

About 4-5 years ago, a 92 year old woman in Oregon was given parole for shooting a convicted murderer who had broken into
her house; the "Judge", commented that she "should have tried to crawl out the bedroom window". What an ass.

I hope the simple black type and singular font will not add any further confusion. I had hoped for a response of some depth;
not one regarding decorating or an individualistic style different from your own. We mustn't differ must we? I am glad to NOT
be another drone who is bullied by peer pressure. It must be very difficult for those who are.

After reading some comments on this forum, over time, I regret that some cannot be easily responded to with crayon.

[Jasonsmith]

So, it is OK to WAIT for trained responders, but NOT to have such a person on site?

What if the person on site has had a bad day and decides to run amok? What kind of future is it for a society that from the earliest age relies on guns for a feeling of security? Why not arm the kids? If you had a gun at the age of 7, why not give every kid a gun so they can take care of every nut who breaks into their school.

I DO agree with many in the forum that a handgun or rifle, et cetera, is not for everyone.
But everyone seems to be able to get one.

I still remember the "Assault Weapon" debates when the learned US Senators from California were unable to simply insert a magazine into the "scary rifle". It was embarrasing to watch.
Why is it embarrassing not to know how to operate an assault rifle. Why would I need to know that?

Many of the rifles and other items I own require a $200 Tax Stamp, fingerprinting (for EACH WEAPON), and a considerable wait.
Should you be able to buy weapons with your pizza and have them delivered no questions asked?

Having Laws intended to allow individuals to protect themselves from an element of society you would probably NOT invite over to "watch the game".
Having laws that restrict access to guns to such elements of society might be more effective. And anyway, apparently the Connecticut shooter came from a very good family.

in the case of a completely insane murderer, "stopping" them is the correct answer; it should be done BEFORE they slaughter the children.
From the reports over here, the Connecticut shooter's mother was a survivalist type who spouted exactly the kind of libertarian dogma that the NRA thrives on. I imagine she could do nothing to stop her son, but bringing him up in such an atmosphere probably led to this tragedy. Like you say in the first point I picked out I DO agree with many in the forum that a handgun or rifle, et cetera, is not for everyone. but as long as guns play such an important role in your society the easy access to firearms for such individuals will mean that this tragedy will repeat itself for as long as the US clings to its guns.

[semisynthetic]

MUCH BETTER!
(I have worked "in Education" and Research for over 30 years).

An actual bit of conversation; but it is not as easy to obtain weapons as you have been led to believe. Not Legally;
I can obtain most weaponry because of my background in other areas and have special permits to do so.

Besides, in the USA, unlike "Europe", in general, we have a RIGHT granted by a founding document. And this was recently upheld by the SCOTUS. Again.

And the Senators? IF I was trying to demonstrate the ease of "assault weapons", I would have at least learned how to put the magazine in the weapon for the Televison. Simple. If they were talking about ANYTHING, I would expect them to be able to demonstrate such simple tasks, THAT was what was embarassing, not the fact that is was a rifle! It could have been a blender, they looked foolish, that is all. People in power looking foolish is not very encouraging.

You mentioned the point of when I was 7 years old, well, the world was a much different place.
Now, I see a very different world where responsibility is seemingly almost asking too much.

To own a firearm is a tremendous responsibility; and the societal decay I have watched happen over the years would make "arming 7 year olds" as ridiculous as it sounds. I WANTED a job as a kid to earn money whenever I could, not given to me, even though my family was quite comfortable; it was the IDEA of self sufficiency that I liked, and I still do.

We each have our capabilities and limitations; I believe that each person should be encouraged to excel despite their physical age. I began University young as well; but I admit that there are many people I would never sell a weapon to if I owned a FFL.

Firearm Sales is the LAST place I can think of that the owner has a unrevokable ability to say "NO". I have been in a shop many times over the years when the owner(s) declined to sell a firearm; they need no reason, and that is that.

I understand that many people do not like firearms; they are dangerous, they require a sense of responsibility, but I am not a big motorcycle fan, and the same could be said; many things are dangerous; but unless you are ready to be kept in a white
germ-free room, I do not see how you are going to avoid danger.

Where you live is likely crowded, you lack the sort of space that using firearms can demand; I have a large "front yard" that I
have measured off in 100 yard and 100 meters, and 1000 yd and 1000 meter increments; AND
I have the Second Amendment Right to enjoy what I have earned in the way I wish to; I am puzzled by my countryman as they seem almost eager to give up THEIR own responsibility, and rely upon an unrelieable government. You may not have much choice where you live; I still do, and I refuse to let an Agenda Driven Politico take even more rights away than have already been taken.

Be VERY CAREFUL what you ask for, because it may be your ox that is gored next; I do NOT want the USA to become something like Europe. I like Europe and the U.K., I like to visit; I have friends there; but I like the American way of life I grew up with, where "Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness" is MINE, and not some technocrat always driven by Ideology instead of of what is in the best interest of the Individual, NOT the Hive. I do not appreciate Dictation by whim.

I refuse to let the actions of a very few be used to help in further to divide this country without commenting on it. I love America; I am proud of what I have been able to do here, chances are, it would NOT have been possible for me to accomplish what I have in some Socialized State; I find the very Idea repugnant.

Propaganda has been used by those in power for millenia; but think first, what is best for the individual; the Hive consumes,
the individual creates. But, for Nanny, the Hive is where the Honey is, and where control is easist; that is why the men who wrote the Constitution LIKED the idea of a well armed citizenry; they had seen the excesses of Monarchy and rule by the powerful; they were Brilliant men who LEFT Europe, The U.K. so that they could have a better life.

I am very glad that I was born and raised here; I am glad I had the chances to live a Dream; it is unfortunate that the Real World also produces Nightmares. It always will as long as there is evil in the human heart; THAT cannot be legislated away.

I have had one time in all my life where I needed to defend myself, and the mere fact I produced a weapon and was well prepared to use it was enough to save my life; I can hardly believe that most people would GENUINELY say, OK, kill me, I have some change in my pockets, too. I hope that I am NEVER placed in that situation again; but at least I have the RIGHT
to defend myself and my loved ones; even a stranger; even protecting little children from a murderer who just committed matricide or from some other nut.

THAT is why I placed in "great big red letters" What would YOU have done had you been in my place?

[redcloud]

Semi, I admit that I struggle making sense of much of your essay. It is hard to read....but I get the general gist of your argument. I do not know what the town is like where you live but I assume it is very different from Compton, CA. Therefore, I think comparing Compton, CA crime rates/gun laws to your town is fairly pointless. You have to take much more into consideration before comparisons are drawn...population, demographics, poverty, economy, education etc. must all be considered before you make an assumption that your town's liberal gun laws means a safer place to live.

I also do not think one can say that an armed guard at a bank but not in a school means we place less value on life. That argument seems completely flawed on many levels.

True, the "gun" is the target in this conversation but several of us have also said on many occasions that the wider discussion is much bigger than the gun alone. However, the easy access to guns and ammo is definitely linked to why the US had over 12,600 gun fatalities last year - far more than any other country in the developed world.

By the way, did you know that there was an armed guard in Columbine High? I didn't know that or maybe I had forgotten that detail. Apparently he even shot at the murderers but missed. Hopefully amongst the chaos none of his bullets hit any innocent kids.

[semisynthetic]

Perhaps it is difficult to read because I am trying to answer the questions put to me and add a few comments along the way;
I chose Compton purely because of the news in the background; the story was really about a library, but the cost for Bullet proof glass was a problem; and I thought to myself, BULLET PROOF GLASS? In a place where guns are outlawed; Of course;
I have lived all over the world, and in fact; it is always the same story, take weapons away from the individual, and Criminals and Gangs, who ignore the laws, control the streets; sometimes, the governments.

Of course the bank versus children was a purely rhetorical device; designed for conversation. Nevertheless, a qualified individual can be in the background and get things done. I do NOT like the idea of a Police State School; the NEA does that
on its own, but of course that is a different discussion.

Assume that because of certain work I was involved with some years ago, I was required to carry a weapon to (a) series of Universities; security was simply inadequate. The "dreamworld" of Academia is well known to me; that cozy environment, watching the ivy grow......Publishing; Grants; endless luncheons and meetings that I escaped from;
but there are times when Reality must be adressed; ergo, suppose I was once required to carry a weapon. No one knew, except 3 people of the Hierarchy of each University, it naturally caused no mass hysteria; and minimized any "security footprint"; in other words, there may be individuals, unknown to essentially everyone, ON CAMPUS, and legitimately armed. If this method were more widespread, having qualified marksman within the campus, quietly, it would be a safer alternative to what we see now. It would be analogous to the armed Sky-marshal. IF Columbine, a Utopian Hell that was DOOMED to pop; read the review and the report in toto; IF you can find an unredacted copy! The tragedy was known and ignored well in advance; and IF they had a so called "marksman", then the Crime of Columbine began long before those kids went Postal. Interesting term, isn't it? "Going Postal". (My mailman is an excellent shot; and laughed with great Irony, I thought, when I let him fire my US POSTAL MODEL THOMPSON MACHINE GUN). Model of 1928.

I did not like the "metal detector" prison-school model I visited; that seems far more psychologically disturbing to youth than a stealth weapon/ marksman, and security can be accomplished by a great many methods that are not so invasive.

I have read some very harsh things in this thread; the very IDEA that someone who enjoys target practice, or has an "assault rifle" has some strange desire to kill people is absurd. In all the years I have enjoyed firearms, especially for target practice alone, or for more advanced methodologies, NOT ONCE, outside of a TRUE Military Exercise, have I EVER heard of an error in aim or targeting expressed in any other manner than "mil-angle" or "mil-degree". There is an enormous, and I would think, OBVIOUS difference in the use of shotguns for grouse or pheasant hunting than Human Beings; but perhaps it was a form of British humor that escaped me; like Monty Python's "self exterminating Twits" and shooting bunnies tied spread-eagle on the ground; I found that disturbingly funny; but to make this connection, an absurd supposition between shotguns for bird hunting and semi-automatic rifles used for hunting anything from rabbits to larger game, and make the LEAP to PEOPLE is a connection I would have never made. Mil-angle is the most accurate descriptive of aiming and error used; it is also useful in teaching Physics, since it is relatively simple, yet can allow an understanding of polydimensional equations with very little effort. It is THIS terminology alone that those involved with shooting sports use; some use "groupings", which is even easier to translate mathematically, but is rather limited in its value.

Still, the bottom line remains personal responsibility; take that away, and you WILL have automatons instead of Human Beings; stripped of their Humanity, and lacking any true understanding of their own responsibility for themselves, for their actions, for their own well being and support, expect Cold Automatons. But leave the Second Amendment alone; there are
PLENTY of other reasons that crazy people do crazy things in crazy ways.

And the ICE PICK? That attempt at flippancy was drawn from the (former) Bulgarian Secret Police manual; "Anything that can kill has been used to kill" keep that in mind in the field. If you read details of reports of murder weapons, you will find a list so vast and of such variety, one would think that even the illiterate had somehow absorbed that manual. Uh, including of course, ice picks; broken champagne glasses; cricket bats, baseball bats, hospital (transfer) syringe needles, Swiss Army Knives (even the corkscrew!); so leave the Constitution alone; there is so much more work to be accomplished to REALLY solve problems, not simply add to the voluminous number of "Unintended Consequences" brought about by so many OTHER brilliantly misguided (although well intentioned) solutions.

[Laz69]

Some people just astound me, and not just on here.

[semisynthetic]

I know exactly what you mean.

People just want to live their lives as they see fit.

I certainly have absolutely NO desire to "inflict" my lifestyle on others, and I expect that simple axiom reciprocated.
Unfortunately, once one deviates from the peer-Hive, uh oh; they are wrong. That seems so alien to me.

In MOST respects, I am certain that if the crowd on this website were to get together and enjoy music and have some fun,
leave the politics and Ideology at the door, we would have a great time; I have often thought of that. As people REALLY
learned about one another, over time, the likes and dislikes, the subtleties, and tried to understand another persons point of view, NO MATTER where you stand, it would be so much better. I suppose I am still much more comfortable meeting people face to face than to try and draw my conclusions from a computer screen. It is the "new way", I suppose, and has its advantages; but we never really get to know or understand one another very well at all; oftentimes just our own pre-misconceptions placed over the abstraction of the other people we communicate with; we never really know the person; just a very few scattered pieces of an incomplete puzzle; most people are far too complex to be well represented simply by typing onto this screen; it degenerates into a sort of battle of ideology and what you are (personally) familiar with instead of genuinely learning from the nuances that differ so much from how others perceive us, and how we very likely miscontrue who they really are.

Anyway, I do enjoy comparing points of view; even when I am usually in the minority on this site. I came here for the music of course, but it is interesting to see how others look at the same "picture" of the world we live in and see it so very differently
from one another. There is always so much to learn; but I find that so often, too many people would just rather not; it may be
inconvenient, or possibly just too much of a shock to suddenly realize that we just may have been too narrow in our viewpoints; and it seems that so few people easily admit to being wrong.

Of course, I could be in error.

[redcloud]

Semi, if you admit that at least two of your examples were either chosen at random or simply for rhetoric then it means your argument does not hold much weight.

Also, when you say....

"personal responsibility; take that away, and you WILL have automatons instead of Human Beings; stripped of their Humanity, and lacking any true understanding of their own responsibility for themselves, for their actions, for their own well being and support, expect Cold Automatons."

.....are you really saying that countries that have bans on guns or tight restrictions have created "automatons"? Really? Look at our homicide rate and compare it to most/any other country in the developed world. Why is it that ours is so much higher? Even if you take into consideration our population the math still does not add up. Does personal responsibility mean more anger and more violence? Or does the simple fact that we have easy access to guns make it so much easier for somebody to pull the trigger?

At some point the NRA and it's supporters need to own up and address this issue. At some point, as a nation, we need to address the larger issue of why people are so disconnected and removed that they do not respect human life and are quick to pull the trigger.

[semisynthetic]

I write as thoughts come to me; I don't try to have my essay ready for grading. Your assumption is flawed; if the example
brings an idea to some use, especially a timely example, the fact that it may be seemingly random does not take away the weight of that example. Take away the citizens right to defend themselves, and who has the weapons? Criminals and Gangs;
over and over this is quite obvious; where are the highest crime rates? Why should "banning" something make it go away?
Prohibition didn't make the beer and spirits stop flowing, but it did create an enormous criminal enterprise; besides, I thought
the timely "Compton" report was likely on the air BECAUSE of the terrible shootings. Regardless, it is hardly random if it
is relevent. I used the term "rhetoric" in the purist sense of the word, not the propagandist usage that "rhetoric" has devolved into.


When I wrote about "automatons", it had NOTHING to do with gun control or peanut butter.

I was simply saying that a return to Personal Responsibilty is a key to correcting a great many problems; take away the need for individuals to be responsible for their actions, to have no responsibilties, to lack the skills or mindset to have independence, and to essentially NEED to be taken care of, they are stripped of their humanity. When someone has been in some way dehumanized, to not be expected to (even within themself) to take care of themselves when they are able to, you have something less than a whole person; THAT person cannot be expected to act rationally when they simply do not ever have to. I suggest that this individual is more of a threat than someone who wants to learn, wants to be as independent as possible; someone who does not wish to be "taken care of" by the state, but be responsible for themself. IF they are stripped of that essential element of humanity, with nothing expected of them, even by themselves, expect irrational behavior, or at least what is accepted as rational behavior. It was that simple. I used the term "automaton" because it inferred someone who was more likely to do what they were told, or to behave in a comparatively bizarre way than someone who takes responsiblity for themself, and thinks independently.
The Nanny state, in my opinion, creates these irresponsible individuals who not surprisingly, act that way. It seems that a country that once again promotes self-dependence instead of a "food-stamp" nation, would be an obvious step in bringing back the idea of pride in ones work, and the natural benefits of accomplishment. Someone who has nothing to lose seems a more likely problem than someone engaged in a desire to improve; go to school, excel at SOMETHING, rather than a downward spiral of continued failure. THESE are people who will tend to lose connection with human life and the value of it.

That was it.

[Shinesalight]

I've held back on commenting on this thread for some time....a) because I really didn't know what to say and how to voice my thoughts after such a terrible tragedy and b) because I wanted to see what developed in the aftermath after the event. I think the whole world was waiting to see what the hard conservative right of the US would come out and say, hoping that they finally might show some humility and, at best, concede that the proliferation of arms had gone too far and, at worst, at least agree to have an informed debate on the subject. What did we get instead....a statement that spat in the victims faces and calls for weapons in schools?!

Man, this approach is almost unbelievable to us in the UK. The States, in many ways, is seen as a very forward and modern country but when it comes to guns it seems as if they completely loose the plot. The calls from the rights alway seem to focus on a crazy argument off just throwing more guns at the problem. And this whole God given right/2nd amendment nonsense....are you kidding me. If every country said they were going to live by rules drawn up over 300 years ago then we would be living in anarchy. I don't care if you live in the heart of downtown LA or in the middle of the country, no one outside of the army needs a fucking assault rifle.

The US has one of the highest deaths per capita when it comes to gun crime and yet, for some, the answer still seems to be guns, guns and more guns. My first child is due in just over a weeks time and the thought of them going to school with armed teachers or guards seems totally incomprehensible. Obviously the process of disarming the public of the States would be an enormous and problematic task, but at least the NRA could have at least come out and said they were willing to talk about sensible solutions rather than blaming the press and just making The States a bit of a laughing stock (in relation to the aftermath, not the initial tragedy you understand).

[semisynthetic]

I have watched the country devolve into something like anarchy; and I don't like what I see either. I LIKED a campus setting
that was more condusive to learning about the sciences and philosophy than mere survival.

HOW DID WE GET THIS WAY? I believe MAINLY because politicians are all too willing to abandon those principles
set forth 300 years ago. It is the countries that change constitutions like changing their socks that are in anarchy;
we have been remarkably stable BECAUSE of the adherence to the Constitution.

Nearly 40 years ago, when I was in high school, the rancher's kids had gun racks in their trucks w/ rifles and shotguns; tools for the ranch; a friend of mine who built furniture, had saws and hammers and whatever carpenters use in his van;
NO ONE EVER THOUGHT TWICE ABOUT THESE THINGS! NO ONE WAS KILLING each other for "shoes" made in Asia;
I did not even lock my car! There was trust and something I will mention again, personal responsiblity; IF anyone had stolen
something, or worse, there would have been punishment and consequences. Now, parents seem to enable their kids to get away with stupid things. There is much less learning than there was then, I know that from the kids who were in my classes
when I taught Chemistry; No Calculus, an obvious decrease in the abilty to think independently; so who do you want to blame? Parents? Teachers? Politicians? How about all of the above?

So, what went wrong?

(And, Congratulations on the baby; my kids are already in Post Graduate school; time flies!
I don't blame you a bit for being apprehensive; I know that I would be concerned for a new baby; and for many reasons beyond this topic; I would not even want to return to 16; the world is so very, very different, my happy memories of that time will not be repeatable; there was certainly much more "live how you like", "be yourself", that has certainly changed.)

[semisynthetic]

I would like to find some REAL SOLUTIONS that do not infringe upon the Constitution; making certain that ONLY Criminals
have weapons is not an answer to this problem; this problem is a Societal one, and one that is VERY COMPLEX; it is a
Fraud upon the Citizenry to attempt to FURTHER limit Constitutional rights using the premise to "never let a tragedy go to waste"; this horrible series of murders was seized upon immediately by politicians seeking to grab MORE power for Nanny.

Any number of arguments will likely not sway anyone who does not like guns, BUT, to deny the reasons for the atrocities
and take away rights of the citizenry is Older Than Ancient Rome; IF the politicians want to address the REAL causes,
that allowed these murders, I will support them.

Education; Security, as determined by locale, dealing with the mentally ill;
THE MENTALLY ILL SHOULD NOT BE THE
DRIVING FORCE BEHIND taking away our RIGHTS, GUARANTEED by THE CONSTITUTION; IF that is the new way, we are all in a much bigger mess; REMEMBER "Unintended Consequences" do great harm in spite of good intentions.

I Wish You ALL a Very HAPPY HOLIDAY SEASON!
.

[Laz69]

this horrible series of murders was seized upon immediately by politicians seeking to grab MORE power for Nanny.

This statement seems to highlight the incredulous paranoia that pro-gun people seem to have when these incidents happen. Any HUMAN BEING with any sort of empathy and compassion would see that the politicians who are trying to make a stance of this are doing so as mums, dads, parents, brothers, sisters... as HUMAN BEINGS who do not want to see these tragedies continue. Any suggestion that the stance being taken or the topics being discussed to prevent this are politically motivated is just bullshit in my opinion.

I read that Christmas has effectively been cancelled in Sandy Hook this year. This will be probably the hardest period of the aftermath when all these lovely little kids should have been sitting at home with their families around them. I hope that you never have to suffer like they will be with any of your children being taken from you in such circumstances.

A country which is not willing to look at some 300 year old rules about how their society runs and whats its based on is not a forward thinking, modern society and shame on those who don't help take the steps to change it.

[redcloud]

this horrible series of murders was seized upon immediately by politicians seeking to grab MORE power for Nanny.

This statement seems to highlight the incredulous paranoia that pro-gun people seem to have when these incidents happen.

AGREED!

It also seems to be incredibly selfish. To restrict, ban and or make more difficult these types of weapons getting into society HAS to be a good thing. Yet, the NRA just see it as their guns being taken away.

Same with a health care system that provides and cares for all. If that means giving more power to "nanny"...well, I guess I am all in then. Personally, I view it as being compassionate for my fellow man.

[semisynthetic]

A great many of my closest friends are physicians and scientists; and of those, roughly 80% are from the Former Eastern Block, or The Former CCCP, or from Communist China.

They are all quite intelligent, worldly people who must deal with life, death, and also a "real life" of their own. Each one of these people have had real life EXPERIENCE in a state where "free healthcare" exists. ALL have experience in knowing they are powerless against a random act of violence, and certainly powerless against an all-powerful government, because the government has the ONLY ability to stop or create violence.

Upon obtaining their citizenship, one or more persons in each and every family took becoming a U.S. Citizen vs a slave very seriously; when it was legal for them, they each obtained, within the the rules of their respective states, a firearm for their
own protection. I taught many of them at length, over time, how to properly use and maintain, with safety, their firearms;
those who were too far to drive in easily, flew; the others across the country hired professionals who know what they are doing with regards to the firearms themselves, the laws of their area, and safety.

These are all very serious people who have spent their lives learning; they have shared their stories of the Brutality of Totalitarian States, and the big lie of "free" anything; FREEDOM requires great investment; and it is so easily lost by those so invested by time and thought in any Ideology that can cut away at a Free Society, that "winning" this or that little battle is more important than the Freedom of the Individual. So, you think the new "healthcare" system will be free? Will it be better? We DID have the best Health System in the world; NOT PERFECT - but whenever a leader from France, or Canada who could afford to fly over for the BEST, they came here.

I have heard very unhealthy stories from these Physicians who would know FIRST HAND, not from blogs or Whitehouse Propaganda, that as time passes, the system you knew will not improve; if being "equal" means we are all now at a disadvantage, not even Private Charities are allowed past a certain timepoint to help the poor; there will be too many patients for too few doctors; I admire Physicians; they spend half of their lives learning a level of detail that most people will NEVER
bother to attempt to understand; yet many necessary tests, complex and life saving, will certainly, as time goes by, be less
available, more expensive, with fewer Doctors to care for the growing numbers. Would you be satisfied to be paid 20 cents on the dollar for your work? And THEN, pay almost HALF of that in taxes? Medical School numbers are down; smart people
do care; but just like anyone with a brain, they do not want someone else to have the authority, and themselves, now to be stuck, with the responsibility; OH; and many essential tests that take YEARS to comprehend and analyze will be cut even
further; some 50%. What a FANTASTIC IDEA to improve Healthcare!
I can hear the clapping and hysteria now; down the hall, in the psych ward, where it might make sense.

There were such better methods available; but, the one pushed upon the majority of the populous was the one that gave the
Government the control, but not the responsibility. At the end of January, a new system of TRILLION dollar "free" healthcare taxes will begin. "Free Lunches" are a myth; unless of course, you are always willing to let someone else pay.

I know that the "Nanny-State" Ideology is for some reason the choice of so many on this site, not everyone, but a vocal few, certainly. Personally, I cannot understand willingly giving up any number of choices that should be made by the individual to a nameless, careless, and technocratic crowd who will be without responsibility for their mistakes or apathy.
Why anyone is so willing to let the better idea slide away because of a fixed Ideology is simply inexplicable to me; but I have always been aware of a certain crowd who seem to NEED to have someone tell them what to do. I have always found that a bit sad.

A few weeks ago, during the Storm Sandy, I wrote a very “happy” sort of report; at least I thought so; where so many people in a rural area were able to fill 6-7 semitrailer trucks with generators, food and all manner of necessities for babies to the infirm and aged; and NOT ONE comment was made. I wondered about that; but, I suppose actions those willing to help one another, strangers, in fact, without some “OK” from the technocracy just does not fit in with the Agenda Driven Ideology.
I would rather simply that no one had seen it, and that explained the lack of comments. I wonder.

[semisynthetic]

this horrible series of murders was seized upon immediately by politicians seeking to grab MORE power for Nanny.

This statement seems to highlight the incredulous paranoia that pro-gun people seem to have when these incidents happen. Any HUMAN BEING with any sort of empathy and compassion would see that the politicians who are trying to make a stance of this are doing so as mums, dads, parents, brothers, sisters... as HUMAN BEINGS who do not want to see these tragedies continue. Any suggestion that the stance being taken or the topics being discussed to prevent this are politically motivated is just bullshit in my opinion.

I was referring to the WELL KNOWN AXIOM mentioned over and over, especially by those of the current administration, that "one should never let a good tragedy go to waste". I always found THAT to be a heartless, purposeful, Political Power Grab; a "useful tragedy" is not at all how I view this terrible incident.
Not at all;
but if you believe that there are MANY in the government and places of power who would REFRAIN from using "if it bleeds it leads", well, you may be a very kind person; I am certain from your words you are; but I wonder just how much politics you read, watch and garner from Washington, without a TV/ internet, et cetera, filter?

Read the Congressional Record;
have a member of EACH party (unknown to the other) send you their "selected facts"; then you will see how Politically ugly these things go; keep an open mind and let facts take you where they will; right now, emotion is trumping good governance; Who wants to see anyone killed so needlessly?
There can be a reasonable and working solution without trashing the Constitution. Look at Italy; it is in a mess; how many Constitutions has a country like Italy had in that same "300" years?

It is NOT an unkind personal comment I make; for YEARS I have followed politics closely, and I cannot remember a more disgusting, heartless, fraudulent government than we have now. Even Nixon now looks "humane", relatively speaking. I wish it was NOT the case; I am appalled at what is being allowed to happen on every level; but it becomes so sanitized, or made to simply "disappear", I can understand why what I am writing is not comforting to you. I would rather try to deal with facts than either emotion OR Ideology; my beliefs are firmly grounded in the Constitution; and not whims of the moment, no matter how "reasonable" they seem at the time.

Wait a while until the warts on this administration cannot be glossed over any longer; it has already happened; It was "FAST and FURIOUS" under this administration that sent unmonitored weapons to Mexico, even when the FFL dealers in the USA OBJECTED; the big lie was dragged on and on as was Benghazi; where is everyone's righteous indignation about THAT? I object to being lied to by EITHER Political Party.


HAPPY NEW YEAR.

[runcible]

I cannot remember a more disgusting, heartless, fraudulent government than we have now.

Fraudulent? Wow - I didn't know Obama stole the election.

[jack white]

let me just preface this by saying that i actually enjoy guns. i'd dare say if i was american or lived in america i'd have amassed a small arsenal of the weapons by now.


'having said that'...
this idea of using guns for protection is anathema to me. guns are tools of destruction.
you want protection, you foster a society based on trust & well-being. you don't give ready access to deadly weapons.

now, i do agree w/semi's notion there are everyday appliances & household chemicals capable of being turned into weapons & that does happen: it isn't solely the fault of the gun. if people want to inflict harm they'll always find a way.
BUT as a preventative measure, surely it only makes sense to have stricter laws on who can access these types of ready-made weapons. that would be just one measure: there obviously needs to be a serious re-examination, understanding & better care afforded to those on the fringes of society and on the fringes of mental health. this is a problem that strikes right to the core of american society (& elsewhere for that matter, america isn't the only country w/dangerous loons running around).

america is still a relatively young country & shouldn't believe it's fully realised & grown complete. there should be a will to question whether the constitution serves in the best interests of it's people, that should be an important facet in any democracy. (but i don't really believe such a thing as democracy exists. but that's a different debate altogether.) this notion about infringing upon the constitution i find frankly bizarre, as if it's a holy text. & i mean, look how well those things have stood the test of time & how many people have died throughout time due to adhering to them. it's a preposterous notion that archaic laws fashioned by corrupt liars is held in such high regard.
(& semi's sarcastic swipe at liberals is another thing which confused me, although it helped highlight once again the schism of american culture, it's a sad state of affairs really.)

there are solutions to these massacres, to the serial killers. but whether there is a genuine will to find them i don't think so. from the outside it looks like there's too much money involved & far, far too much emotion.

[jack white]

I cannot remember a more disgusting, heartless, fraudulent government than we have now.

Fraudulent? Wow - I didn't know Obama stole the election.

sorry for putting my nose in here, but i don't think semi meant it in the sense of fraud, or stealing. he meant it in the sense of lying & hypocrisy. obama's kill list, drone attacks etc. are what he's referring to. while on the other hand trying to pr/teach the world about democracy.
hillary was over here before christmas, we have a spate of discontented rioters & paramilitaries trying to undermine the peace (or bump up their pay packets). & she came and passed judgement on our problems as 'undemocratic' & other bullshit catchphrases, all the while she is culpable in the many crimes committed by her government. they talk of 'rogue nations' but in fact it is they (& their dwindling allies) who are contemptuous of international law & sentiment & acts according to their own whims & wishes, not even their own laws. that, imo, is what's fraudulent about the US government.
but i don't really see how they're much more hateful than previous administrations - maybe it's that they were slightly more open in their reasons & war acts.

[spzretent]

Obama inherited two wars and a financial catastrophe. Something he has had to deal with. The previous administration were, at the very least, responsible for two wars and stealing an election.
There is such polarization between the two mindsets of Americans. I do believe much of this has to do with the far right who have such an impact on the Republicans. That created the gulf which has only gotten bigger. A little moderation on both sides would do this country a world of good.
Sometimes it feels like living in two polar opposite countries.

[sunray]

A few weeks ago, during the Storm Sandy, I wrote a very “happy” sort of report; at least I thought so; where so many people in a rural area were able to fill 6-7 semitrailer trucks with generators, food and all manner of necessities for babies to the infirm and aged; and NOT ONE comment was made. I wondered about that; but, I suppose actions those willing to help one another, strangers, in fact, without some “OK” from the technocracy just does not fit in with the Agenda Driven Ideology.
I would rather simply that no one had seen it, and that explained the lack of comments. I wonder.[/b]

I imagine there was no response because a lot of us would just put that down as normal behaviour, basic human kindness if you like, and the kind of act that we ourselves would practice in the same situation without any kind of fanfare or any sort of political angle attached to it.

I would agree with your view that people need to exercise more personal responsibility in their lives and I also wouldn't have much faith or trust in any government but I don't see how having healthcare available to all, rather than those who can afford it, is a bad thing. Or how in having that healthcare system is somehow handing over control to government in other areas of our lives.

As for the whole gun argument? Well i guess i'll just never understand why a nation of people feels the need to personally arm themselves. If you like hunting, fine but otherwise why does anyone need a weapon?

[redcloud]

A few weeks ago, during the Storm Sandy, I wrote a very “happy” sort of report; at least I thought so; where so many people in a rural area were able to fill 6-7 semitrailer trucks with generators, food and all manner of necessities for babies to the infirm and aged; and NOT ONE comment was made. I wondered about that; but, I suppose actions those willing to help one another, strangers, in fact, without some “OK” from the technocracy just does not fit in with the Agenda Driven Ideology.
I would rather simply that no one had seen it, and that explained the lack of comments. I wonder.

People's charitable donations are private matters. I do not think one needs to list on this website everything they do or how much they send. It's not a competition.

I object to being lied to by EITHER Political Party.

As do I, which is exactly why Bush Jr. was so polarizing and damaging to this country. He lied to the American people and the world to go to war against Iraq. History will not be kind to him.

[semisynthetic]

I never intended a simple "we can help ourselves efficiently", while the government gets its act together to be a boast or competition.

I give because I WANT to, not because it is mandated or makes me look good some how. The point was, even in a poor area, Citizenry find resources to help those in need. I just thought that was good thing. Not a contest.

Never did I imagine it would be considered so. Many people give who are themselves, quite poor; others give for different reasons; some people rarely give anything; I agree, it is their business.

THAT was not the point of the little text I wrote; I was simply happy that so many people in a remote region gave so much to people they did not even know. How is that a contest or competition?

[semisynthetic]

Obama inherited two wars and a financial catastrophe. Something he has had to deal with. The previous administration were, at the very least, responsible for two wars and stealing an election.
There is such polarization between the two mindsets of Americans. I do believe much of this has to do with the far right who have such an impact on the Republicans. That created the gulf which has only gotten bigger. A little moderation on both sides would do this country a world of good.
Sometimes it feels like living in two polar opposite countries.

So do I. It wasn't always this way. You have an opinion, OK; someone else disagrees, OK, agree to disagree.
But that has changed so very much; Individuality has given way to Herdmentality, and personally, I am disappointed. I do take "swipes" at Liberalism, because I see the pendulum swinging so far to the Left that a sort of "If you don't agree with us, you are wrong" mindset emerges that seems too extreme, at least for me. I like conversation and sharing of ideas; I do NOT like to be told what to do by Ideologues of either extreme. I simply offer my opinions and experience; I prefer making as many of my OWN decisions as I can; to do otherwise seems so alien to me. I do not believe this divisiveness was accidental; this "rich vs poor", "X vs Y", you name it; there is a disquieting utility in having "We the People" discontented and divided. It is so obvious, and not simply a coincidence or evolutionary sociological event. It is driven by those who gain from our collective weakening. It is an Ancient method that unfortunately for us, works.

[semisynthetic]

I cannot remember a more disgusting, heartless, fraudulent government than we have now.

Fraudulent? Wow - I didn't know Obama stole the election.

sorry for putting my nose in here, but i don't think semi meant it in the sense of fraud, or stealing. he meant it in the sense of lying & hypocrisy. obama's kill list, drone attacks etc. are what he's referring to. while on the other hand trying to pr/teach the world about democracy.
hillary was over here before christmas, we have a spate of discontented rioters & paramilitaries trying to undermine the peace (or bump up their pay packets). & she came and passed judgement on our problems as 'undemocratic' & other bullshit catchphrases, all the while she is culpable in the many crimes committed by her government. they talk of 'rogue nations' but in fact it is they (& their dwindling allies) who are contemptuous of international law & sentiment & acts according to their own whims & wishes, not even their own laws. that, imo, is what's fraudulent about the US government.
but i don't really see how they're much more hateful than previous administrations - maybe it's that they were slightly more open in their reasons & war acts.

Thank you. It is not much fun to be ganged up upon because I have a differing point of view. History takes a long time to write; patience and greater understanding of more than a single point of view will judge just who did their best for mankind, and the rights of the individual.

[semisynthetic]

As for the whole gun argument? Well i guess i'll just never understand why a nation of people feels the need to personally arm themselves. If you like hunting, fine but otherwise why does anyone need a weapon?

I do enjoy hunting, the Outdoors, and all of the Beauty that living in a Natural World provides; and have enjoyed that world since I was a small boy hunting and enjoying what Nature can teach. I am very fortunate to live where I chose to live; but, from time to time, I need to travel; and we all know it is a crazier world for all manner of reasons. I wrote earlier that just last year I had to defend myself, FOR THE FIRST TIME IN MY LIFE (from another human being); I did not like needing to pull the firearm I am licensed to carry to chase off a very disturbed and armed individual who meant me great harm. I carry a firearm in the woodlands around my home and on my land because there are Natural dangers to deal with; but I was not at all pleased to have had no choice but to defend myself. I AM pleased that I COULD; and that I am still here. The person who was about to attack me saw the weapon, and ran. I am very glad he ran.

[redcloud]

I like conversation and sharing of ideas; I do NOT like to be told what to do by Ideologues of either extreme. I simply offer my opinions and experience; I prefer making as many of my OWN decisions as I can; to do otherwise seems so alien to me.

Semi, nobody is ganging up on you. Those who have replied on this thread are offering view points about a heated and very emotional issue. We are conversing...that is all.

When one talks about a lack of conversation one needs to look no further than the NRA who have refused to budge on anything. No discussion, no open dialogue...it is simply "do not take my guns from me, by god it is my right. We must instead train and arm teachers and security guards". End of story. Nothing else offered nor did they appear to want to discuss options. Conversation must work both ways, right?

Also, there is no reason for you to assume that because there was no reply about your Sandy donations that people here ignored it.

This is a music board but look at the band that this forum centers around....it is not a band that appeals to the masses. Their music is far from herd mentality and it demands its listeners to think. All of us who regularly write/read and listen to the music discussed on this board will have an opinion and are ready to voice it (whether it be about a band, an album, a concert, a book, a film, politics or gun rights). This is exactly what you would expect. Right?

[semisynthetic]

The NRA are doing exactly what I expect them to do; Everything they can to uphold the 2nd Amendment Rights that are guaranteed by the Constitution. I do not expect them to do anything else. If they do not, no other organization with their influence can. I wish certain points had been made differently, but I am no politician nor do I have to deal with them. We are going broke, and these same politicians act like they couldn't care less; they don't SAY that; but they act that way. The NRA is doing what would happen if this government decided the internet was SO dangerous, that it needed to be handled as it is in China; Upholding the 1st Amendment to the Constitution.

On the other side, certain Politicians, the media, a great number of anti-gun organizations, et cetera, will have a vast and very powerful machine against the message of the NRA. The NRA simply perform the function that their members expect them to.

This type of emotional event is great fodder for all of those people against the right to own, carry or collect weapons. It is naive to simply believe those who are are anti-gun have a simple desire to do good. Power is the real coin of commerce; and the less power in the hands of the people, the better for those who wish it for themselves alone. Same old story. Jefferson et al knew that all too well. They had lived under Tyranny to such a degree they were willing to forfeit their lives for freedom; not think of clever ways of giving that freedom away.

I WAS glad to see an opinion that was similar to my own; that this administration is not some Utopian ideal, but the same old stuff, even many of the same old players. It was refreshing to hear an opposing opinion from someone outside the USA looking in saying, in effect, "Nanny lies" and why can't you see it?

I wrote some time ago that Orwell saw a world in his future that many people cannot see staring them in the eye;
and I still wonder, why could he have such insight so long ago, and we, collectively, be so blind as we stare at it? Read Sun Tzu, if you have not already. Same techniques; divisiveness and confusion; weakness results, followed by a complete loss of power; you lose. We all lose. It is the power of a multitude of individual thinkers that wins over the inherent weakness of the multitude of a hive.

My comment of a Herd Mentality had NOTHING to do with the music board; or any other board; I was giving my opinion as to what I have seen our society devolve into; little cubicles of thought; demarcations of association; a dramatic and dangerous decline in the ability, let alone any great desire to discuss genuinely with someone you disagree with; this did not exist 30 years ago; not in the manner it does now; there was a much greater ability, maybe even a desire to say, you live how you want, I will live as I wish as well; and unless there is some imminent clash between us, leave it alone. Not anymore; the term Liberal no longer fits the classic definition; the openness of ideas and there acceptance has changed markedly. I return to my assertion that the modern liberal is far less tolerant of ideas that do not fit the accepted views on a vast array of subjects, guns being but a single example.

[runcible]

I cannot remember a more disgusting, heartless, fraudulent government than we have now.

Fraudulent? Wow - I didn't know Obama stole the election.

sorry for putting my nose in here, but i don't think semi meant it in the sense of fraud, or stealing. he meant it in the sense of lying & hypocrisy.

What do you expect when a sweeping word like fraudulent is used?

This thread has veered close to being bonkers so, as they say on Dragon's Den, 'I'm out'.

[redcloud]

a dramatic and dangerous decline in the ability, let alone any great desire to discuss genuinely with someone you disagree with; this did not exist 30 years ago;

I return to my assertion that the modern liberal is far less tolerant of ideas that do not fit the accepted views on a vast array of subjects, guns being but a single example.

I am somewhat confused...in one sentence you say that "30 years ago people were willing to say what they want and to converse" but then you follow it by saying that "these days the modern liberal is less tolerant of ideas". You are contradicting yourself. There is actually a lot of dialogue going on right here in this very thread.

One thing you are correct about....I personally will never understand nor accept why people need semi or fully automatic weapons or assault rifles. So yes, I am less tolerant to debate because I do not understand that need or desire.

[semisynthetic]

You help make my point.

You say:
"I personally will never understand nor accept why people need semi or fully automatic weapons or assault rifles. So yes, I am less tolerant to debate because I do not understand that need or desire".

Whenever I come across something I do not understand, I have at least tried to see it from the other point of view, not just simply give up. I understand that many people do not like guns; ironically, many of these people know very little about them.

You are in education; surely complex problems do not lend themselves to a "one size fits all" solution, do they?
For YEARS now, I have taught or written about Molecular Orbital Theory and Practice in Synthesis; and Nuclear Magnetic Resonance, to name just TWO tools that are necessary to understand and use. I deal with people of a GREAT DIVERSITY of backgrounds, abilities, and languages, so over the years, I have learned how to deal with the subtleties of complexity for each student as necessary. Many times the SINGLE explanation given in their book is simply inadequate; but by adjusting an explanation for each student, THEY ALL LEARN. And I learn as well; to view things from more than simply one point of understanding, especially problems that have MORE than one good answer.

Most people where I live have multiple firearms; each tool has its purpose; they are Honest Citizens, and I live in one of the LOWEST CRIME AREAS IN THE NATION; gun crimes are very rare, and almost always associated with gangs in the larger cities.

This area, is very much like where I grew up as a boy, a "live and let live" philosophy; just because I disagree does not mean I am wrong, I just differ in opinion, and THAT sort of model is one that attracts me; and many from places of Tyranny and COMPLETE control by the State, who came HERE to escape it. Why keep at recreating what these people lived in, and who know that Centralized Thought and Control is an aberration, not a sound philosophy; especially not HERE.

There is no complex algorithm here; taking weapons from Honest citizens who do NOT commit crime, leaving weapons only in the hands of Criminals and the government; why do you think there IS a 2nd Amendment?

It is better to understand, or at least TRY to understand what one finds "alien". It makes for a better teacher AND a better student; I did not just "quit" desiring to learn one day; and that methodology can only lead to some kind of "Society" that is
like over-cooked oatmeal; some kind of homogeneous gruel of mediocrity.

So I try to understand the opposing views, and supporting views, based upon what I actually know and am personally familiar with, and with what I hear and read from people I both agree with and disagree.

[Laz69]

I may not be fully understanding this, but i have YET to read an explanation AND/OR ANY justification for the need to have semi/fully automatic assault weapons in this entire thread... nor has there been anything to give me reason to believe that there is a purpose for these types of weapon AS A TOOL in any shape or form other than a military use.

Semisynthetic, you seemed to see any sort of restriction on these specific weapons as a direct attack on the people's right to own guns in general. I cannot understand why there is a need for these SPECIFIC weapons and why any restrictions or bans imposed on these weapons would somehow stop people from getting their hands on guns as a means of protection. It maybe a little far fetched, but your belief that the citizens have a fundamental right to own guns would suggest that people could buy mini-guns, rocket launchers, gunships, etc for their own protection. Sounds a bit silly if you ask me.

I'd be interested in seeing how many murders are committed using these types of weapons and the circumstances of each. I'd imagine your average criminal is not carrying out his crimes (muggings, hold ups, etc) with assault weapons due to the fact these are harder to conceal than larger weapons. So this would suggest that these weapons are typically used in specific "going postal" type circumstances where the only purpose is to kill en mass.

Also, can you justify the arming on the fire services after the most recent incident in the US?

[redcloud]

It maybe a little far fetched, but your belief that the citizens have a fundamental right to own guns would suggest that people could buy mini-guns, rocket launchers, gunships, etc for their own protection.

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/lanow/2 ... s-say.html

[Laz69]

maybe not so far fetched after all!

[semisynthetic]

I saw that "buy-back" item as well; I did not see if it was demilled or an active piece; but even IF it was operable, the ammunition is unique for these and other (working) launchers; even the lauchers themselves have a VERY special ignition battery that is designed to last a limited time only. At any rate, the photo made the news mainly BECAUSE it was the Exception, and it makes a good story for LA, not because there are some vast number of military rocket launchers in circulation. It seems a little more knowledge would have been more informative, but it would have lost some of the "excitement" and not advanced the "cause".

As to "what IS and IS NOT allowed", my concern is always with "WHAT NEXT?"
I too offered up a few pertinent questions and several points that were truly valid, and those were not ever touched.

Can you, personally, think of ANY reason to have a firearm? What specifics regarding how the vast array of firearms and how they work do you know? Perhaps you do not want to know, that is fair, but it does not help in presenting the best argument if you limit what you know purposely. If you cannot imagine even a SINGLE reason a Free and Honest Citizen should have a firearm when they qualify under the 2nd Amendment to own one (IF they choose to), then this intransigence along with really not knowing much about firearms, how they work, i.e., what is and is not possible and so on, presents a somewhat weakened argument. "I don't like it and you shouldn't have one" is not terribly convinvicing.

I do not live in a movie. I enjoy the outdoors, target practice and hunting. I take VERY good care of my lands and the wildlife; (most hunters do). All who hunt legally purchase a permit that puts an enormous amount of money back into conservation, while so many other people just TALK about it. Over the last few years, I have planted over a thousand trees and increased
wildlife habitat, NOT because I intend on hunting down every last living game animal, but because I enjoy nature; I LIKE seeing a very large and healthy variety of wildlife out of my windows. It is Beautiful.

There are so many "dangerous" items and substances that have a legitimate use, and a legal right to be owned; but most very dangerous items and substances, or items and substances USED IN CRIMES need no background check, no State or Federal Licensing, just the ability and evil mindedness to use them in a way inconsistent with their intended purposes.

The propaganda has been heating up, and there is a great deal of misinformation and exageration regarding firearms.
I have rifles and so on that I use, (or had made), SPECIFICALLY for target practice; nothing else, not hunting, just targets.

I commented on the trial balloon of control to computer access because of a very real danger, an insidious manner that could
harm or kill people on an unbelievable scale; a very REAL "Assault Weapon"; where should we draw the line there?
The 1st Amendment should keep that Right safe; and ONLY those who actually commit crimes should be punished for crimes. The same thing should hold true w/ the 2nd Amendment; I am most assuredly for very strict punishment of those who commit crimes, especially violent crimes, whether w/ a firearm or NOT; but punish those who actually have COMMITTED a crime, that would include an enormous number of people who, by law, should NOT have such a weapon; parolees, Felons, other violent criminals. These are very often, (along with the Mentally Ill), the people who actually commit MOST of these crimes. THEY are the ones who should be put away and that right to have a weapon revoked, NOT the Honest citizen.

The FBI reported very recently that approximately 40% of murders throughout the country, mainly associated with gangs, originate from Mexico; so where is the righteous indignation about this travesty?

Too often in this Country, we are increasingly asked to prove "WHY" we should be allowed to keep "inalienable Rights" already granted to us, firearms is just one example. This is far too "Big Brother" for my liking.

Although these recent shootings by mad people are truly terrible acts, firearm crimes are committed relatively LESS and deaths, are caused, in general, far LESS with firearms than many other means. Most of these crimes are centered in urban areas. Not ALL, but the majority.

JUST HOW MUCH ARE YOU WILLING TO GIVE UP WHEN IT IS SOMETHING THAT YOU ENJOY, and YOU are Innocent of any wrongdoing whatsoever?

That "slippery-slope" argument should not be forgotten, or it may be YOUR ox being gored before you realize it.


HAPPY NEW YEAR EVERYONE! (and excuse the misspelled words, I was in a hurry)

[simonkeeping]

I just wrote a long and wordy reply, but I think this sums it up.

[quote="semisynthetic" JUST HOW MUCH ARE YOU WILLING TO GIVE UP WHEN IT IS SOMETHING THAT YOU ENJOY, and YOU are Innocent of any wrongdoing whatsoever? [/quote]

Not the life of a child.

[semisynthetic]

I understand your love of life, so do I; but to do more than simply a catchy phrase, more would be truly needed:

NO CARS
NO TRAINS
NO MOTORCYCLES
NO VIOLENT VIDEO GAMES (which I don't understand the need for, but this is not a Dictatorship)
NO ATV's
NO (ethyl) ALCOHOL; in fact, MOST household chemicals would be needed to be outlawed OUTRIGHT
NO RECREATIONAL COMPOUNDS
NO POWER TOOLS
NO CUTLERY
NO GLASS
NO access to the INTERNET
CERTAIN COMMON MEDICATIONS
NO HOLLYWOOD GLORIFICATION of VIOLENCE and GUNS
AND ON AND ON...............practically endless.

Maybe, it would be better to just hide in the basement; but I don't think so. Look at the list of what kills people, whether purposely or accidently, and the number of deaths, AND the number of "items" is truly incredible. It was beyond "make-believe"; the nonclassified "Bulgarian Manual" I mentioned was absolutely correct, unfortunately in just how cold-blooded and creative, as well as accident prone, so many people are. Guns are not needed to kill anyone on the Highway, or on your way to work, or taking the wee ones to Day Care.

Now, compare those numbers, (not to mention "RIGHTS") of 60 Million LAWFUL gun owners, who follow the law, and are in
no way a danger; in fact, look at where "Gun Laws" are very strict versus those areas that uphold the 2nd Amendment; you
are far more likely to be caught in the crossfire in the "Strictest" areas, and safe where honest gun owners live. Not all
criminals are stupid; criminals go to where there are "easy pickings" every day, 24 hours a day. The mentally ill don't read
the laws, or get permits or fingerprinted or walk into a store, usually; neither do criminals; so take care of those people who
should not, by existing law, have a firearm.

Connecticut has some of the MOST STRINGENT laws PROTECTING THE MENTALLY ILL in the USA; a person must LITERALLY prove they are dangerous by committing an act before they can be held, even for observation, no matter how bizarre or POSSIBLY dangerous they appear; perhaps that law should be looked at.

I am saying that the Honest Gun Owners, some 60 million Americans cannot be made the Scapegoats for all of Societies ills;
Mental Health Care is basically nonexistent; Criminals rule the streets where "Stringent" Gun Laws obviously do not work; if an insane person truly wishes to kill, they have an arsenal that does not require bullets, just the twisted will to kill,
and they will find a way.

Criminals don't care about all of this Philosophical banter; if they know an area is SAFE for THEM, it is likely not as safe for you, or your children. Your comment is obviously well intentioned, but does not address the reasoning to take away from 60 Million Innocent Citizens, their Rights, just to put a bandaid on a problem that is far more complex than that bandaid could EVER solve.

[simonkeeping]

I understand your love of life, so do I; but to do more than simply a catchy phrase, more would be truly needed:

NO CARS
NO TRAINS
NO MOTORCYCLES
NO VIOLENT VIDEO GAMES (which I don't understand the need for, but this is not a Dictatorship)
NO ATV's
NO (ethyl) ALCOHOL; in fact, MOST household chemicals would be needed to be outlawed OUTRIGHT
NO RECREATIONAL COMPOUNDS
NO POWER TOOLS
NO CUTLERY
NO GLASS
NO access to the INTERNET
CERTAIN COMMON MEDICATIONS
NO HOLLYWOOD GLORIFICATION of VIOLENCE and GUNS
AND ON AND ON...............practically endless.

Maybe, it would be better to just hide in the basement; but I don't think so. Look at the list of what kills people, whether purposely or accidently, and the number of deaths, AND the number of "items" is truly incredible. It was beyond "make-believe"; the nonclassified "Bulgarian Manual" I mentioned was absolutely correct, unfortunately in just how cold-blooded and creative, as well as accident prone, so many people are. Guns are not needed to kill anyone on the Highway, or on your way to work, or taking the wee ones to Day Care.

Now, compare those numbers, (not to mention "RIGHTS") of 60 Million LAWFUL gun owners, who follow the law, and are in
no way a danger; in fact, look at where "Gun Laws" are very strict versus those areas that uphold the 2nd Amendment; you
are far more likely to be caught in the crossfire in the "Strictest" areas, and safe where honest gun owners live. Not all
criminals are stupid; criminals go to where there are "easy pickings" every day, 24 hours a day. The mentally ill don't read
the laws, or get permits or fingerprinted or walk into a store, usually; neither do criminals; so take care of those people who
should not, by existing law, have a firearm.

Connecticut has some of the MOST STRINGENT laws PROTECTING THE MENTALLY ILL in the USA; a person must LITERALLY prove they are dangerous by committing an act before they can be held, even for observation, no matter how bizarre or POSSIBLY dangerous they appear; perhaps that law should be looked at.

I am saying that the Honest Gun Owners, some 60 million Americans cannot be made the Scapegoats for all of Societies ills; Mental Health Care is basically nonexistent; Criminals rule the streets where "Stringent" Gun Laws obviously do not work; if an insane person truly wishes to kill, they have an arsenal that does not require bullets, just the twisted will to kill, and they will find a way.

Whoa there!! Hide in the basement? Im writing this then Im out, this is all getting a little too weird for me.

You can write as many lists as you want but the fact of the matter is if the gun regulations were tightened up then these incidents would happen less. And as for 'Stringent' gun laws not working. Are you serious? You fail to see any correlation between the ease in which you can mass an arsenal of weaponry and the number of shootings in the USA. Make it harder for people to buy guns by putting some barriers in place to ensure that only responsible owners (like you) can carry them, and are to undergo regular checks (as who knows, one of those 60 million lawful gun owners could one day develop depression and become unstable, have there gun stolen or worst still have there gun used against them) and the this will reduce the number of these atrocities.

I understand the point made that if people want to hurt or kill other people you don't need a gun. But, in all honesty it makes it a damn sight easier. Guns will remain on the streets but over time this can be reduced and bought under tighter control with a police crackdown, its not going to happen over night but like any big problem unless addressed will grow bigger and more out of control. I'm sad to say I have a feeling that is exactly what will happen in the short term because of this refusal to accept that it's an issue and not an infrigement of rights.

http://www.thenation.com/blog/171774/fi ... 12-84-dead#

[Hofstadter]

Semi, and everybody else, in one sentence: why do people deserve to own guns? Certainly not because it says so in the constitution, that's the most bullshit answer I've ever heard, so please don't give that; the question I guess is - why, from a modern perspective, should guns be mentioned in the constitution as some fundamental right? Pretty easy for me to justify most of the other stuff in the BoR's, harder for me to justify guns.

Again, I'd appreciate concise answers. One sentence if possible. Answers from both sides would be nice.

[runcible]

...and in your Nanny list semi you didn't mention anything about the fact that none of those items are actually made specifically to kill things. Which semi-automatic and automatic guns are.

[jadams501]

Semi, and everybody else, in one sentence: why do people deserve to own guns? Certainly not because it says so in the constitution, that's the most bullshit answer I've ever heard, so please don't give that; the question I guess is - why, from a modern perspective, should guns be mentioned in the constitution as some fundamental right? Pretty easy for me to justify most of the other stuff in the BoR's, harder for me to justify guns.

Again, I'd appreciate concise answers. One sentence if possible. Answers from both sides would be nice.

I have a longer general spiel at home that I'll post at some point, but you raise a very important point. The Constitution is based on a fundamental skepticism about human nature and how much governments can be trusted, based on the founders' studies of the rise and fall of previous societies. It is a very "conservative" document in the sense that it was intentionally structured to make change difficult and slow, particularly when it comes to the Bill of Rights and constitutional amendments. When people say government "doesn't work" because it isn't passing legislation they like, that's an example of the Constitution working as designed.

If you're someone oriented from what people on the left (including you?) would generally call "a modern perspective," you tend to think that the government is basically a stable force for good that empowers competent professionals to work for the public interest. From that perspective, guns mean something very different than to those who think government tends to be incompetent and/or controlled by special interests who lack accountability.

I guess I would ask why people feel that the right to bear arms is obsolete when similar arguments could be made that freedom of speech is dangerous as well.

[olan]

Semi, and everybody else, in one sentence: why do people deserve to own guns? Certainly not because it says so in the constitution, that's the most bullshit answer I've ever heard, so please don't give that; the question I guess is - why, from a modern perspective, should guns be mentioned in the constitution as some fundamental right? Pretty easy for me to justify most of the other stuff in the BoR's, harder for me to justify guns.

Again, I'd appreciate concise answers. One sentence if possible. Answers from both sides would be nice.

I have a longer general spiel at home that I'll post at some point, but you raise a very important point. The Constitution is based on a fundamental skepticism about human nature and how much governments can be trusted, based on the founders' studies of the rise and fall of previous societies. It is a very "conservative" document in the sense that it was intentionally structured to make change difficult and slow, particularly when it comes to the Bill of Rights and constitutional amendments. When people say government "doesn't work" because it isn't passing legislation they like, that's an example of the Constitution working as designed.

If you're someone oriented from what people on the left (including you?) would generally call "a modern perspective," you tend to think that the government is basically a stable force for good that empowers competent professionals to work for the public interest. From that perspective, guns mean something very different than to those who think government tends to be incompetent and/or controlled by special interests who lack accountability.

I guess I would ask why people feel that the right to bear arms is obsolete when similar arguments could be made that freedom of speech is dangerous as well.

OK, but I have no real issue with some tosser shooting his mouth off outside a school when life gets him down......freedom of speech is not really dangerous in a liberal democracy. I would still like to hear an answer to Hofstadter's question. For what it is worth I cannot provide one in a single sentence.

However, I grew up in (Ireland) and lived through a huge clawback of guns in Australia and my strong impression was that society was considerably improved in both cases. Personally, I own no possessions worthy of taking a life for and would not want a gun in the house for fear of accidents. I perceive the chance I would need to defend my family with deadly force as being so close to zero as to be an uncertainty as opposed to a risk. (3 sentences, sorry Hofstadter )

[redcloud]

I guess I would ask why people feel that the right to bear arms is obsolete when similar arguments could be made that freedom of speech is dangerous as well.

While I agree that the "Freedom of Speech" can, and is, interpreted and abused by some foul, vile, repulsive people that particular right cannot kill in the blink of an eye. Also, I believe that if the "freedom of speech" rant becomes a legitimate threat to harm or kill then it is no longer protected.

I have lived in several cities in America (some good and some bad) and I have lived in London. I have also traveled all over North America and much of Europe. Not once have I ever felt the need or the urge to have a gun. I do not hunt but I understand that some people do. I still do not understand why anybody would need a semi automatic or a fully automatic gun. Once you have that type of arsenal it seems to take the "sport" out of hunting or target shooting. If somebody feels the need to protect themselves and their possessions...isn't a hunting rifle/shotgun capable of doing so? If so, then why would one need a machine gun? I may also disagree with my Government on some issues but I am not so paranoid about them that I feel the need or urge to stock up on weapons.

[jadams501]

Not once have I ever felt the need or the urge to have a gun. I do not hunt but I understand that some people do. I still do not understand why anybody would need a semi automatic or a fully automatic gun. Once you have that type of arsenal it seems to take the "sport" out of hunting or target shooting. If somebody feels the need to protect themselves and their possessions...isn't a hunting rifle/shotgun capable of doing so? If so, then why would one need a machine gun? I may also disagree with my Government on some issues but I am not so paranoid about them that I feel the need or urge to stock up on weapons.

I am not a hunter and have only fired a gun a few times in my life, almost exclusively at summer camp! But during high school I was assaulted, robbed in my home and led around at knifepoint in search of valuables. Perhaps the person was a burglar who didn't want blood on his hands but these situations can often escalate, and I certainly felt as if being murdered was a distinct possibility. He locked me in my basement and fortunately I had a phone in there to call the cops. Whoever the guy was (he was never caught so far as I know), he violated some of the most basic rules of civilized behavior when I had done nothing to provoke him. I had always been dogmatically for gun control as the obvious solution, and found the idea of owning a gun distasteful, but after my experience I understood its value. The police weren't there for me when I needed them, and I lived in a nice area. Imagine living somewhere remote or without an effective police force. I don't have a gun, and don't feel the need at present, but particularly if I were living with a family I might think having a gun is the responsible option. When a criminal person or group invades your space, you don't know if they're on hard drugs or are mentally ill or anything, and you should be able to defend yourself if so inclined. IMHO.

My understanding is that a semiautomatic gun reloads itself, but you can't hold down the trigger to fire multiple times, and that semiautomatics are thus the vast majority of firearms. With adrenaline pumping in a chaotic situation, even highly trained marksmen often need multiple shots to put down the offender(s). I agree automatics seem excessive but my understanding is that those are already effectively illegal and have never been involved in a mass shooting. The definition of so-called "assault rifles" is pretty murky from what I've read, that it's weapons incorporating three or more of a long list of features like scopes, laser lights, and so forth. From what I can see the gun constituency is a lot like the hi-fi audio crowd or car aficianados or people really invested in how many millions of pixels make up the screen of their iphones -- largely male, middle-aged, and nerdily invested in luxurious details of their gadgets. Computers and the internet were used to mastermind 9/11, a truck was used in the Oklahoma City bombing, and smartphones have been used for terrorism, but we don't propose to take those out of the hands of a citizenry that we judge deserve to be treated as responsible adults. Guns are the most serious responsibility for the public to own, but it's an important American principle. If I owned a gun, I would hope I'd never need to use it, or do anything other than brandish it, but I'd have a clear conscience if i were forced to.

I certainly see a lot of excess in the "gun culture," and wish fewer criminals had guns, but gun control at this point is mostly taking tools from law-abiding adults rather than out of the hands of criminals, thus giving malefactors a better chance of carrying out whatever they intend. The very government that some feel should be in charge of gun control has at times, including the recent "Fast and Furious" scandal, knowingly allowed illegally purchased high powered weapons to go to organized crime in Mexico and elsewhere. It's a complicated, messy issue.

At the very least, I wish this topic could be discussed (out in the world, not so much in this more respectful forum) with facts and reasoned arguments rather than presenting things as the sensible empathy people vs. the crazy paranoid racist gun owners. People can disagree without being disagreeable!

[redcloud]

Jadams, I am sorry that you were assaulted in your own home. That is truly terrible. Everybody can agree on that and nothing we can say will make that experience any less traumatic.

I too have been robbed (in downtown Cleveland). I never saw a weapon but there was the threat of a knife. I gave the guy what he wanted and he took off. Very different from your experience. I wasn't assaulted, I wasn't in my home and it happened quick and ended quick. The adrenaline was pumping but I realized my personal possessions meant very little to me at the time.

I still don't feel the need or urge to have a gun in my house. Will that ever change? I seriously hope not. For now, I'll stick to my baseball bat.

People can disagree without being disagreeable!

I think, for the most part, we have done that in this forum.

That said, so far nobody has convinced me why anybody needs to own a semi or fully automatic handgun let alone a military style rifle.

[semisynthetic]

I will not attempt "one sentence answers" for matters of Consequence; this is not akin to Answering "Paper or Plastic?" at the checkout counter; which is not a very emotional issue, does not cause very much divisiveness because of varying background and lifestyle, and has an extremely limited affect on such Important Documents and The Philosophy of Living contained in the Constitution of the United States.
Denying the worth of the Constitution must be one of the most inane comments I have yet read in this discussion, invoking scat instead of thoughtful give and take of ideas is not worth much of a serious response that have any worthwhile meaning.

If you have never wanted to own a gun, well, hurray for you; again, free choice is very important to me, so if you do not want one, great. Perhaps IF you had some, even limited positive experience with fellow citizens who are nice people with an interest you may personally have never shared, you might at least have a broader sense of why so many people DO enjoy shooting sports. Several Physicians, carpenters, a plumber, the fellow who takes care of my air conditioner, just regular people who just happen to live outside the world you have, and that is all. Furthermore, I know of no one of the people I shoot with who would be at all bothered that you did not enjoy, or have not experienced any shooting sport; that is YOUR prerogative, it is still a free country; so, enjoy what you enjoy; (and please do not desire to dictate to others how YOU believe, either - turnabout is fair play).

I am certain that I will return to discuss music and other interests rather than continue to share my thoughts with those who have already made up their minds, who are not as open-minded as they might be; but again, that is your choice.

I have "NEEDED" to use the concealed carry license and weapon only ONCE. I am still alive, and the criminal who intended great harm upon my person ran away; why should he attempt upon an armed citizen when there are "easier game" afoot?; since I am Certified and Licensed in many areas of Weaponry, hunted since I was a boy; enjoy target shooting; I have no need for worry, as a general rule. I do not suffer from any "Paranoia". Unfortunately, there are larger cities near enough to where I live who do not abide by the social norms that most of us live by, but, criminals and gangs live in yet a "Third" part of the United States that spzretent suggested "2 different countries", and I agreed with him. But that "Violent Third", are generally the people who cause the worst criminal offenses when they scour the country, and where any American might live. They live in a very different WORLD than I believe anyone in this forum does.

I do NOT want ANY part of the Constitution touched; it is a Document and a Philosophy - Freedom of Choice for the Individual that has served this Country, and arguably, helped to serve (and save) great parts of the world. The Idea of The Individual is a very important concept. You may have one view, and I, another, but it is the nature of a Free Nation to agree to disagree; not for the loudest or the majority to control. The Idea of the Right of Assembly, Freedom of Speech, Freedom of Religion, (or no religion); the Intelligent, well thought out and still VERY RELEVANT Constitution of the USA is to allow the People, as INDIVIDUALS, to live and excel, to enjoy life and the Beauty of the Ideals that was and is, the Framework for this Country.

I will have no more to say after this posting; after reading this, you will know why. You may continue to argue or, eventually simply all agree how right you are, and continue to dismiss points and realities that I have tried to convey, sometimes with a little sarcasm, but never any intention to be unkind or dismissive of any other persons opinions; perhaps I am troubled at times by the strong stance with such limited personal experience and knowledge, but my life and general way of thinking has been has been built upon fact, and no so much on emotion. Decisions made based on emotion alone are generally not well thought out, and tend to be knee-jerk reactions that could have much better solutions.


At 7:40a.m. I received a phone call, and later on, a visit from a liason officer.

A terrible event occurred on December 30th that I learned of only this morning. A relative; she was quite young; 25; with two small children, ages 7 and 9, along with 2 other children, who were their friends, along with the mother of each, were burned alive, beyond recognition by a Convicted Murderer, "Manslaughter", who was imprisoned for killing a man while drunk and otherwise fried out of his mind. His sentence was a slap on the wrist.

He, and those who came to take him from the prison, or the transition home, had one hell of a party, according to the Patrolman. All of them, the drunken, pickled criminal, partying his way home with 3 "friends" who went to fetch him, were all
killed.

Too stupid to wait and get home before Partyrama commenced, they were decribed to me as "not just drunk", but a literal Pharmacy of recreational compounds left the driver and his companions flying down the highway, in the wrong direction, at nearly 100 miles per hour. They struck the small van head on. Why was this idiot allowed to go free after killing someone else in the same drunken way?; I don't know. Why could he and his compatriates not WAIT til they were home before partyrama? You cannot legislate intelligence; but you CAN put real, Violent criminals, away.

Eleven people; seven of them completely innocent, 4 of them, little children, were killed almost instantly, according to the report.

My relative, (the young mom with 2 children), was working her way through College; was on the Dean's Honor Roll; and had a very wonderful future ahead of her; she desired to teach the disabled, and help give them the best chance they could have in their lives. I did not know her well; but I do remember her as a kind, intelligent individual. It seems I was her last living blood relative. This disgrace happens daily, yet gets little airplay.

The Patrolman told me, after he had described in detail what had happened, that he had worked 3 OTHER similarly deadly wrecks; each with multiple casualties, on that night, (each involving too many chemicals and driving) and several more, subsequent to that date. OVER 25 deaths that he knew of, in 3-4 days; (he did not know if those who made it to Hospital survived).

I have no more to say about this "Gun" topic. I WOULD enjoy continuing to share my experiences, and perhaps help show you that the vast number of those with firearms, LEGAL firearms, are not the threat. Go after those who ARE the threat if safety is really the goal; otherwise, I have said what I believe to have been the most important points as I see them; along with 60 Million Lawful gun owners.

Stay Safe and Have a Great Weekend. Mine will be rather somber.
...