It seems that the second amendment is the one right that isn't quite a right.
I was born and raised in New York City. All throughout my childhood I wanted a gun. When I was very little, I had a cowboy gun that shot caps. As I got a little older, I graduated to BB guns, and eventually paint ball.…
Article comments
— go to most recent comments76 - Arms Instructor
"One friend would carry a Tec-9 (a type of machine gun) disassembled in his hipsack."
Incorrect. A TEC-9 (including the TEC-DC9 and AB-10) is a semi-auto only 9mm firearm. Machine guns are full-auto firearms. Despite the hoopla, a TEC-9 is no more dangerous any semi-auto 9mm made be Glock, S&W, Walther, Beretta, Sig, etc.
77 - The Obnoxious American
You're right but he modified it to be fully automatic, which was a pretty easy change to make and is why the tec9 used to be a weapon of choice. Incidentally, they don't sell tec9's anymore due to the assault weapons ban, you can obtain an AB9, (ab = after ban), this is harder to turn into a full auto than the tec9s.
That said, who cares? Whether a gun is a full auto, semi, revolver, it's still pretty easy to pull the trigger a bunch of times on any gun with a few bullets in it. And at the end of the day, it's the person weilding the gun that is of most concern. Yet we highly regulate innocent civilians in spite of the second amendment, but you can be sure that criminals will purchase weapons illegally at will.
78 - Maurice
Semiauto weapons are much more accurate than fully automatic.
Here in Idaho we all have guns and it seems normal. Boise is a very safe town.
This discussion seems weird...
79 - moonraven
In Idaho you are either a skinhead survivalist or a Mormon.
I think it's YOU that's weird.
80 - Maurice
#79 very naive and xenophobic of you! Might want to get out a little more.
Maybe you should look at some Idaho demographics before stereotyping.
Are you implying Mormons are undesirable?
BTW Richard Butler is dead.
I love living here..
81 - moonraven
How, precisely, is my statement xenophobic when I live in Mexico?
I was born, however, in Eastern Washington and just got back from there. We made 5 trips from Spokane to the galleries in CDA. You can have the rest of the state of Idaho with its TERRIBLE FOOD and shitkicking mentality--except for the Pez Perce reservation.
I have nothing against Mormons--even worked for a Mormon family 30 years ago.
82 - Dr Dreadful
The Pez Perce?
Didn't they have a chief name Joseph whose most famous quote was "From where the sun now stands I will dispense no more forever"?
83 - Clavos
"I have nothing against Mormons--even worked for a Mormon family 30 years ago."
Were you the cook, or the laundress?
LOL, Doc.
Nez was always one of my favorite candies.
84 - Dr Dreadful
The Nez Perce were and are certainly an intriguing people. There are a lot of myths about them and particularly Joseph, but their real history is just as fascinating. If you're interested in that period, I highly recommend the book Chief Joseph and the Flight of the Nez Perce, by Kent Nerburn, which tells the story of their cat-and-mouse game with, and ultimate surrender to, the US Army, as well as what happened to them afterwards.
85 - Maurice
#82 Funny as hell!
xenophobe
One entry found for xenophobe.
Main Entry: xe·no·phobe
Pronunciation: 'ze-n&-"fOb, 'zE-
Function: noun
Etymology: International Scientific Vocabulary
: one unduly fearful of what is foreign and especially of people of foreign origin
Making the claim that all Idahoans are "skinhead survivalists or Mormon" makes you sound like you fear these strange people from Idaho.
86 - Bapa
Just found this blog and had to add a comment. To Ray,
Here in PA it is the Law that you don't shoot to kill, you employ deadly force when warrented to "stop" the person. If they die, then so be it but you don't shoot to kill, once the threat that justified deadly force no longer exists, you must stop using deadly force even if they are still alive.
As for the people here in the US and abroad that think guns should be controlled I ask you this; How can anyone ever believe we all are safer if guns are removed from ordinary citizens? If I am not allowed to carry my conceled handgun, how am I going to defend myself when attacked by a mentally deranged person intent on killing me? (ie...Virginia Tech) How can I protect my home from intruders intent on stealing what I've worked hard to aquire? The answer is to shoot them!
87 - Ray Ellis
I understand what you're saying, Bapa. However, deadly force is deadly force. That's why it's best to go for a chest shot--bigger target, for one. Obviously, once the other guy's down, you don't keep plugging them--not even here in Texas.
What you (and a lot of other perople) don't get, though, is if you're attacked "by a mentally deranged person," he's probably already got the drop on you. We can argue back and forth on this all day, and it's not going to change anybody's mind. I have found keeping a baseball bat at the ready profoundly deters intruders. I've used mine before, with more than satisfactory results. The gunman didn't think some of us are crazier than him. Was I lucky? Of course. But at least I didn't shoot him.
88 - Frank
Wouldn't we be better off controlling the criminals rather that the gun. They are the ones committing the crimes and killing?
89 - Frank
I forgot something. Lets get off the bull with the politics and stay with the subjects (GUNS) not Republicans or Democrats although the democrats are mostly all anti-gun.
90 - Clavos
Your appeal to stay off politics might have had more strength had you yourself not succumbed into the same quagmire by making a politically provocative point in the same breath:
"although the democrats are mostly all anti-gun."
You should think about where you stow your thrones.
91 - moonraven
Sorry about the typo on Nez Perce. As a Native American born less than 100 miles from the site where Chief Joseph was buried, I have had extensive experience with the group--as well as have written a theater piece based on the Nez Perce War which focuses on Chief Looking Glass.
As a Native American, I suppose you COULD say I am xenophobic: Get the fuck off my land!
92 - moonraven
Are you through jerking off yet?
93 - gonzo marx
ya will know when ya have to clean up yer feathers, mr
Excelsior?
94 - moonraven
Wrong again, gonz. I already indicated to you that my feathers, like the rest of me, are always pristine.
95 - Damon
That's right! Ban guns!!!our kids get killed by them! BUT YET ITS OUR KIDS WHO CARRY THEM!!!
96 - deputy dawg
After being a lawenforcement officer for more than forty years, I've had a lot of experience with guns and people.Not only these experiences but a lot of study and thought have formed my belief that the framers of our contitution had it right in the beginning , that it was impotant enough to specify that each citizen had a "right"to"keep and bear arms".It's almost like they could see into the future.Could they have seen Nazi germany,russia,or the other opressive government of the future. Or the so called civilized countries like Britian,Australia,and New Zealand who have chosen to dissarm their people.If we could go back in time to any of these groups of "citizens" do you think they would have some strong feelings against "gun control". If not before it became affective,how about after.Or should we ask the MILLIONS who died because they and their neighbors were unable to defend themselves or others from governments,criminals or even animals. These days it gets more and more difficult to tell the difference between the three aforementioned groups. As You can tell I'm totally against government encroachment on all Citizen's rights.We should all consider paying more attention to history and less to the "touchie feelie" amoungst us.
97 - Christopher Rose
That's cool. I hate people who use cartoon character's names when making comments so me and my AK are coming for you.
*Sings* "I shot the sheriff, but I did not shoot the deputy."
Oh, wait, I did!
98 - Ace
I believe we need to ban guns to save our society. Once we ban guns, then there will be no more crime. Paul Helmke and Josh Sugarmann told me so.
Just look at D.C. They banned private ownership of guns and look at the paradise it's become. Same with England. No guns. No crime.
See? It works!
(BTW, Obnoxious, excellent article.)
99 - Dr Dreadful
Ace,
Go to college? Remember that critical thinking class? Remember those logical fallacies they had you learn?
Remember 'correlation does not equal causation'?
...No, I guess not.
100 - Silver Surfer
Dear Deputy Dawg,
You are talking through your arse.
It's always good to know the facts. I'm Australian. The government introduced restrictions on gun ownership after a series of massacres of innocent people by people best described as lunatics.
What the federal government did in Australia was make it near-impossible to get yourself an assault-style semi-automatic or automatic weapon, or a handgun that is not solely for use with a gun club. You can still own a gun (I saw working WWII era Lee-Enfield .303s for sale in a disposal store the other day), and there are exemptions for rural areas.
The thing is, a government that was elected on a very slim minority decided to do it.
And we voted them back in afterwards in a near landslide, which I guess probably goes to show that the democratic process works just fine in this country. It's not the government's choice ultimately - if we didn't like it, we wouldn't have endorsed their decision by voting for them.
And whaddya know?? Since the ban on assault-style weapons, there hasn't been a single mass shooting. They used to be common, and now they aren't.
Don't try to twist what goes on this free society and try to turn it into a justification for the rubbish that goes on in America in the name of so-called "freedom".
If Americans are more free than we are, or even as free, I'll eat my hat. Most of you are totally deluded on this score.
Governments should only ever reflect the hopes and aspirations of their citizens, as the country belongs to us, not to them.
Which IS what happens here.
In the US, the real voice behind governments is big money, big business and powerful lobby groups.
If you think you have any kind of real voice anymore as a US citizen, or any say in what your government does, you are seriously kidding yourself.
Here's the telling factor: one of the reasons I often hear quoted by Americans as a reason to keep gun laws the way they are is that you might need them to oppose a repressive government.
I think that's nonsense. And here, we don't have any mistrust of the government apart from the usual cynicism reserved for politicians.
The mark of a truly free society is measured by the level of fear of its citizens. There seems to be a lot of frightened people in America.
The fear factor in Australia in regard to what the government might do - zero.
New Zealand's gun laws are pretty relaxed by the way. It has a very high rate of legal firearms ownership, including assault-style weapons and handguns. The fear factor in New Zealand in regard to what the government might do to its people - less than zero. But you didn't know any of that did you, 'cause you're talking through your bum.
101 - Dr Dreadful
In all fairness, Stan, being oppressed by the government of New Zealand would be a bit like being whacked over the head with a wet bog roll.
102 - Silver Surfer
Lol! I'd heartily agree with that sentiment Doc!
They do have one thing going for them though ... the indigenous inhabitants, the Maori, who are in fact identical people to the Tahitians and the Hawaiians, brokered a treaty to end their warfare with the British.
The Treaty of Waitangi is a fairly significant document in that it guaranteed the rights of the Maori full - at the time - and identical rights to that of an Englishman.
We know these things don't always work out perfectly in practice, but for the most part, New Zealand, until the full scale immigration by Pacific Islanders of various nationalities, was as close to being the harmonious multicultural society as is possible for two peoples of such vastly different backgrounds and attitudes.
103 - Ace
Ace,
Go to college? Remember that critical thinking class? Remember those logical fallacies they had you learn?
Remember 'correlation does not equal causation'?
...No, I guess not.
No, really. Banning guns means no more crime. Just look at England. They banned guns and look--no more crime. It's really an amazing thing.
What's horrible is the assault weapons ban sunsetting. The result? Blood in the streets. Why, assault weapons came back to D.C. and now the populace has been rubbed out. Ghost town. Millions of bodies in the streets of the capitol, shot by assault weapon 30-round hi-capacity magazines, just lying there.
It's true. Paul Helmke and Sarah Brady told me so.
That's why we need to ban guns. Ban guns, no more crime.
Then later, we ban light bulbs, porn movies, cigarettes, alcohol...hell, we need to go police state and just do away with America.
Then Paul Helmke and Friends will be happy.
Oh yeah--
/sarcasm
104 - Dr Dreadful
Ace, I got that you were being sarcastic. I also got your point. You think private gun ownership helps prevent crime.
It is true that, in the case of Britain and also of Silver Surfer's example of the assault weapons ban in Australia, there haven't been any Columbine-style massacres since the bans came into effect.
Causation or just correlation? Have Britain and Australia just got lucky, or does keeping guns out of the hands of maniacs prevent them from slaughtering people? We'll never know for sure.
105 - Ace
does keeping guns out of the hands of maniacs prevent them from slaughtering people
I completely agree that "maniacs" should be barred from legally getting guns.
But gun control proponents always imply that all gun owners, simply by having a gun, are bad guys.
Are they all bad guys?
As for England and Australia's gun bans, let me ask the following. Has banning guns prevented gun crime? Has banning guns prevented all crime? Has banning guns gotten rid of criminals? I ask this because the gun control camp continues to imply that banning guns solves all crime and they hold England as the standard of gun control.
106 - STM
Ace: No, banning certain types of guns hasn't resulted in a lowering of the crime rate in Australia, nor most likely most of the other things you mention. I can't speak for what happens in the UK except that it has a very low rate of gun homicide and homicide generally compared to the US, although it is on the rise.
Bear in mind too that the gun homicide rate and the homicide rate in general in Australia is now at the lower end of the scale for a western democracy, as opposed to that of the US, which has the dubious honour of being the highest. The gun figure is about four times higher - at least -in the US than it is here, off the top of my head.
There's no doubt the proliferation of guns in America is the main reason behind that, as the majority of killings in the US are carried out with guns.
I don't advocate a total ban on firearms, just a tightening of the laws - which we have, so it's a moot point. You obviously do what you like in your own country, although as a visitor to the US I do find it disconcerting that there are an estimated 300 million legal firearms alone floating around the community.
From our point of view, I just don't see why anyone living in the city needs a pump-action shottie stashed in the cupboard or a semi-auto of large calibre unless they have a country property and are shooting kangaroos, which need to be culled.
I still like the idea that if I'm living in a rural area, I could have a gun if I needed one. But I don't, and basically couldn't care less.
As you and I both know, and there's no getting around it, a lot of illegal firearms in the US were once legal firearms. You want a gun but can't get one in NYC because of all the checks and balances. No problem ... just drive down to Georgia, buy a sh.tload and run them back and sell them illegally.
It's that kind of thing the federal government was seeking to stop in Australia. You can still own a gun, but it's a lot harder to get the licence now, and takes longer.
And like I say, the main reason it was done was to stop mass shootings and prevent easy access to high-powered weapons by people who shouldn't have them. The final straw was Martin Bryant's escape at Port Arthur, where he cold-bloddedly and mostly at point-blank range killed 35 people, including two little kids who had hidden behind a tree with their mother (who got as well), and wounded another 37.
Since the ban came into effect, there haven't been any shootings of that kind .. and once upon a time, they were as commonplace here as they were in the US.
Possibly one day there will be, but it's been 12 years since it happened and so it's very likely those laws have meant a lot of lives saved.
It's hard to know what effect it has had in other areas, as there have been a number of gangland shootings - crims shooting crims.
But the gun homicide rate in Australia was declining prior to the ban, and has continued to fall after it.
The other thing is: we never really had a gun culture here. Most of us don't care about guns, although a lot of us have grown up using them.
So there are big differences between how this issue should be viewed according to the diverse cultutral mores of Australia and the US.
Do I believe Americans have the right to bear arms. Yes. Do I believe America needs 300 million legal firearms of all shapes and sizes and god knows how many illegal ones? No way.
It's a crock and a self-delusion, but as people keep pointing out to me here I'm a foreigner and it's only my view of one aspect of American society I find really bizarre.
107 - Cannonshop
STM: to quote Archie Bunker: "Would ya rather they was pushed outa windahs?" Banning guns won't ban murder, though it will isolate it to murder by the physically strong or particularly clever/ruthless or criminal. In other words, the exact sort of people one would purchase a handgun to 'stop'. I mean, I don't know about you, but I know that "I" would have a hard time stopping some guy who's just spent the last fifteen in the penitentiary lifting weights if all I have for self-defense is a bat, knife, or cell-phone, and I'm not exactly a particularly small gent.
Guns don't make people violent, or make them killers-they DO make a small person as powerful as a large thug in the area of competition that matters to large thugs.
And for consideration- Americans aren't violent because of devices, they're violent because of that weird mixture of ancestral stock and popular culture- the U.S. is mostly composed of folk descended from religious and political fanatics, self-styled (and short-tempered) "adventurers", ruthless sociopaths, criminals, dissident peasants, etc. etc.-the folk that the rest of the world wanted rid of, in other words. We're violent by our NATURE, and in places where small and weak Americans come into conflict with Large and Aggressive americans without benefit of a cop RIGHT THERE, or benefit of another form of equalizer, the small ones tend to come to a bad end. Why do serial rapists/killers prey on women and children? because they don't fight back. Why do strong-arm and home-invasion robbers focus on old people? because they're unlikely to be able to fight back, or fight back effectively. This is also why if you're not Bruce Lee, there are some bars you dom't visit, some neighbourhoods where if you're the wrong colour, you don't go, and why if you're female and single, you don't walk in some areas at night without an escort.
NONE of that changes with gun-control legislation, look to D.C. or NYC, or Los Angeles. It isn't the people inclined to obey the law and keep the peace that are murdering folks, it's the ones that are NOT.
Those folk will STILL BE HERE no matter what laws are passed, the only difference is the level of risk they face and the size of the prospective pool of victims. Lowering the risk and increasing the victim pool is, quite simply, the wrong way to go for the U.S.
108 - Silver Surfer
OK cannon ... there's some sense to your post, and there's some nonsense too.
Most shootings of other (unarmed) people in the US are committed in the home, or by a person if not either family or well-known to the victim, at least known. These kinds of shootings are generally carried out with legal firearms. They are, as a rule, not done by people protecting themselves against other people with illegal guns. Like criminals, for instance.
It just isn't happening.
The situation you describe regarding American society isn't that different to Australia, or many other places for that matter - this country was settled by the convict dregs and (as moonraven describes them) the violent scum of the British empire and a very, very large crowd of rowdy and angry authority-hating fenian-inclined Irishmen. That's a fairly lethal mix I'd say by anyone's standards.
This too had been a country built to a large extent on violence and lawlessness (which is probably why it is still the country that most resembles the US and still has a pioneering spirit).
We had a wild west-era that was probably even wilder than that of the US. Most Aussies of my generation have grown up around guns, have used them and many have owned them. Once upon a time, it was just a normal part of the landscape - but we never had the culture of gun ownership.
All that aside, what we saw no sense in a decade ago was having as near as possible unrestricted access to very powerful firearms. Sure, the crims still have them. But the kind of people who might have no criminal convictions, seemed to have led ordinary lives as far as the wider community could tell but who might have ruminated on mass murder.
Then there were the ones who snapped - they just grabbed the pump-action shottie out of the cupboard and went out and killed the ex-girlfriend, her sisters and friend dead (yep, happened). We couldn't see any sense in that stuff happening either.
It happened - a lot. Then there were the biker gangs who had a shootout in broad daylight in Sydney pub carpark, and killed many of their own and a teenage girl caught in the crossfire.
And so on and so forth. I can give you a dozen of them at least, and because of the nature of my work, I saw the results of some of them first hand. Not pretty, believe me.
Of course there is still violent crime here. There always will be.
But it's lunacy to suggest that increasing the number of guns in the community brings gun crime down, rather than the other way around.
Ask any cop in New York, London or Sydney whether they think more guns on the street is the answer. Their answer will be a resounding no.
And as I said in my earlier post, the restrictions on gun ownership in Australia don't stop you from owning a firearm, they severely restrict you and make it a hard process. Plenty of people still have gun licences (one for each firearm now), and getting them requires numerous background checks and meeting of criteria.
I also pointed out that the new laws introduced in the late '90s were designed to stop lunatics committing mass murder. So far, it seems to have worked.
Which must be some kind of a bonus.
And you'll also find thatmost Aussies aren't or were never that overly interested in gun ownership in the first place, even though we had access to them.
Which is why I say that what happens in Australia can't be compared to the gun culture of the US. I was merely originally answering a post by someone who thought we weren't free because we couldn't go into any second shop and buy a gun.
But I still think you are seriously deluding yourselves if you think there is no correlation between the high US rate of gun homicide (the highest of any western democracy), and the proliferation of guns.
It's so obvious to everyone else, why not you?
And just for the record, I've been to the US quite a few times for extended periods and I can tell you it's generally no more violent on the streets or bars there than anywhere else. There are places I wouldn't go here, either.
It's the shootings with legally owned firearms that ups the ante when it comes to gun crime in the US, and that's the essential difference.
I realise the right to bear arms is protected by the second amendment and it's America's business, but I ask you this: do you think the founding fathers had any idea that 200 years on it wouldn't be 100,000 single-shot, muzzle-loading muskets they were referring to but 300 million mostly high-powered modern weapons shoved in cupboards and down the pants of every second Joe Blow in America?
I think not, and I also suspect that if they'd had any inkling of where it was going to go, they might have been a bit more specific with the wording.
Besides which, gun control doesn't infringe you second-amendment rights to bear. It just stipulates who can have one (ie, no criminal records, no psych patients, etc), and limits the type of firearm.
The way it stands at the moment in the US, you can have a bazooka if you like under the courts' current interpretation of the second amendent.
If that's not insanity in a country that in every other way counts itself as civilised, what is? Seriously?
109 - Ace
The other thing is: we never really had a gun culture here. Most of us don't care about guns, although a lot of us have grown up using them.
So there are big differences between how this issue should be viewed according to the diverse cultutral mores of Australia and the US.
STM: Perhaps this is the meat of the issue: the culture. As you say, you've never really had a gun culture there. Here, though, there is one and that's why I think the gun rights folks react so strongly to attempts to ban guns.
As Silver Surfer points out: "you'll also find thatmost Aussies aren't or were never that overly interested in gun ownership in the first place, even though we had access to them."
I'm going to guess that's where views in the U.S. and views in Australia may differ. Again, due to the cultural differences with respect to guns and gun ownership.
Besides which, gun control doesn't infringe you second-amendment rights to bear. It just stipulates who can have one (ie, no criminal records, no psych patients, etc), and limits the type of firearm.
Unfortunately, it's not as simple as that. The gun control advocates are pushing for an outright ban on civilian ownership of guns. Any gun. And they will use any tactic to do so, including misdirection (e.g. implying that semi-automatic fire is the same as fully automatic fire). To them, only the military and the police should have guns. And they continue to tell us: "When you are attacked by a gun-wielding criminal, call the police."
And, as we know, the police will show up after the fact--but that's another topic.
110 - Dr Dreadful
Unfortunately, it's not as simple as that. The gun control advocates are pushing for an outright ban on civilian ownership of guns. Any gun.
You're right, Ace. It's not as simple as that.
Most people are in favor of some degree of gun control - but how many actually support an outright ban?
I'm calling straw man unless you can show me that the gun control movement really is 'all or nothing'.
111 - Ace
I'm calling straw man unless you can show me that the gun control movement really is 'all or nothing'.
Sure thing.
--Pete Shields, president of Handgun Control Inc (the previous incarnation of the Brady Campaign): "Our ultimate goal " total control of handguns in the United States " is going to take time. My estimate is from seven to ten years. The problem is to slow down the increasing number of handguns sold in this country. The second problem is to get them all registered. And the final problem is to make the possession of all handguns and all handgun ammunition " except for the military, policemen, licensed security guards, licensed sporting clubs, and licensed gun collectors " totally illegal."
--Josh Sugarmann, of the Violence Policy Center, in his book Every Handgun is Aimed at You: The Case For Banning Handguns, writes: "The gun-control movement is at a crossroads. It can either continue down a course defined by polling, politics, and the lowest common denominator--the 'common sense' approach embodied in 'gun safety.' Or it can adopt an agenda shaped by the reality of gun violence in America that truly represents the public interest: banning handguns. Handguns can be banned."
In the afterword of the same book, Sugarmann outlines strategies for people to take. One of them, #10, is "Ban handguns locally."
--Bryan Miller, blogging at NJ.com, responded to a comment in his 13 January entry by saying that Ceasefire NJ (among others) does not call for a handgun ban. He then writes the following clarification: "I should clarify, since I made a factual error, which I regret. What I know is that Ceasefire NJ does not currently support a New Jersey state handgun ban."
Does not currently support a state handgun ban. I interpret that to mean that they may change their position on the matter. Not right at the moment. Maybe later.
--The Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence, in its FAQ, says it is not a "gun ban" organization. Specifically, it says "Brady believes that a safer America can be achieved without banning guns."
Yet Brady supports the D.C. gun ban.
I interpret that as "say one thing, mean another."
--The gun control group The Coalition to Stop Gun Violence was originally known as The National Coalition to Ban Handguns.
Of course, this is merely my understanding of what I've read.
I could be completely off the mark.
112 - Dr Dreadful
Nice try, Ace. But do these people and groups really represent the whole of the gun control lobby?
As this analysis explains, "Some seek broad policy changes such as near-prohibition of non-police handgun ownership or the registration of all firearm owners or firearms [...] Others advocate less comprehensive policies that they maintain would not impede ownership and legitimate firearm transfers."
Really, there are almost as many different opinions on this issue as there are actual guns. You're just focusing on the most shrill.
113 - Cannonshop
Dr. Dreadful: um, nice analysis, however, in politics, power is measured by exposure and influence OUTSIDE of a community. (kind of like Public Relations) and in sheer terms of coverage, money, and the ability to buy congresscritters, those groups DO represent the most POLITICALLY POWERFUL, and therefore, DOMINANT section of the gun-control Lobby. Whom does the self-described mainstream media consult when a gun crime goes down or a bill comes up?
Yup. VPC (or whatever they're calling themselves now).
Power Plus MONEY equals Mainstream for any political movement. These are the guys that ABC, CNN, NBC, CBS, and affiliates consult, They're the ones Associated Press looks to to get the story, they're the guys Reuters trust, and the ones that can get and hold the ear of elected officials in the Democratic Party. They do this by being major contributors in terms of cash and manpower, much the way that Fallwellite "KuhRischuns" are very much the influential (and politically involved) "Mainstream" of christian conservatism.
"Nuances" really don't work on a National scale on a topic like this one- instead, you have gradualism and persistence combined with massive infusions of cash at strategic moments and occasional waving of the bloody shirt-it's tactical, and the objective of the tactics, the 'strategy' IS total disarmament of civilians, if it were not, Brady II would not have made it onto the committee, much less the floor.
do more laws work? they aren't working in New York, D.C., Seattle, Los Angeles, Detroit, or any other place they have been enacted. They also quite apparently didn't work in Cuba (under Somoza), Nicaragua under Batista, in South Vietnam, Kabul under the Soviets...or Bosnia/Kosovo/etc. etc.
For a law to be effective, it has to be two things:
1. Enforceable-the means must be present to apply the power of the law on those disinclined to obey it.
2. Enforced. the WILL to enforce existing laws must be present. That is, the enforcing authority must have the political will to carry out its threats, and it must have the physical means to carry out its threats, apply penalties, and make the penalties stick.
In the case of the "Gun Control" presented to us laymen (as opposed to university sociologists), this means the government must first have the means to ban/confiscate hundereds of millions of firearms. It must also have the WILL to do whatever is necessary to enforce that action. As this would by necessity involve several things, including suspension of Habeas Corpus, blanket searches of private residences, heavy-duty surveillance of over three hundered million citizens, along with (likely) random checkpoint stops to search for contraband, how many OTHER amendments do you have to violate or suspend to actually achieve "Control"?
This is the problem in D.C. where handguns are illegal, and commonly in use by Criminals in spite of that prohibition.
And as for "accidental" shootings-there is no such thing as an ACCIDENT. There IS a such thing as NEGLIGENCE. hundereds of thousands of Americans die daily on the highway due to some form of negligent behaviour-usually their own. that something similar (but vastly smaller scale) occurs with firearms has more to do with the likelihood of someone being an irresponsible prat with a dangerous machine. You can't outlaw stupidity, and making the world safer for idiots is contrary to the survival and adaptability of the species as a whole, and the continuation of civility on the societal level.
As for asking about the founding fathers and repeating firearms? There were a number of them that were engaged in trying to invent that very thing, including Mr. Franklin, and large-capacity weapons, even in the seventeen hundereds, were not unheard of. "Volley guns", self-contained cartridges, etc. etc. were all desperately pursued by generations before, and after them. The reason the Musket dominated the Battlefield until the invention of the Minie ball (Sometime in the 1830's) was precisely because it WAS a rapid-fire weapon, rifling was old-hat by the 1690's.
They imagined it, indeed, they tried again and again to achieve it, including the adoption prior to eighteen twelve of the Hall Carbine, and a little device called the Pepperbox pistol, which predated the single-barrel revolver by a number of years and looks rather intimidating with its cluster of bores.
Silver Surfer: Your nation mostly derived from only a couple of ethnic groups, when referring to the U.S., you have to account for no'count bastards like the Spanish, French, every-shade-and-shape of European, plus whoever was politically unpopular with the other villagers in Africa, and the ones that lost intertribal genocidal wars in africa, plus an indigenous population that was every inch as warlike and violent as the worst Europeans(and only restrained by lack of access to equal technologies.) Tied all together in a bundle of warlike psychosis that makes your lot look tame by comparison-which population has not been winnowed out by an ecology that is designed to kill people who don't learn from their mistakes as it does down-under (where nearly everything is poisonous and most of it is lethal-at least, if "animal planet" is to be believed, and everything that isn't trying to eat you will sting, bite, scratch, whatever some new and exciting brew of toxin into you if you aren't paying attention... or just kick you to death for the hell of it.)
A couple bits of 'americana' for you to chew on-you mentioned New York policeman... New York cops are notorious in the states for their corruption, just as their city is notorious for its corruption, organized crime, etc. etc. A similar condition exists in a city known as 'Detroit', and Chicago. Another thing to understand, is that your comment about U.S. Judicial standards reflects an interesting gap in your knowledge- NO, you can't own a Bazooka just 'cause you want one. You have to be rich enough to buy the right politicians, along with something called a "Class Three" firearms license- Class Threes are hard to obtain, difficult to pay for, and subject their holders to a number of restrictions on their civil rights, up to and including warrantless searches of their private premises, violations of their ephemeral rights to privacy, etc. etc. (actually, ALL gun-dealers who work legally are subject to such things, see the Lawmaster incident in Texas for a particularly infamous example.)
Aussie cops are not internationally famous for being crooked, bent, corrupt... they haven't yet violated the trust of the public in ways that American agencies have, and likely will, again if they are allowed to do so.
At this point, for many of us in the 'gun culture' gun-control is more or less acknowledged to be present-anyone that has honestly signed a 4473 knows this.
The gun-issue isn't, in this country, as much about possible rebellion (unlikely), it's about canaries in the coal mine-when the POLITICAL WILL is mated to PHYSICAL MEANS, it means the other rights have been converted to toilet paper by the very people who held up their hand to swear to uphold them. For many of the more extreme gun-rights people out here in the U.S., it's become a 'litmus test' in that to achieve 'gun control', all other rights can, will, and must be sacrificed. (Will+Means) to achieve it-and with that, comes political and enforcement that is questionable-at-best in terms of their (for wont of a better term) "Cleanliness" with regards to ethics and legality. Unlike Australia, we've SEEN our cops and Feds violate both with impunity and immunity-to-prosecution.
On a local level, there's also this: The Police don't protect you, the citizen, from anything. They protect THE STATE. Physically, they can't protect you, but more to the point, legally they are NOT REQUIRED to protect you, the citizen, from the scum of humanity. The Police are not even required to enforce "Protective orders" in abuse cases, or victims of stalkers. They'll try, but it's in the manner of an as-convenient basis. Further, they're not even really required to maintain public order- ask the folks in Los Angeles after the riots. The police stepped back, and let the city burn-with zero consequences to themselves or their agency, likewise New Orleans after Katrina-more cops fled the city than stayed, and none of the ones that fled (or participated in looting) faced charges or dismissal. Those are only two examples, but they're recent, so they're useful.
Most police aren't dirty, corrupt, or cowards, but there are enough, and the ones remaining are ineffective enough, that in the U.S., disarming only the law-abiding is a great way to divide everyone into clients for whoever holds sufficient public office and victims of whoever is ruthless enough to violate the law and use aggression.
114 - The Obnoxious American
Doc,
I have to agree with Ace that the gun control lobby does say one thing and mean another - no question they would only be happy once all guns are out of the hands of the people. This is the same nanny state perspective that brought us the ban on trans fats (so we are now eating more sat fats than ever), the ban on smoking (because second hand smoke is oh so dangerous).
There is no question that a large section of the left feels that they know what is best for the rest of America and they will use every ounce of American freedom to take away our rights. What I and others call "Nanny staters."
How else can you explain the assault weapons ban? Bear in mind, fully auto rifles were already banned. A semi automatic AK may look scary, but I can accomplish the same thing with my 45 as with the AK if I were so inclined. Hi cap magazines? Please, I own 4 mags that can carry 8 bullets each, and I can promise you, popping in a new magazine only takes but a second. And it would be MUCH easier for me to bring a 45 into a mall than an AK for that matter. So why an assault weapons ban? I won't even get into the reality that since the sunset on the ban, crime has not risen.
I am all for making sure we give guns to law abiding, sane citizenry. And by law abiding, I also include those who would not sell their guns to criminals.
But once we've established that the citizen is law abiding and sane, who cares what kind of stock his or her rifle has, or whether it holds 10 or 15 bullets. To reiterate the main point in the article as well as comments by many here like Ace and CannonShop, any laws that regulate the citizenry's access to guns only serves to enable criminals. Plain and simple.
115 - Dr Dreadful
Obnox,
I was taking issue with Ace's hyperbolic characterization of the gun control lobby. Sure, there are some very shrill voices there, just as there are on the opposing side. My point is that it doesn't help the debate any to demonize. Neither does contorted reasoning like your "they will use every ounce of American freedom to take away our rights". That just makes no sense.
I agree with you that the assault weapons ban as it stood was pretty ludicrous and probably had more to do with Hollywood than it did with reality. I personally can't see why anyone would need an AK-47 unless their day job entails yomping around Iraq, but then again, I don't need my iPod either.
My personal feeling, as an immigrant from a non-gun culture, is that while I'd prefer an America not bristling with personal armaments - I enjoy firing them but consider that their proper place is on the range - I have to recognize that the right to own them was specifically given to you by your Constitution. Which just leaves the question of exactly what type of 'arms' you're entitled to 'keep and bear'. I think any reasonable person would agree that the right doesn't extend to having a fully-primed tactical nuke squatting in your gun safe or a howitzer mounted on your garage roof, but anything smaller than that and you get into the gray area.
Finally, legitimate gun ownership may indeed help to combat crime, but there is more than one way to skin a cat, as the man said. And I have to agree with STM, who has one more than one occasion pointed out the correlation between the ridiculously high rate of gun-related deaths in the US and the number of available guns. This is really something it's hard for the pro-gun lobby to get away from.
116 - Ace
Thanks, Doc. I enjoy a good hyperbolic characterization. ;P
I do agree that there are shrill voices on either side of the debate.
At the same time, when you read or hear a story on the news related to the prevalance of gun violence, who does the press turn to for its "facts"?
The Brady Campaign and the Violence Policy Center.
I don't see this as demonizing anyone. The Bradys and the VPC are the biggest proponents of gun control. Though they don't say it publicly, read any of their materials and you will see a movement toward banning private ownership of guns.
Based on that, I believe gun control groups are in favor of banning private ownership of guns.
If you still regard this as hyperbole, then you may regard this as hyperbole. I have no problem with that.
We are, after all, free to disagree.
If you require further examples, I'd be happy to take time to dig up some info.
117 - The Obnoxious American
Just like many people say that I am not that obnoxious, usually dread is the last thing that comes to mind when I read your posts. And I agree with what you said.
The only area where I'd argue is on the issue of the correlation between high gun deaths in the US. I'll remind about Twain's lies, damn lies and statistics. I think any true analysis of the numbers shows that murder rates tend to be high in urban areas where gun controls also tend to be stronger. NYC, LA, etc to wit.
Sure, gun deaths are high, and this country has a second ammendment. And if one considers only those two factors as a basis for supporting gun control, then they might be as good of a director as michael moore, and might find a home in the DNC, but thats aobut it. The fact is that real crime happens, and it's not always the husband (or wife or relative) carrying it out. And the bottom line is that it's a lot easier to protect yourself with a gun than with a cellphone.
If the fact that access to guns directly related to the higher murder rate in the states, then why is it most crimes are committed by criminals and not gun store owners and people who go to the range like myself?
At the end of the day, such discussions about murder rates and access to guns do not really get to the heart of the issue. It's more of a straw man argument than any discussed on these boards.
118 - Dr Dreadful
I'll agree with you, Obnox, about correlation not equalling causation, which is about the first thing one learns in a critical thinking course*.
To respond to some of your points, however:
1. Crime rates are higher in urban areas anyway.
2. Where guns are widely available, they are much easier to obtain and more attractive to criminals for use in committing crimes.
3. If the wide availability of guns is not a major factor in the high rate of gun crime, what is?
* I sometimes think that at least a C grade in such a course should be a prerequisite for commenting on BC...
119 - Deano
you could always get a dog......
120 - The Obnoxious American
"3. If the wide availability of guns is not a major factor in the high rate of gun crime, what is?"
Crime. No, seriously, to trott out the old standard, "guns don't kill people..."
It's true. We need to fix the issues in society that cause people to kill. We need to address the issues that drive people to crime.
Not to sound like a stereotypical republican, but with rights come responsibilities. We need to get to a place where common sense is not replaced with lawsuits and where people understand the value of life, especially the lives of others. I think that there are a myriad of ways to get there without taking away my rights as an American.
This is the problem I have with Democrats - the entire democratic platform is based on the concept of telling us how to behave, rather than encouraging and teaching us to do the right thing. From gun control to universal healthcare, Dems favor legislating behaviors. The right is guilty of this too to a lesser extent in terms of moral issues (gay rights, abortion, etc) and it's precisely on those issues where I differ from the GOP as well.
Ultimately this country will fail if we are reduced to decisionless automatons who look for guidance (from politicians no less) on the very questions of how to behave. And gun control is one of the many areas where this battle of freedoms is being fought. Taking away my rights because of a small minority of Americans use their guns to commit crimes isn't the answer. Actually fighting and prosecuting crimes on the other hand is.
121 - STM
Cannonshop: "Aussie cops are not internationally famous for being crooked, bent, corrupt... they haven't yet violated the trust of the public".
Are you serious mate? This country was settled by convicts and Irishmen. The crims are still among the most violent on the planet, and a succession of royal commissions into police forces on this continent have found them to be among the most corrupt in the world.
The New South Wales police force was ripped apart by a royal commission into police corruption in the mid-90s. Possibly, it was one of the most stunning uncoverings of police corruption ever seen, anywhere.
As for not having a mixture of peoples in Australia, that's another fallacy. This is the most multi-ethnic, multicultural of societies - even more son than the US, per head of population beilieve it or not.
Even now, one in four Australians was born somewhere else - Asia, the mid-east, Africa, the Balkans, southern Europe, norther Europ,e. We've even got our fair share of Americans who've jumped ship in recent years.
All I'm saying about the gun laws here is that rather than cave in to a small number of people who wanted them unchanged, the rest of us decided that if such laws could stop the kinds of massacres that seem to happen every week in the US and were happening here too with alarming regularity, we'd support a (very right-wing, conservative) government that one day just said, "OK, enough's enough. Time to act".
We're happy with it, we voted them back in and we wouldn't if that wasn't the case, but then Australia is not America.
One big difference between the two is that there is a greater sense of community in Australia, and that extends very much beyond what in the US can often be a very selfish individualism.
It's also why you don't have to be a socialist in Australia to love the universal health care system we have.
You can't compare the two countries except, I believe, in the overall lifestyle of the citizens and the pioneering spirit that remains in the national psyche of both countries.
122 - STM
Obnoxious: "Guns don't kill people ..."
Yeah, nice one. Nice try. Apart from the fact that it's the biggest load of bollocks I've ever heard. I love the self-delusions perpetuated by the gun lobby in the US, and that self-delusion in particular.
Bombs don't kill people either ...
If you want to keep your shooters, all well and good and it's your right under your constitution. It's your business, and we are just ioffering another, equally valid viewpoint from the prespective of interested outsiders. But please, don't insult our intelligence by trying to dress up bullsh.t as fact.
Truth is, you'll be struggling for the next 10 centuries in America to address the issues that lead people to kill people, and just like every other society on this planet, you won't solve it.
Of course, one of the problems here when you are talking gun crime is that it does often involve those on the fringes of society, and in America, the same people who support availability of guns are often those who don't support social measures designed to alleviate poverty and lift people off the lower socio-economic rungs of society. We know in theory everyone is equal in the US, but it hardly ever works in reality because in the US, money talks loudest. So the problem goes on like a dog chasing its own tail.
So until you either regulate the availability of certain types of guns or do something to share the wealth (lifting a disgraceful minimum wage to something people can actually live on might be a good start), nothing will change and you'll continue to have the highest rate of gun homicide in the civilised world.
I just wonder sometimes how many Americans actually understand how they are viewed as a laughing stock over this type of argument by the rest of the civilised world, or indeed whether they really care.
Like I say, too much of what happens in the US is selfish individualism dressed up as "rights" simply because it suits the purpose of those making that call.
It is one reason, among many, that when trying to decide years ago whether to settle permanently in the US, I chose Australia for its sense of community, which in the US would have me labelled a socialist but in Oz can have me very firmly in the centre and loving it that way.
I prefer the Down Under concept of society ("a fair go for everyone"), rather than "I'm all right Jack, we're all on our own (and bugger you)" which seems often to drive the political choice in the US.
123 - Matthew T. Sussman
The chick from Grindhouse was kind of a gun.
124 - The Obnoxious American
STM,
Had you read my article you'd know that there was much more to the creation of the right to bear arms in this country than some overblown sense of individual (and selfish) rights. If I felt you'd actually try and educate yourself, I'd advise you to read the last paragraph in the article, and follow the link that talks about the history of gun control in europe, and why our framers decided explicitly to garuntee that right. Instead, I am hoping that anyone who might read your comments as anymore more than blather reads the last paragraph.
Furthermore your extremely negative view of the US and it's inhavitants is not just rude, it's wrong. Here is where you go off the deep end:
"...the rest of us decided that if such laws could stop the kinds of massacres that seem to happen every week in the US and were happening here too with alarming regularity..."
Last I checked, there wasn't a columbine style massacre happening every week. In fact, if it consistently happened more than once a year I'd be surprised.
And moreover, the crime rates in the US have been dropping as a whole, and this is while as a country our gun control laws have become more lax. The AWB sunset, and the increased number of "shall issue" CCW states to wit.
As far as your false choice of having gun control along with wealth redistribution programs, are you suggesting that if poor people are not given handouts by the rich, they have an excuse for breaking the law? This is the biggest set of hogwash I've ever heard. I was poor when I was growing up. I didn't need to rob, murder or steal, I worked my way up the ladder as is the norm in a capitalist country. You see, we have opportunity instead of hand outs. People who want better for themselves have to work to get those opportunities, not pick up a gun and hold the rest of society hostage as you would suggest.
Your spouting is just that, fear based innuendo with no real facts to back it up, and a dose of anti americanism thrown in for good measure. Other countries think we are the laughing stock, do they? And this is because of our gun laws you say? That's all fine and well. Our supposed laughing stock status has not seemed to reduce the number of people who would love to become American citizens, not has it seemed to hurt the spread of Americanized culture in the rest of the world. It must really burn you up to live so far away from the hated US, and yet still have a government so willing to support US policy.
125 - Dr Dreadful
Last I checked, there wasn't a columbine style massacre happening every week. In fact, if it consistently happened more than once a year I'd be surprised.
Obnox, Stan was employing hyperbole to make a point.
And I must say, your challenge is kind of ironic considering the incident in St Louis yesterday...