Gun Control in the US

[Calax]

Tsuga makes a good point about blaming the mother. Parenting is a major issue in today's society.

 

 

But then you lost me on the whole military style semi-auto's and high capacity magazines. It sounded insane, honestly. I just don't understand what you possibly need those for?

 

Just so we understand one another, it's the shooter who deserves 95% or more of the blame. I mentioned the mother because she should've had those weapons safely stored. She knew that her son was unstable and, according to interviews I've seen, had voiced worries to friends about his increasingly unstable behavior.

 

There's nothing at all insane about wanting to have an AR-15 clone, an AK clone, or any number of other military style semi-autos such as the excellent M1A from Springfield Armory. They're well made, reliable, accurate (today's AR-type semi-autos are vastly superior to what was available even as little as a generation ago) and parts are widely available for customization as the aftermarket for these firearms is thriving. They're popular for 3-Gun shoots, home defense, collecting, informal target shooting, and hunting. Yes, they're legal for hunting so long as you use 5-round magazines. As you're from The People's Republic of California, I wouldn't be at all surprised if this information is completely new to you.

So? Why are you using a weapon designed to turn a human being into play-doh to hunt deer and rabbits? Just because it exists doesn't mean it has to be in your hands. There's no reason to have anything like an M16/M4 or AK47 in your house.

 

Those are weapons of war, not of hunting or self defense.

 

Additionally, these firearms serve to keep our public officials leery when they start thinking of abrogating or infringing upon our rights. The Second Amendment wasn't written into the Bill of Rights immediately after the First Amendment to protect duck hunting or target shooting, after all. Our Founding Fathers recognized that government--any governement!--is a potential threat to rights of the citizenry and that naked force and the threat of naked force are two highly useful tools for keeping government in check. Military style semi-autos fit that bill quite nicely.

Yes... and no. The Founding Fathers put the second amendment in because the foundation for their army came from the militias. BUT it was also there because during that period of time, your front lawn could kill you. Be it a bear or a moose or whatever, it could easily kill you. Now most of the US is free of those predators and you're not exactly going on bear hunts in the Texas plains.

 

Also, at that time guns were so ubiquitous that everyone knew how to use the suckers. Now all most people know how to do is point and pull the trigger. No cleaning or gun safety is known, and aiming is a near forgotten art.

 

As much as you may hate an assault weapons ban, it's almost necessary. People shouldn't be able to kill 30-50 people in one clip, and you don't need armor piercing rounds to kill a deer. At best, for defense, you need a pistol. For hunting Rifles are fine, but you shouldn't be trying to turn your hunting trip into that scene from Predator.

 

Also, in this day and age, There is no way for the government to be able to reach the tyrannical levels that we were "protected" against. And if something did happen where a revolution became necessary, we'd end up in a guerilla war anyway because the people of the united states of america aren't exactly running around with RPG's, Stingers, and other anti-tank anti-air weapons to defend themselves with.

[Hurlshort]

I know it sounds all macho to say the government can have your guns over your dead body, but it is ridiculous. Law enforcement can take you out whenever they want, they will always have a huge edge. The fact that they haven't is because you aren't a threat. If you want the country to change, you are better off doing it the old fashioned way, which means running for office and going door to door for votes. And don't worry, crazy people get elected all the time, so your odds are good.

Edited December 17, 2012 by Hurlshot

[Volourn]

"Rather than calling names and getting aggressive, I'd like to hear some constructive ideas about how we can avoid future tragedies. "

 

For starters, target criminals and not law abiding citizens.

[Tsuga C]

Rather than calling names and getting aggressive, I'd like to hear some constructive ideas about how we can avoid future tragedies.

 

I promise to engage any unlawful shooters bent on mayhem that I encounter as I go about my daily business with the express intent of making sure that they never harm another person in their soon-to-be short lives.

[Hurlshort]

"Rather than calling names and getting aggressive, I'd like to hear some constructive ideas about how we can avoid future tragedies. "

 

For starters, target criminals and not law abiding citizens.

 

The trouble I see with that is most of these mass murderers were not criminals before they committed these horrible acts. They have histories of mental issues, but no records.

[Hurlshort]

Rather than calling names and getting aggressive, I'd like to hear some constructive ideas about how we can avoid future tragedies.

 

I promise to engage any unlawful shooters bent on mayhem that I encounter as I go about my daily business with the express intent of making sure that they never harm another person in their soon-to-be short lives.

 

So should we introduce firearm training to the teacher credentialing curriculum? A few of my students suggested that as well.

[Raithe]

So should we introduce firearm training to the teacher credentialing curriculum? A few of my students suggested that as well.

 

Well, if the gun control laws are unlikely to be changed, would it be worthwhile to have all teachers go through a basic firearms awareness/handling course so they know the limits, the safety, and provide a more thorough grounding of knowledge regarding firearms then what you get through tv and movies?

 

Also, would it be useful to run the kids through a mandatory "safety" lessons, and show examples of what happens when you shoot off a gun to reinforce that real life isn't like the movies?

[Tsuga C]

So should we introduce firearm training to the teacher credentialing curriculum? A few of my students suggested that as well.

 

Any staff members who are willing to go through an NRA approved training course for concealed carry should be able to carry while on school district property. Currently in Michigan there is a bill before the governor that will allow anyone who goes through an advanced concealed carry course to carry a concealed firearm in areas normally off limits to firearms (schools, large stadiums, houses of worship, etc.). This idiot in CT may cause a delay in the signing because of anxiety and people being ruled by their emotions. It's a pity.

 

There was a shooting at a school in either MS or MO several years ago where a teacher ran out to his car, retrieved a firearm, and then confronted the shooter. Upon being confronted, the shooter ceased shooting and surrendered. It turned out that he was an unpopular kid who was bullied and wanted to get back at his tormentors.

 

Providing that the staff members in question are properly trained and volunteer to do so, I support the idea of having several of them armed. Nothing will stop a determined shooter except another equally determined shooter.

Edited December 17, 2012 by Tsuga C

[Valsuelm]

“A great democracy must be progressive or it will soon cease to be a great democracy”

 

Of course, a "socialist, incompetent politician" like Theodore Roosevelt is not exactly a poster boy for the idea that things needs to evolve. Oh, wait...

 

You guys sound like Adam Lanza's mother. I need more guns, because the evil government is going to be here any minute.

 

Could it be that some people are completely brainwashed to follow the twisted interpretation of the second amendment the way Taliban fundamentalists interpret the Quran? Any which way that suits those that profit from it? Or did technology change and legislation simply didn't keep up, because things evolved since the 1789 musket that militia were expected to have at hand to defend against external aggressors? That an anachronism has survived doesn't make it sacred, it just makes it an anachronism.

 

Funny you should being up ole TR. Teddy *was* incompetent. He was the puppet/lapdog of King Edward VII and J.P. Morgan along with *his* European stringholders. A great many things went awry under his administration.

 

In many ways Teddy arguably was the first really horrible President the U.S. had on many levels. You wouldn't know that growing up in your typical America school though, where you're taught that Teddy was 'a man's man', aka the first 'cool' president. Hey.. I once thought that too, until I became more than passingly familiar with American as well as European history, as well as learned who wrote those school textbooks.

 

If you think Teddy Roosevelt was a good president.... well.... there's just no way to debunk that in a small amount of space. If you care at all for liberty and the fundamentals that the U.S. Republic sits on though, I suggest you reconsider. You've got a lot of reading to do however. Realizing Teddy isn't the cat's meow doesn't happen overnight.

 

I recommend this book to get started. It's brand new and I haven't read it myself, but Andrew has more than a clue and I trust he makes a good case. His thesis is certainly spot on as Wilson was a lapdog and tragedy as well.

[obyknven]

No, you clearly aren't. The current reaction to guns is a direct consequence of a horrible event where children were shot to death.

 

"May cause sweating, faintness, discomfort, rapid pulse, nausea, sleeplessness, nondescript fears, more, at mere thought of guns. Presence of working firearms may cause panic attack."

 

Yeah, I've got none of those symptoms, I doubt anyone here does.

 

Rather than calling names and getting aggressive, I'd like to hear some constructive ideas about how we can avoid future tragedies.

 

Locks like your ideal are society where mens don't have nuts. Macho mens scare you. It's really abominable for me ( as typical member of our Darwinist society with Natural Selection, cult of power and beauty ). When we are trying become stronger, smarter and evolutionize into powerful being, you trying become weaker and weaken all others.

 

P.S. Gun restriction don't solve problem with mass murders. For example murder can go with chainsaw into school-bus and kill all passengers, because without guns cant be stopped. Or use poison in school cafeteria. Weapons is just a tool and one tool can be changed to another.

[Valsuelm]

Also, in this day and age, There is no way for the government to be able to reach the tyrannical levels that we were "protected" against.

 

The above is an incredibly naive statement. In the U.S., on some levels we're already arguably way beyond the level of tyranny that caused the war that created this nation. There's certainly no doubt that if alive today Thomas Jefferson, Patrick Henry, et al would be meeting somewhere working on the next Revolution right now. Regardless of what they'd do or not do, there is absolutely nothing about 'this day and age' that makes it impervious to tyranny, if anything the tyrannical state has more tools than ever to levy it's power.

 

And if something did happen where a revolution became necessary, we'd end up in a guerilla war anyway because the people of the united states of america aren't exactly running around with RPG's, Stingers, and other anti-tank anti-air weapons to defend themselves with.

 

You're right that any revolutionary war would be largely a guerrilla war. For the most part that's always been true. You're wrong in that the revolutionaries wouldn't get their hands on RPGs, Stingers, etc in relative short order, they would, and possibly from multiple sources.

[Zoraptor]

I know it sounds all macho to say the government can have your guns over your dead body, but it is ridiculous.

Yep. I'm not sure how people can go on about automatic weapons being a bulwark against tyranny with a straight face when the 'other side', if it ever came to that, would be armed with Abrams, Predators and Apaches any of which could kill someone with an M4/ AR15 or an AK easy as blinking and with no chance of any effective response. If you are going to fight against those odds you're far better off with a very accurate bolt action rifle or a very large pile of fertiliser- or trying to get AT rockets and SAMs legalised. Frankly, any resistance of that sort would just be labelled as more Tim McVeigh or David Koresh style stuff anyway.

 

The best defence against government is what it always has been, keeping the police and army well grounded in civil society so that if they're ever ordered to do something truly nasty they'll tell the person issuing the order to go asterisk themselves rather than obey.

[Tsuga C]

The best defence against government is what it always has been, keeping the police and army well grounded in civil society so that if they're ever ordered to do something truly nasty they'll tell the person issuing the order to go asterisk themselves rather than obey.

 

True enough, and yet the very ownership of up-to-date firearms lends one a measure of confidence and independence that may encourage one to short-circuit govermental malfeasance and disrespect of its constitutional limits. So often people forget the power of personal persuasion and go straight to envisioning flat-out war between a military slavishly, blindly devoted to corrupt political masters that I wonder just how much history they've read and what they understand of human psychology. Before the Abrams roll and the Apaches take flight, there's a significant amount of time and leeway in which to, by word and deed, pull the government back from its oppressive ways.

 

Killing a handful of the worst politicians and bureaucrats can have a salutory effect upon the remainder. Think of it as a modern take on the practice of decimation as practiced by the Roman legions. If your constituents are manifestly unhappy with the legislation you just voted on and three of your statist colleagues just had their heads blown off when they went back to their respective districts during a break, you just might consider repealing that legislation when you return to work at the state or federal capitol.

Edited December 18, 2012 by Tsuga C

[Calax]

Also, in this day and age, There is no way for the government to be able to reach the tyrannical levels that we were "protected" against.

 

The above is an incredibly naive statement. In the U.S., on some levels we're already arguably way beyond the level of tyranny that caused the war that created this nation. There's certainly no doubt that if alive today Thomas Jefferson, Patrick Henry, et al would be meeting somewhere working on the next Revolution right now. Regardless of what they'd do or not do, there is absolutely nothing about 'this day and age' that makes it impervious to tyranny, if anything the tyrannical state has more tools than ever to levy it's power.

Actually it's more psychological. I doubt Jefferson and Henry et al would be meeting to start a new revolution... particularly if they're JUST looking at gun control. They'd probably do it more if they were looking at the simple polarizing nature of the media discussions and the political parties and the general apathy within the US voters, and they'd just say that the "Great Experiment" is failed.

 

Hell the only "tyranny" that they were fighting against was the inability for citizens to partake in their government. Or more specifically, the British government asking the Colonies to pay for the world war that they began. All that the british gvmnt did was refuse the Colonies the right to have a member in the house of Parliament. THAT is the "Tyranny" that you're railing against.

And if something did happen where a revolution became necessary, we'd end up in a guerilla war anyway because the people of the united states of america aren't exactly running around with RPG's, Stingers, and other anti-tank anti-air weapons to defend themselves with.

 

You're right that any revolutionary war would be largely a guerrilla war. For the most part that's always been true. You're wrong in that the revolutionaries wouldn't get their hands on RPGs, Stingers, etc in relative short order, they would, and possibly from multiple sources.

And you know what's just skippy about what you said? That exact thing is what happens with Assault weapons etc. So unless you're advocating for the ability to purchase RPG's and other military equipment... I'd suggest you back off on the "Necessary to fight off dat dere government" rhetoric.

 

 

True enough, and yet the very ownership of up-to-date firearms lends one a measure of confidence and independence that may encourage one to short-circuit govermental malfeasance and disrespect of its constitutional limits. So often people forget the power of personal persuasion and go straight to envisioning flat-out war between a military slavishly, blindly devoted to corrupt political masters that I wonder just how much history they've read and what they understand of human psychology. Before the Abrams roll and the Apaches take flight, there's a significant amount of time and leeway in which to, by word and deed, pull the government back from its oppressive ways.

 

Killing a handful of the worst politicians and bureaucrats can have a salutory effect upon the remainder. Think of it as a modern take on the practice of decimation as practiced by the Roman legions. If your constituents are manifestly unhappy with the legislation you just voted on and three of your statist collegues just had their heads blown off when they went back to their respective districts during a break, you just might consider repealing that legislation when you return to work at the state or federal capitol.

Do you have any idea what happens during military training? The military is still made up of people who make moral and personal decision based upon their own biases. I highly doubt there'd be many members of the US Army/National Guard who'd march on their own homes and the people they are ostensibly protecting.

 

Also, are you seriously advocating murder as a form of political activism? If a piece of legislation got through the government, I highly doubt that your "attack on the corrupt politicians" would lead to much. Hell, it'd probably backfire and cause you, your cohort, and everyone associated with you to be imprisoned and tried for Murder 1. Look at the outcome of the shooting 4 years ago in AZ if you want proof.

 

Do you really want to use Rome as an example? Where the Rich were the only ones who had any form of political power, the military was purchased by them, and voting (by the majority) was a complete formality that had little, if anything, to do with the actual outcome of the election? A land where you had no true say in your government, and could be sold to die in a gladiatorial arena if you angered those in power to much.

Edited December 18, 2012 by Calax

[Hiro Protagonist II]

 

The common thread throughout human history is that governments, unless actively opposed and kept in check by a diligent and periodically violent citizenry, inevitably accumulate power at the expense of the liberty of the citizens and then begin oppressing their own people. When the vote fails to change the government's course of action, then it's time to use lethal force to correct the situation. And, trust me on this, that time is fast approaching. I anticipate that within the next 20 years or so we'll be looking at civil unrest that'll make the 1960s look like a minor tiff at a Cub Scout meeting.

 

With statements like these, you come across such as the likes of Timothy McVeith. So what lethal force are you advocating to change the government's course of action? Bombing government buildings and using lethal force to convince the government? Crazy stuff.

 

As a student of history, I deeply hope and pray that our citizenry will have the good sense to remain armed and highly suspicious of any attempt by the federal government to accumulate more power. Governments can never be trusted with a monopoly on force, after all, because they quickly devolve into tyranny when they achieve such a monopoly. And, yes, a soft tyranny is ultimately as undesirable as a brutal one and usually leads to one in the end.

 

[Hurlshort]

Hi, I have a degree in History with an emphasis in the US before the age of Industrialism.

 

I'm always confused when people point to our past, where minorities literally had almost no rights, as some sort of golden age of freedom. We have a better quality of life and more opportunities to pursue happiness than ever before in this country right now.

 

Can you be more specific about which right you have lost that you feel would cause the founding fathers to rebel? Because it kind of just sounds like rhetoric that radio jockeys spout to increase their ratings.

[Malcador]

My guess is the ever growing powers of the federal government over the people. Seems to be a big issue, or so I read every now and then. Heh, funny story related to this, was that an old WW1 pistol was found in a furniture store, was left in a drawer when it was donated, a Torontonian opened the drawer saw the gun and then fled from the store screaming.

[Gorth]

When the vote fails to change the government's course of action, then it's time to use lethal force to correct the situation. And, trust me on this, that time is fast approaching. I anticipate that within the next 20 years or so we'll be looking at civil unrest that'll make the 1960s look like a minor tiff at a Cub Scout meeting.

 

With statements like these, you come across such as the likes of Timothy McVeith. So what lethal force are you advocating to change the government's course of action? Bombing government buildings and using lethal force to convince the government? Crazy stuff.

 

Breivik would be soo proud of him *sniffle*

[Gorth]

Macho mens scare you. It's really abominable for me ( as typical member of our Darwinist society with Natural Selection, cult of power and beauty ). When we are trying become stronger, smarter and evolutionize into powerful being, you trying become weaker and weaken all others.

 

Macho men doesn't scare anyone. Frightened little boys with guns are scary, because they are unpredictable. At the moment evolution seems to favour brains and intelligence as a recipe for success.

[alanschu]

blindly devoted

 

I'm sure I'm just stating the obvious here, but I always enjoy how it's always the other side that is blindly devoted. Never the side I am on. Carry on

[Diagoras]

I don't think the democratizing effect of the firearm on violence and warfare is controversial, nor the devastating power of an entrenched civilian insurgency. When exactly that power should be released is more complicated, but that states that usurp the rights of their citizens ought to be dissolved by them is also not controversial. And that the Second Amendment was written with that exact goal in mind is, again, not controversial.

 

That the US is miles away from being a state deserving of such treatment is, I hope, also not controversial.

 

Or did technology change and legislation simply didn't keep up, because things evolved since the 1789 musket that militia were expected to have at hand to defend against external aggressors? That an anachronism has survived doesn't make it sacred, it just makes it an anachronism.

 

You realize that exact argument applies to the rest of the amendments? The Framers never envisioned the Internet or mass media, yet they're protected by the First Amendment. They never envisioned telephone calls, emails, or computer systems - yet they're protected under the Fourth Amendment. Do those rights only apply to contemporary technology as well?

 

I'm sure I'm just stating the obvious here, but I always enjoy how it's always the other side that is blindly devoted. Never the side I am on. Carry on

 

One of my pet peeves, glad you see it too.

[Guest The Architect]

http://www.salon.com/2012/12/17/huckabee_blames_gays_for_the_newtown_massacre/

 

Hey my car isn't starting, I blame the gays. I have an encumbrance blocking access to my exam results, I blame the gays. My internet was cutting out frequently last night, I blame the gays. The pool filter isn't clean, I blame the gays. And there's no milk in the fridge, I blame the gays. Am I doing it right, my Westboro overlords?

[Malcador]

Brave trolls those guys. Think they have the KKK protesting them, heh. I guess they're hoping someone shoots at them or something out there.

[obyknven]

Macho mens scare you. It's really abominable for me ( as typical member of our Darwinist society with Natural Selection, cult of power and beauty ). When we are trying become stronger, smarter and evolutionize into powerful being, you trying become weaker and weaken all others.

 

Macho men doesn't scare anyone. Frightened little boys with guns are scary, because they are unpredictable. At the moment evolution seems to favour brains and intelligence as a recipe for success.

1. Little boys are predictable. Making revenge to school system where they are oppressed and bulled are predictable. Problem not in gun control but in U.S. education system.

2. Do your society favor brains and intelligence as a recipe for success? Maybe Your country ruled by scientists? Look at your politicians. They are typical clerks, they are executive but not smart. Look at your celebrities and elite. They have high social status because moneys, not because brains. Look at western progress in cosmos exploration (as most knowledge-based sector) after USSR dissolving. 20 year past, but no progress in this sphere, even some sort of degradation. Sending rovers to Mars is not progress (USSR sending similar type rovers to moon 43 years past and sending automatic stations to Mars 52 years past, while before dissolving we make preparations for piloted flight to Mars and have starships prototypes with nuclear engines ) . Your society fall into stagnation.

[Rosbjerg]

There was a shooting at a school in either MS or MO several years ago where a teacher ran out to his car, retrieved a firearm, and then confronted the shooter. Upon being confronted, the shooter ceased shooting and surrendered. It turned out that he was an unpopular kid who was bullied and wanted to get back at his tormentors.

 

You only seem to focus on the effect (bold) while you should be looking at the cause (underlined).. Imagine if the teacher had a network and tools at his/her disposal that could've helped this individual.. No you're right, it's easier to just get gun traning and shoot the kids we neglect when they try to get back at us.