On one day, in one American town, 13 times as many people (27) were murdered by gun than were murdered by gun (2) in one entire year (2006) in Japan, a nation of 127,000,000 people.
And yet we dither. The warning from the Right is that “they are coming for your guns.” This is partially true (we’re coming for some of them) except that “they” is actually “we,” and “you,” whether you know it or not, are actually part of that we because that we includes family, friends, neighbors and fellow citizens, which is not nearly as nebulous an entity as your favorite bogeyman “the government.”
We the people are coming. And you, as a person who may have no respect for government, need to respect that.
We are told that we must come to you now politely and with respect to gain your support or at least your lack of resistance to the new set of laws and regulations that, hopefully, will soon apply to the guns you covet and worship. I for one am in no such mood. Accountability is a big word in your dialectic, and in your unyielding attitude toward gun ownership in America, and in your support of the NRA I am holding you accountable for enabling the gun-available environment that led to the mass slaughter of children in Connecticut, to name but one incident. You will resist this characterization because you are a sportsman or a hobbyist or a perceived self-defender who is merely exercising your 2nd Amendment rights. You are innocent. But you are not. What you’re guilty of is indifference, in the face of brutal statistics (31,000 gun deaths per year in America), to the mayhem inflicted on your communities, near and afar, by your stubborn affection for guns.
“Guns don’t kill people, people kill people.” That is correct. That is why severe limitations on gun ownership and access to guns must be in effect in the United States. The reality of our imperfect and increasingly violence-tolerating culture (if you visited another world and witnessed children entertaining themselves with virtual games of shooting and death, would you view them as peace-loving or something else?), is something you can no longer ignore. That reality, not your connection to times past or to the glowing mythology of guns in America, demands an adaptation and a response to the killing power of modern guns.
This much I know. If I had a tradition, activity or even a need that involved guns, and I saw what guns at large had done to my country, I would gladly limit or compromise my access to guns for the greater good. Not to do so would be disgracefully un-American and insupportable, but most of all selfish. As good, responsible and deserving as you think you are, our society is peopled by many who are hostile, irresponsible, uncontrollable, ill-trained, and imbalanced. Efforts to control or monitor those members of society have and will always fall unacceptably short. That leaves guns as the controllable variable in the American equation of death by guns.
So, we must solve all problems at once or solve no problems at all? That is your remedy?
Sorry Bill. In all circumstances, in any situation you can come up with, the primary function of a gun is to kill someone. You have described circumstances and situations, the gun function remains the same. A taser could end a "threat", but it isn't designed to kill. Only guns are intended to kill. And BTW, nothing says defeat more than self-declared victories. Anybody with any level of education knows that.
And just because it has to be said: every woman has a right to control her reproduction. Efforts to ban or restrict abortion are attacks on women's autonomy and equality.
I suppose you would respond by telling me that you favor requiring every gun owner in America to take hours and hours of meticulous training, that must be renewed and refreshed monthly, before that owner can obtain or keep a firearm. And I suppose you believe that intrusive home inspections are in order, to insure that guns are properly secured. But if you don't, how can it be possible for a non-law enforcement person to possess a gun in a way that isn't a danger to us all? Guns enable people to kill with efficiency. Robert's right on the money: You can't favor the private ownership of firearms without being a major part of the cause of gun violence. The culture has to change; guns need to be viewed for what they are: the tools of killing, that need to be dealt with accordingly. The burden is now on those who favor the possession and use of firearms to justify the status-quo, not vice versa.
That's it. We've seen what the status-quo gets us - Newtown + 31,000 gun deaths a year. Enough.
Sigh. If I shoot a duck with a shotgun, the firearm fulfilled its purpose. Its purpose was not "to kill someone." If I participate in the annual Camp Perry shooting competition, my target rifle (probably within your definition of assault weapon) fulfillw its purpose without ever killing someone. I'm sure that the thousands of people who die from knife wounds will be surprised to hear that knives are not well suited to killing people. Heck, more people are killed every year by fists/feet than by assault weapons (what's your definition?). I did not declare victory, I stated that you gave up. You stopped even trying to discuss the effect of guns in our society and instead cited some polls, which at the time they were taken indicated support for a ban on assault weapons and some magazines. You then asked: "Why do most Americans disagree with you? All uninformed idiots?" Were most Americans uninformed idiots with respect to gay marriage? Miscegenation? Here's a poll from Gallup that shows most American disagree with President Obama's gun policy: http://www.gallup.com/poll/160385/obama-rated-highest-foreign-affairs-lowest-deficit.aspx Why are you so out of touch Robert?
You're showing your true colors again. You protest that you're only talking about assault weapons (still undefined) and high capacity magazines (ditto), and then criticize all guns. Which is it? All guns? Only those guns that are involved in the fewest homicides (i.e., assault weapons)?
As for the "primary function of guns", yes, they are used in many capacities, and in those capacities retain their inherent lethality (though feel free to argue in favor of low-power/low velocity weapons for target practice since their killing capability isn't needed there - right?).....certainly in self-defense, and in a "militia" capacity (for those who still see a role for that 18th century institution) guns are manufactured and designed primarily to kill. To say nothing of assault weapons equipped with those wonderful sporting devices known as hi-cap magazines.
No effective discussion of any issue can occur when every other issue imaginable is introduced for detailed discussion - shall we start with your definition of CITIZEN? (does a 5-day old blastula vote?) And since the Hyde amendment forbids government funding of abortion, how does "government support" abortion - be specific, not some luke-warm Fox talking points about Planned parenthood. S. Ray - "We went 2 centuries in this country without abortion, and we did just fine" Did we? How many unwanted/abused children were there? How many women forced by law to have unwanted children by husbands? How many women killed w/o access to abortion? All these laws in effect prior to women gaining vote and asserting their POVS...a long time ago, a time you would apparently like to return to.
Sure, guns are inherently lethal. So is a baseball bat. What do you think the first weapon was? People who support the Second Amendment frequently refer to guns as force amplifiers or force projectors. A gun puts a 100 pound grandmother on nearly equal ground as an armed rapist. Without the gun, the grandmother is on the wrong end of force disparity. Outlawing guns, disparately impacts the weak. Control advocates routinely point to England and Australia. Did you know that rape and home invasion in England are much more common than in America? Eliminating guns does not eliminate violence. It does, however, leave weak individuals more vulnerable to violence. Regarding the polls. What do you think the results would be if the poll asked "Do you favor banning the possession of semi-automatic hunting rifles?" This touches on my question regarding gay marriage, and miscegenation. Just because a majority of the population thinks something is wrong, doesn't mean that they won't change their mind or that their opinion is "right." In any event, the Bill of Rights was adopted precisely to shield thse rights from vagaries of public opinion.
It's by Pew. Do you have a problem with Pew too? At any rate, it reflects that the general trend is towards greater acceptance of the need to protect the right to own guns. Did you know that the Supreme Court has been petitioned to determine whether the right to keep and bear arms extends to carrying guns outside the home? There is a strong possibility that within 2 years, California will be required to issue carry licenses to anyone who is not prohibited (e.g., felon, mental disease, etc.). Guns are a part of our society. They are a growing part of our society.
Also, abortions are not subsidized by tax money. The Hyde Amendment, enacted year after year, prohibits federal money from being used to pay for or subsidize abortion.
Only a fool would even suggest equivalency, because we all know the weapon of choice among mass killers is a bseball bat/designed to bat balls. NSU - "A gun puts a 100 pound grandmother on nearly equal ground as an armed rapist. " This is the next stat I am begging to see - grandmas who fend off rape with a gun, preferably a hi-cap assault weapon. NSU- "Did you know that rape and home invasion in England are much more common than in America?" Show us your official/credible source..............definitions of both crimes range wildly across national lines making comparisons VERY difficult (some nations count ONLY female rape, some define it as including an act of violence etc.). But did I mention that fewer (sometimes way fewer) than 100 people a year are murdered with guns in England, and there has not been 1 mass killing in Australia since their gun bans, and only 2 people were murdered by gun in 2006 in Japan - the constant? VERY LIMITED GUN ACCESS. 11,000 gun murders annually USA + highest per capita gun ownership in developed world - any connection?
Based on FBI statistics, it is absolutely true that bats (and other clubs) are more lethal than assault weapons (defined as any rifle, including bolt actions). So are hands and feet. You are saying, ignore the numbers and focus on the events covered by the media. The vast majority of criminals don't use assault weapons to commit crime. They are not concealable. Is being killed by a gun somehow worse than being killed by a club? England's homicide rate is around 1/3 of the U.S., despite the fact that it has virtually no homicides by gun. Where's your support for the proposition that civilians only need 7 rounds for self defense? 10 rounds? Why are you proposing to limit magazine capacity without any empirical evidence?
You do understand that females tend to be far weaker than males, right? You do know that most violent crime is committed by young males, right? Accordingly, if you managed the impossible and eliminated all guns from America, you would have prevented more than 1,000,000 women from using the most effective tool to protect themselves from violent crime. You keep using sarcasm Robert. I keep citing research and facts. Compare our posts throughout this discussion. Who has been the snarkier? Who has provided more links to real research? Who has answered more direct questions?
You are, I'm afraid, not correct that excessive force law suits are about "sleazy lawyers and judges" and nothing more. Wouldn't you say that your view is rather simplistic? Indeed, such suits serve a vital function in our society -- and have managed to improve the performance of police departments across the nation over the last 30 years, motivating departments to follow best practices in order to stay within constitutional limits. No, the world we live in isn't perfect. But that doesn't mean that we have to take all the world's imperfections as they come. We can chip away and them and try to improve, as a democratic society, life for the people of our country. I'm sorry you find me "pathetic." But it is rather revealing that you can do little more than hurl insult after insult. I'd love it if you disagreed with me cogently -- and I'd like to push you to do so. I'd love to learn from you. Democratic society thrives when we make arguments rather than ad hominem attacks.
Just now you said my view of excessive force lawsuits was simplistic, after saying you know the literature on excessive force lawsuits. So lay out your stats and be sure to list your sources. Note to that I didn't say every lawsuit was motivated by "sleazy lawyers and judges" (in fact some sleazy lawyers become sleazy judges, it's a stupid system ripe with chances to favor friends) I said the "majority". With that in mind you'll need to have stats on claims dismissed prior to lawsuits and lawsuits settled prior to making it to court. So go ahead and line up all that ok? By the way, you've made generalized attacks on citizens and law enforcement officers with no supportive facts, just your thoughts I suppose. So your problem with ad hominem attacks means little to me. I really think this topic is played out and no further need for conversation is needed. You post what you want but I'm amazed a guy who thinks he's as smart as you obviously think you are, is siding with a guy that writes an opinion piece and doesn't have the courage to answer the easy questions posed to him. You voted for Obama, I'm guessing.
"In fact, your comment just proved Robert's point -- "We are told that we must come to you now politely and with respect to gain your support or at least your lack of resistance to the new set of laws and regulations that, hopefully, will soon apply to the guns you covet and worship" -- beautifully". So since you agree with Robert's worse this "nice" obligation is total b.s. You guys are too easy. ...
We can all be thankful he didn't have access to an AR-15 with a hi-cap mag (i.e. the weapon with no DEMONSTRATED utility either as a home defender or instrument of self-defense but one which the NRA would flood the market) or the carnage could have been much, much worse. And when did this man turn into a "crazy, "evil" doer? Over night? So no way to screen such an indivudual, which is why: "Efforts to control or monitor those members of society have and will always fall unacceptably short. That leaves guns as the controllable variable in the American equation of death by guns." Get used to it.
::clapping wildly::: Very well stated. What part of "..shall not be infringed" is so eluding?