Gun Controll question.

[Zeb_Carter]

thanks, Ogg,

it's too bad the US founders couldn't have been a little bit clearer, and said, for instance. "The states have a right to establish militias, and pursuant to that, citizens who are members of those militias have the right to possess "arms," such "arms" as may be reasonably required by the militia in exercize of its duties, and a right to use of such "arms" in the course of militia training and exercize of its legal functions."

i think this is the correct idea, and as you point out, it may exist in Switzerland.

it is quite remarkable that guns may be acquired and used in the US without any training; a comparably deadly instrument, the automobile, requires testing and licensing.

I think they were vague on this point by design as they were looking to the future and didn't really know what the future would bring. Also the constitution was written as a document outlining what the federal government couldn't do, not what it could. Therefore, the right to bear arms and the states right to form a militia should not be abridged is a correct phrase.

 

[cantdog]

As far as I know Switzerland is the only country that has a right. It is not so much a right as a duty for able-bodied males to keep and maintain a semi-automatic rifle. Other countries distinguish between shotguns and rifles/handguns. In France shotguns are numerous in rural areas, much more so than in the UK. In Malta, the shotgun owners blast so many migrating birds out of the sky that they are affecting populations of several species that use Malta as a resting place on their way to and from Europe.

No other country seems to have the almost fetishistic need to carry guns of significant power, particularly guns that are designed to kill people and have little other purpose.

Australia now has strict gun control laws, nearly as severe as those in the UK, introduced after a massacre in Tasmania.

Australia used to have a relaxed attitude to guns up to about 1960/61 when a normal police check on a National Rifle Champion's armoury revealed that he had illegal fully automatic guns as well as his legal target rifles. (It didn't help that the man was an asshole who had annoyed his neighbours by practising in the early hours of the morning when he knew they would be asleep). They had reported a "fusillade" of firing that couldn't have been made by one person with legal firearms. After his conviction for illegal weaponry the Australian police announced a nationwide arms amnesty for one month. The amnesty started slowly until some of the stories hit the media. A one-man police station in a rural area had a box of primed hand grenades left on the doorstep in the night. A farmer drove up to another police station with a heavy howitzer and shells. Heavy machine guns were commonplace. How one Australian soldier had "souvenired" a German 88mm anti-aircraft gun was not explained, nor the half dozen tanks fully equipped with armour piercing and shrapnel shells...

Now Australia is very uptight about guns.

Og

I love your Australia stories, Og.

 

[yevkassem72]

thanks, Ogg,

it's too bad the US founders couldn't have been a little bit clearer, and said, in the Second Amendment, for instance. "The states have a right to establish militias, and pursuant to that right, citizens who are members of those militias have the derivative right to possess "arms," such "arms" as may be reasonably required by the militia in exercize of its duties, and a derivative right to use of such "arms" in the course of militia training and exercize of the militia's legal functions."

i think this is the correct rendition of what the Second Amendment was trying to say; and as you point out, it may exist in Switzerland.

it is quite remarkable that guns may be acquired and used in the US without any training; a comparably deadly instrument, the automobile, requires testing and licensing.

I think that a fallacy, because it says the People, not the states.

 

[SEVERUSMAX]

Well, Thomas Jefferson called for a revolution every twenty years. While the Founders didn't agree on a lot of things, their general attitude seemed to one of having enough government to prevent chaos and defend the country, but little more than that. Well, Alexander Hamilton aside, that is.

I don't know if that means we are overdue or not, nor that we should have a revolution. I hope not. Revolutions can turn nasty in a hurry. But we deserve to have the option, and that's the real purpose of an armed populace. Even Hamilton admitted the difficulty of tyrannizing over armed citizens.

 

[Weird Harold]

Why is much medicine on prescription? Who the hell are those darn doctors to tell me what pills I can and can't get? And why aren't eight-year-olds allowed to buy alcoholic beverages? Damn 1984 controller society.

I know you were trying to be sarcastic, but that is exactly the point -- why are drugs illegal? It isn't doctors who decided what drugs you have to have a precription for and/or which drugs not even even doctors can prescribe -- like medical marijuana.

Eight-year-olds aren't allowed to buy alcohol (or tobacco, or spray paint, or gasoline, or model cement, or a lot of other "bad things,") because somebody said "there ought to be a law" in response to some "tragedy" and some idiot legislator(s) took them literally.

The US "Nanny state" isn't even close to 1984 levels -- yet -- but only because there are still a few people left who still respect constitutional restrictions on the State.

My whole objection the the "why would you want it" argument is the assumption that the item or substance determines the use to which it is put and only nefarious motivations could drive a desire to possess it.

I'm sure that almost everyone would love to own -- or at least drive -- a super-fast sportscar. (Lamorghini/Lotus/Porshe/etc) Why? that kind of car has ano real purpose except to go fast.

Even a middle class soccer-mom-mobile can break the speed limit any place that has a speed limit and what's the point of having a car that can go four times the speed of sound when there's no place you can use that kind of speed.

'Well, that's different,' you say? How is it different from wanting to own a gun that "has no practical use."

 

[Liar]

I know you were trying to be sarcastic, but that is exactly the point -- why are drugs illegal? It isn't doctors who decided what drugs you have to have a precription for and/or which drugs not even even doctors can prescribe -- like medical marijuana.

Eight-year-olds aren't allowed to buy alcohol (or tobacco, or spray paint, or gasoline, or model cement, or a lot of other "bad things,") because somebody said "there ought to be a law" in response to some "tragedy" and some idiot legislator(s) took them literally.

The US "Nanny state" isn't even close to 1984 levels -- yet -- but only because there are still a few people left who still respect constitutional restrictions on the State.

My whole objection the the "why would you want it" argument is the assumption that the item or substance determines the use to which it is put and only nefarious motivations could drive a desire to possess it.

I'm sure that almost everyone would love to own -- or at least drive -- a super-fast sportscar. (Lamorghini/Lotus/Porshe/etc) Why? that kind of car has ano real purpose except to go fast.

Even a middle class soccer-mom-mobile can break the speed limit any place that has a speed limit and what's the point of having a car that can go four times the speed of sound when there's no place you can use that kind of speed.

'Well, that's different,' you say? How is it different from wanting to own a gun that "has no practical use."

It's not.

I'm just yanking your chain to see if you're consistent.

How about elelphants? Heroin? Nitroglycerin? Small pox? Nuclear bombs? Should I be allowed to own those? Or is there a level of state nanny-ism that you'd accept because of practical advantages of keeping risk filled commodities out of the hands of Joe Shmoe who don't know how to handle it? (if indeed there are advantages, I'm not so sure about all of the above)

 

[FatDino]

It's not.

I'm just yanking your chain to see if you're consistent.

How about elelphants? Heroin? Nitroglycerin? Small pox? Nuclear bombs? Should I be allowed to own those? Or is there a level of state nanny-ism that you'd accept because of practical advantages of keeping risk filled commodities out of the hands of Joe Shmoe who don't know how to handle it? (if indeed there are advantages, I'm not so sure about all of the above)

Why would one want to own small pox?

Ahh...weapon of mass destruction, I get it.

 

[Liar]

Why would one want to own small pox?

Why would one want to own a badass machine gun?

 

[Huckleman2000]

[snip]Even a middle class soccer-mom-mobile can break the speed limit any place that has a speed limit and what's the point of having a car that can go four times the speed of sound when there's no place you can use that kind of speed.

'Well, that's different,' you say? How is it different from wanting to own a gun that "has no practical use."

For one thing, you need a license and insurance to own a car.

 

[Roxanne Appleby]

Unrelated to the previous exchanges:

The worst school massacre in U.S. history killed 45 and had nothing to do with guns. The worst mass murder in U.S. history had nothing to do with guns. The runner up had nothing to do with guns. Why has this "special olympics" category been established for guns in a world where those other kinds of attacks are just as likely?

 

[FatDino]

Why would one want to own a badass machine gun?

Because he/she wants to look like Neo/Trinity in The Matrix

 

[Huckleman2000]

Unrelated to the previous exchanges:

The worst school massacre in U.S. history killed 45 and had nothing to do with guns. The worst mass murder in U.S. history had nothing to do with guns. The runner up had nothing to do with guns. Why has this "special olympics" category been established for guns in a world where those other kinds of attacks are just as likely?

Those attacks aren't "just as likely", even if they are more deadly. Besides, in the first instance, dynamite is now controlled, and so is jet fuel and piloting aircraft, for that matter. OKC certainly arose from the gun/militia anti-government culture.

What is your point about "special olympics"?

 

[Weird Harold]

For one thing, you need a license and insurance to own a car.

Actually, No you dont need either a license or insurance to OWN a car. You need those things to drive a car on public roads. As long as my grandaughter keeps the vVW beetle she got for christmas on private property, she can learn to drive it without either license or insurance. (she's 13 as of last week, BTW)

As long as the car is not used on public highways, it's not even necessary to register it.

How about elelphants? Heroin? Nitroglycerin? Small pox? Nuclear bombs?

Each of those examples has some degree of inherent public safety risk that warrants an appropriate degree of regulation -- except for the Heroin.

Nitroglycerin and smallpox are things that present a public safety risk even in the hands of experienced, well-trained, and cautious individuals. Conversely, a nuclear bomb is probably the least inherently dangerous on your list -- nuclear weapons are nearly impossible to set off by accident and intentionally designed to be difficult to set off intentionally.

The only limitations on anyone owning anything inanimate should be restricted to inherent threats to public health and safety. Animal welfare and cruelty issues come into the picture with the Elephant example and other living possessions.

Heroin is the exception on your list. Whether you possess or even use Heroin is neither my business nor the government's business; What you do under the influence of Heroin is.

It is not possession or ownership that needs to be controlled, it's what people DO with their posessions -- NOT what they "might do" or would they "could do," but what they actually do or attempt to do.

 

[Roxanne Appleby]

Those attacks aren't "just as likely", even if they are more deadly. Besides, in the first instance, dynamite is now controlled, and so is jet fuel and piloting aircraft, for that matter. OKC certainly arose from the gun/militia anti-government culture.

What is your point about "special olympics"?

I'll see your "gun/militia anti-government culture," and raise you the unibomber and a "environmentalist/anti-industrial civilizaton culture."

Better yet, let's call the whole thing off, and just agree that there are psychotic murderers out there, and their primary characteristic is not that some of them adopt some ideological pose, but that they are psychotic murderers.

With regard to dynamite, aircraft, ammonia fertilizer, whatever - how many ways do you think a bunch of imaginative people like those on this site could think up to commit mass murder with instruments that are readily available to any of us? Probably dozens. A person is just is dead if they are a member of crowd plowed into by a Buick at 60 mph, or if they are shot in a classroom that a madman has turned into a prison with a lock and chain on the door. Is CNN going to start describing the first as "the worst Buick massacre in U.S. history?"

 

[SeaCat]

Actually, No you dont need either a license or insurance to OWN a car. You need those things to drive a car on public roads. As long as my grandaughter keeps the vVW beetle she got for christmas on private property, she can learn to drive it without either license or insurance. (she's 13 as of last week, BTW)

As long as the car is not used on public highways, it's not even necessary to register it.



Each of those examples has some degree of inherent public safety risk that warrants an appropriate degree of regulation -- except for the Heroin.

Nitroglycerin and smallpox are things that present a public safety risk even in the hands of experienced, well-trained, and cautious individuals. Conversely, a nuclear bomb is probably the least inherently dangerous on your list -- nuclear weapons are nearly impossible to set off by accident and intentionally designed to be difficult to set off intentionally.

The only limitations on anyone owning anything inanimate should be restricted to inherent threats to public health and safety. Animal welfare and cruelty issues come into the picture with the Elephant example and other living possessions.

Heroin is the exception on your list. Whether you possess or even use Heroin is neither my business nor the government's business; What you do under the influence of Heroin is.

It is not possession or ownership that needs to be controlled, it's what people DO with their posessions -- NOT what they "might do" or would they "could do," but what they actually do or attempt to do.

Hence my comment about enforcing the laws that are on the books.

My comments on training do not need to make it harder to purchase or own a firearm, it does make it safer fo not only the owner but for the general population.

Cat

 

[Pure]

i wish i could tell rox's point; surely it's not so simplistic as nothing is actually dangerous except people and the gov ought to pay no attention to any dangerous device or substance. for even an a bomb does not make itself, arm itself and explode itself.

still, arguing with the american right about guns is like arguing about the virgin birth with the pope.

 

[Pure]

WH Actually, No you dont need either a license or insurance to OWN a car. You need those things to drive a car on public roads. As long as my grandaughter keeps the vVW beetle she got for christmas on private property, she can learn to drive it without either license or insurance. (she's 13 as of last week, BTW)

As long as the car is not used on public highways, it's not even necessary to register it.

P: OK, let's suppose anyone can buy a gun and keep it is his home, and maybe shoot with his buddies in his private forest. BUT should he take it out on any public road, into a public place, then there should be controls on him.

Even granting you this much probably bends the analogy, since your granddaughter isn't likely to run someone down in your driveway. However the gun fellow may shoot whomever knocks on his door after dark.

Have you any objection to gun owners being required to have training (like the drivers of automobiles) or at least pass a test?

 

[Huckleman2000]

I'll see your "gun/militia anti-government culture," and raise you the unibomber and a "environmentalist/anti-industrial civilizaton culture."

Point taken.

With regard to dynamite, aircraft, ammonia fertilizer, whatever - how many ways do you think a bunch of imaginative people like those on this site could think up to commit mass murder with instruments that are readily available to any of us? Probably dozens. A person is just is dead if they are a member of crowd plowed into by a Buick at 60 mph, or if they are shot in a classroom that a madman has turned into a prison with a lock and chain on the door. Is CNN going to start describing the first as "the worst Buick massacre in U.S. history?"

True enough. I would point out, though, that the availability of guns and their relative effectiveness and ease of use compared to say, an Electra 225... http://www.classicsandcustoms.com/list/images/X_1976_Buick_Electra_225_10162006034432_16227.jpg
...places them into a class unto themselves. You can't drive a Buick into a second-floor classroom, line up the students, and run them all over.

And while I agree that the Lit lot is remarkably imaginative and of dubious sanity, on the whole , the banality of your typical murderer forces far more reliance on easy availability and simplicity of use.

 

[Roxanne Appleby]

Point taken.



True enough. I would point out, though, that the availability of guns and their relative effectiveness and ease of use compared to say, an Electra 225...places them into a class unto themselves. You can't drive a Buick into a second-floor classroom, line up the students, and run them all over.

And while I agree that the Lit lot is remarkably imaginative and of dubious sanity, on the whole , the banality of your typical murderer forces far more reliance on easy availability and simplicity of use.

Why specify a 2nd floor classroom, when playgrounds exist by the thousands? What could be easier than just pushing the pedal to the floor and turning the wheel?

I don't really mean to be contentious - I'm sensitive to the appeal of guns to certain disturbed personalities.

It may just come down to this: There have been and will always be a tiny number of psychotic killers, and there is not a damned thing we can do to stop every one of them. There's no such thing as perfect safety this side of the grave. It's just something that we have to accept, and the capability (and predilection) of the media to bring every such incident into our living rooms in morbid detail is something we (and they) need to learn how to deal with.

 

[Huckleman2000]

Why specify a 2nd floor classroom, when playgrounds exist by the thousands? What could be easier than just pushing the pedal to the floor and turning the wheel?

I don't really mean to be contentious - I'm sensitive to the appeal of guns to certain disturbed personalities.

It may just come down to this: There have been and will always be a tiny number of psychotic killers, and there is not a damned thing we can do to stop every one of them. There's no such thing as perfect safety this side of the grave. It's just something that we have to accept, and the capability (and predilection) of the media to bring every such incident into our living rooms in morbid detail is something we (and they) need to learn how to deal with.

The point is, that even if other countries don't have Buicks, if they have gun control, they don't have these mass killing incidents at near the rate that we have in the US. Does the US produce more psychotics?

As to the notion that an armed citizenry is protection against tyranny, that's laughable. The touch-screen voting machine is a bigger threat to democracy, and the government insists on buying those itself. A tyrannical government isn't going to come to power without a good deal of popular support, against which guns aren't going to accomplish much. An arsenal of weapons didn't help at Waco or Ruby Ridge. The Civil War wasn't fought by a bunch of local NRA chapters.

Guns give a feeling of power to those who fear powerlessness. That's why psychotics are attracted to them, and why people who share their homes with guns are several times more likely to be murdered.

 

[Pure]

anyone unhappy with the front page picture of Cho with his arms outstretched and a pistol in each hand; to the airing of his video?

it seems he wanted and got glorification (and even referred to Dylan and Klebold).

what's the diff between the Cho pose and Arnie's poses for "Commando" or Stallone's for "Rambo."

the US is in love with a dangerous, often psychotic figure/archetype!

 

[Roxanne Appleby]

The point is, that even if other countries don't have Buicks, if they have gun control, they don't have these mass killing incidents at near the rate that we have in the US. Does the US produce more psychotics?

Culture is probably the determinative difference, not gun control. Recall, Switzerland has a full-auto assault rifle in every citizen-militia member's closet, and a more peaceful society is hard to imagine. So that disproves the notion that it's the guns.

Japan has the occassional wigged-out psychotic mass murder spree, and samurai swords are not an infrequent weapon of choice. Again, purely a difference of culture. (Imagine what a nut-case with a sword could do in a "gun free" mall a few days before Christmas.)

 

[SeaCat]

*Tweeeeeeeet*

Okay people, let's stop tossing shitballs at each other.

Yes as has been mentioned there are more than a couple of people here who could create weapons out of what they find in a normal house. And yes it has been mentioned that damned near anything can be used as a weapon. That being said let's ignore those shall we?

Let's go back to the dsirablity of Gun Cntroll and why we should or should not have it. If we should have it, why should we and how would you go about it? If we shouldn't why?

Let's not get into the arguments about specific weapons, although I am the one who brought it up. (Sorry guys and gals.)

Cat

 

[yevkassem72]

The point is, that even if other countries don't have Buicks, if they have gun control, they don't have these mass killing incidents at near the rate that we have in the US. Does the US produce more psychotics?

As to the notion that an armed citizenry is protection against tyranny, that's laughable. The touch-screen voting machine is a bigger threat to democracy, and the government insists on buying those itself. A tyrannical government isn't going to come to power without a good deal of popular support, against which guns aren't going to accomplish much. An arsenal of weapons didn't help at Waco or Ruby Ridge. The Civil War wasn't fought by a bunch of local NRA chapters.

Guns give a feeling of power to those who fear powerlessness. That's why psychotics are attracted to them, and why people who share their homes with guns are several times more likely to be murdered.

You really doubt that a police state could be slowly established by an elected government who fooled the voters into thinking that they were voting for more safety, not tyranny? Just look around you. It's happening right now.

 

[yevkassem72]

Culture is probably the determinative difference, not gun control. Recall, Switzerland has a full-auto assault rifle in every citizen-militia member's closet, and a more peaceful society is hard to imagine. So that disproves the notion that it's the guns.

Japan has the occassional wigged-out psychotic mass murder spree, and samurai swords are not an infrequent weapon of choice. Again, purely a difference of culture. (Imagine what a nut-case with a sword could do in a "gun free" mall a few days before Christmas.)

If I were a mass murderer, I wouldn't use a gun. I'd use a bomb or Sarin nerve gas, like those in gun-free Japan. You have a valid point. Just think about it. The IRA doesn't use guns, for the most part in gun-free Northern Ireland. They use bombs, hurling sticks, nighsticks, and brass knuckles. Guns are rarely the weapon of choice for the mass terrorist. Only assassins who prefer surgical targets use guns, and mostly sniper rifles. It's too easy to protect against guns these days.

Seriously, people....it's not guns that will be the weapons of the choice. It's not guns that people need to fear. Guns have a limited impact. If I were the violent, terroristic sort, I'd rely on bombs and gas, not guns.