| Author |
Message |
    
Tom Reingold
Supporter
Username: Noglider
Post Number: 5901
Registered: 1-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, March 17, 2005 - 4:11 pm: | 
|
Walker, our posts crossed. I like your suggestion, as hard as it would be to achieve it. I recently heard that the "well regulated militia" of the 18th century consisted of visits to every home of gun owners, to inspect the guns. That's not practicable here, but it's food for thought, and I like your proposal. |
Rastro
Citizen
Username: Rastro
Post Number: 774
Registered: 5-2004
| | Posted on Thursday, March 17, 2005 - 4:14 pm: |
|
Lotts, you might want to try to understand what Tom is saying. You say that guns are correlated to killings. There is a big difference between correlation and causality.
Guns don't CAUSE violence. Do you really think that someone is going to say to themself, "I'd like to kill Rastro, but I don't have a gun, so I guess I'll just go see a movie instead." |
Bob K
Supporter
Username: Bobk
Post Number: 7944
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Thursday, March 17, 2005 - 4:15 pm: |
|
It is legend in the NYPD that no officer has ever been killed by a handgun at a range greater than 20 feet. I think there may be an exception or two to that, but it is still a great arguement for running like hell. |
Tom Reingold
Supporter
Username: Noglider
Post Number: 5902
Registered: 1-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, March 17, 2005 - 4:18 pm: |
|
But Rastro, I do believe that high availability of guns leads to lots of violence, because it's so easy to use guns, compared with other weapons. But trying to reduce gun proliferation through legislation seems to me like trying to reduce the amount of water in your bathtub by beating on the surface. |
Lotts of guns
Citizen
Username: Lotts_of_guns
Post Number: 8
Registered: 3-2005
| | Posted on Thursday, March 17, 2005 - 4:19 pm: |
|
I continue to be confused. Rastro admits that US socitey is violent, but wants to add guns into that volatile mix. Huh ?
Of course guns cause violence. That is ultimately the whole point. It is absolutely clear to me that the availability and proliferation of guns is why there is so much killing.
PS I understand exactly what TomR is saying. He is saying nothing. But I enjoy his posts - after all, a guy who proved Socrates wrong can't be all bad.
|
Rastro
Citizen
Username: Rastro
Post Number: 775
Registered: 5-2004
| | Posted on Thursday, March 17, 2005 - 4:38 pm: |
|
Lotts, plaese don't put words in my mouth. I am not advocating adding guns to the mix. I'm saying that your'e attacking the symptom, not the source. You believe that if guns were eliminated, there would be less violence. I contend that guns are simply the most recent addition to the list of items we can kill each other with. Do guns make it easier to kill? maybe for some high profile cases. But as I said, most murders are not with guns from 30 feet awway. They are heat of the moment crimes. At 5 feet, a knife is just as deadly as a gun to most people.
Tom, I disgree about the ease of use of guns. I don't remember if you had said you've fired a gun, but beyond 10-20 feet, I don't think guns are very effective (except automatic weapons, which are banned). I am not pro-gun. I'm not anti-gun.
I'm similarly not pro-knife or anti-knife. I'm in favor of enforcing existing gun laws. I'm in favor working to reduce our culture of violence. I don't think banning guns outright will reduce drive by shootings, or thugs killing each other or innocents, because criminals will always fund a way to get guns.
I don't believe that many people that are killed by unlicensed guns would otherwise be saved by a gun ban. As I said, criminals will always be able to get guns, and heat-of-the-moment murderers will use other means.
Neither OJ nor Scott Peterson used guns. |
Rastro
Citizen
Username: Rastro
Post Number: 776
Registered: 5-2004
| | Posted on Thursday, March 17, 2005 - 4:40 pm: |
|
And Tom, my two year old firmly believes that if she beats on the surface of the water in the tub, it will all come out of the tub and soak me, leaving her in a tub with less water. She's smarter than us, I guess  |
Lotts of guns
Citizen
Username: Lotts_of_guns
Post Number: 9
Registered: 3-2005
| | Posted on Thursday, March 17, 2005 - 4:56 pm: |
|
Rastro - what is this criminals thing - read Common Sense comments on the UK as a control population for criminals without guns. A lot less killing.
The criminals thing is an NRA deflector. The issue is gun killing. Is it bad and unacceptable?
Sorry if I put words into anyones mouth. Standard form of communication is to repeat and clarify. I have not yet seen a clear statement that you think that gun killing is bad thing - ergo it must be a good thing.
So, all together now, "Gun killing in the US is abhorrent and unacceptable and we must end it. We will start by getting rid of the guns".
PS - although I hate analogies in the gun debate because in the end we just start discussing the analogies and not the issues, if treating the symptoms works, then why not start there.
Analagoy warning - if you see someone bleeding on the street is not your first action (after calling 911) to try to stop the bleeding (symptom). You don't overlook that while discussing America's propensity to gun violence and the NRAs distortion of our second amendment rights (cause).
Or, if you are Libby, maybe you do. |
Walker
Citizen
Username: Fester
Post Number: 82
Registered: 4-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, March 17, 2005 - 4:58 pm: |
|
Tom;
The country could start by licensing all new guns sold on the US market and give current gun owners the a grace period (say 2 years max) to bring their guns in to either be licensed or destroyed, after this period has expired anyone found with an unlicensed gun in their possession should be put in Jail. There would be excuse not to have a license for a gun.
L_O_G
Guns are instruments of violence but it is the people not the gun that cause the violence. This is their nature, they were created to kill they have no other useful purpose. The weapon is not responsible for the actions of the person holding it. People kill people guns are only one means to an end.
|
Tom Reingold
Supporter
Username: Noglider
Post Number: 5904
Registered: 1-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, March 17, 2005 - 5:10 pm: |
|
Lotts, the rooster thinks he makes the sun rise, because it rises every morning when he walks out of the barn.
Just because you haven't yet understood what I'm saying doesn't mean it's nothing.
I will agree with part of your statement: Gun killing in the US is abhorrent and unacceptable and we must end it. If we could get rid of the guns, I believe killing would go down. But I don't think we can. I believe convenience plays a part in many murders. Consider how unpopular computers were until we had the point and click user interface. I think in a moment of passion, I could pull a trigger but I couldn't plunge a knife. The gun is the original point and click user interface.
If high gun ownership rates explain our violence rate, how do you explain Canada's low violence rate or Switzerland's? Perhaps I could believe that our violence leads to gun ownership, but not necessarily vice versa.
|
Lotts of guns
Citizen
Username: Lotts_of_guns
Post Number: 10
Registered: 3-2005
| | Posted on Thursday, March 17, 2005 - 5:50 pm: |
|
TomR - I am not trying to explain Canada or Switz. I am observing the US empirically.
I am not talking about roosters - see analogy warning above.
I do not disagree that there may be lessons to be learned from these countries. But the US military offers a sharper lesson - once you have secured the town etc, disarm the populace because...it means the killing goes down.
And so far, everyone admits the US population is far more inclined to violence than any other civilized country - so why make it easier by having lots of guns?
I do think the broken window theory applies - you have all become so desensitized you accept what is happening as a normal thing and cannot apparently conceive of any other way forward. |
The Libertarian
Citizen
Username: Local_1_crew
Post Number: 613
Registered: 3-2004
| | Posted on Thursday, March 17, 2005 - 7:46 pm: |
|
But we live in America, not Switzerland, TomR and we can see the results. In America guns are correlated to killing.
this has been my point all along. it is not the guns that are too blame, it is our society. we need to get at the root of why this society produces so many people willing to kill with a gun. only then will we solve the problem. blaming the gun is a lazy ducking of the issue. |
The Libertarian
Citizen
Username: Local_1_crew
Post Number: 614
Registered: 3-2004
| | Posted on Thursday, March 17, 2005 - 7:49 pm: |
|
And so far, everyone admits the US population is far more inclined to violence than any other civilized country - so why make it easier by having lots of guns?
because it is a sidestep of the real issue.
|
thoughtful
Citizen
Username: Thoughtful
Post Number: 163
Registered: 6-2001
| | Posted on Friday, March 18, 2005 - 8:26 am: |
|
Why do we have to have the guns around while we figure out why our society is so prone to violence? Don't we put out fires before we figure out what caused them? |
tulip
Citizen
Username: Braveheart
Post Number: 2124
Registered: 3-2004
| | Posted on Friday, March 18, 2005 - 9:22 am: |
|
Our violent society:
My theories (plagiarized from many others before)
1) economic:
Scarce resources lead to competition for resources; competition for resources leads to stress; stress leads to emotional vulnerability, leads to violence; gun availability leads to programming of violent tendencies into gun violence.
2) cultural/historic
America settled by multiple cultural and ethnic groups who were running from untenable living situations; leads to feeling of need to be unfettered by governmental influence ("don't tread on me" philosophy) plus revolutionary history leads to violence as Jungian cultural memory;
3) socioeconomic: scarce resources lead to competition between races, classes, ethnic groups, religious groups, leads to inter-reference group intolerance, factor in the availability of guns leads to gun violence
4) sociopolitical: some groups feel unempowered and unheard, vulnerable and weak; want to be "heard." Factor in scarce resources and gun availability, leads to gun violence
5) cultural: tendency to gun violence in films, emphasis on use of guns from cowboy movies of fifties to present, leads to glorification on a macrosociological scale of gun violence, leads to groups who perceive themselves as vulnerable to employ available guns.
(apologies to grammarians in the reading audience)
|
Steve R Jones
Citizen
Username: Sjthinker
Post Number: 7
Registered: 2-2005
| | Posted on Saturday, March 19, 2005 - 7:10 am: |
|
I like those automatic types that fire 50-60 rounds per minute. They make a loud BANG noise and make me feel cool. Plus it is my right and I will never give that up. |
Montagnard
Citizen
Username: Montagnard
Post Number: 1474
Registered: 6-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, March 19, 2005 - 9:15 pm: |
|
No problem. Just make sure you shoot your own children and not anyone else's. |
Tom Reingold
Supporter
Username: Noglider
Post Number: 5933
Registered: 1-2003
| | Posted on Monday, March 21, 2005 - 12:35 pm: |
|
Basically, what I'm saying is that it's pointless to talk about inefficacious ideas. Banning guns won't happen, because the people won't tolerate it, whether they are right or wrong.
I distinctly remember learning in 11th grade history that it is against international law for a country to blockade another unless the blockade is totally effective. In other words, if Haiti, for example, has seven ports and we block six, we must stop, but if, during the course of a war, we block all seven, that's fair game.
I think this principle applies. We can only try that which will work. I don't care to own a gun, but many people in this country hold the right to own one too deeply to give it up. I don't expect to change their minds. |
Rastro
Citizen
Username: Rastro
Post Number: 784
Registered: 5-2004
| | Posted on Monday, March 21, 2005 - 12:46 pm: |
|
(warning - serious digression below)
Tom, while I don't know anything about the law you mention, it would surprise me to learn it was accurate. What happens if the country is not completely controlled by those we wish to oust? Are we not allowed to keep those ports open that are controlled by those we support?
If we blockaded Cuba, and those on the northern side (like I know what I'm talking about) support us, are we not allowed to open the blockage at those ports sympathetic to our cause?
As for the gun issue, I'm pretty much in agreement with you, point for point. |
Tom Reingold
Supporter
Username: Noglider
Post Number: 5934
Registered: 1-2003
| | Posted on Monday, March 21, 2005 - 12:51 pm: |
|
I don't know anything about internation law or rules of war, either, but I think my 11th grade lesson doesn't have to be true to make a point. Inefficacious laws are worse than useless, and I gather you agree with that.
Envisioning a gunless society is as idealistic as envisioning pure communism or libertarianism. |
Lotts of guns
Citizen
Username: Lotts_of_guns
Post Number: 11
Registered: 3-2005
| | Posted on Monday, March 21, 2005 - 3:18 pm: |
|
so we will just sit on our hands then TomR and make no effort ?
I'll take a relatively gunless society with a vastly reduced killing rate in preference to your approach any day.
Next you will be telling me that the DMV is a nightmare and there is nothing we can do.
|
Tom Reingold
Supporter
Username: Noglider
Post Number: 5940
Registered: 1-2003
| | Posted on Monday, March 21, 2005 - 3:25 pm: |
|
Wow, that's a lot of words to put in my mouth.
I don't say make no effort, and I don't think the DMV is a hopeless cause, either. Neither is violence.
Perhaps yours is an argument of the excluded middle. I don't feel I have to take an extreme position.
I think economic development in poor areas would go a long way to reduce violent crimes. When you have little to lose, you take more stupid risks.
By the way, there's a guy here on MOL who calls himself TomR, so it's best not to call me that, too.
You can claim all day long that banning guns is our only hope, but that's all you'll be doing. If I thought we could pull it off, I'd be with you. |
Lotts of guns
Citizen
Username: Lotts_of_guns
Post Number: 13
Registered: 3-2005
| | Posted on Monday, March 21, 2005 - 3:46 pm: |
|
I do not say it is the only way to stop the killing, so do not put words into my mouth. But I do say that this will produce immediate results and any solution that does not include severe restrictions on gun ownership and manufacture will never be as effective.
Also I am not just talking about crime - I am talking about gun killing. Explain to me how economic development in poor areas would have stopped Columbine for example, or the Malvo killings.
I forgot already - what is your solution ? |
Lotts of guns
Citizen
Username: Lotts_of_guns
Post Number: 14
Registered: 3-2005
| | Posted on Tuesday, March 22, 2005 - 9:55 am: |
|
Minnesota school today
10 yr anniversary of Montclair Post Office
etc
etc
|
newone
Citizen
Username: Newone
Post Number: 229
Registered: 8-2001
| | Posted on Tuesday, March 22, 2005 - 5:32 pm: |
|
Not to make light of this tragedy which it is but the firearms were his grandfather's who was a police officer. They should have been locked up or protected with a trigger guard. |
Lotts of guns
Citizen
Username: Lotts_of_guns
Post Number: 15
Registered: 3-2005
| | Posted on Tuesday, March 22, 2005 - 8:31 pm: |
|
but...they were not... |
newone
Citizen
Username: Newone
Post Number: 230
Registered: 8-2001
| | Posted on Wednesday, March 23, 2005 - 6:38 am: |
|
so that's the fault of the gun? The grandfather should have known better escpecially since he was a police officer. |
Lotts of guns
Citizen
Username: Lotts_of_guns
Post Number: 16
Registered: 3-2005
| | Posted on Wednesday, March 23, 2005 - 9:38 am: |
|
don't be naive Newone - no gun, no 10 people killed - do I care if the grandfather should have know better, he didn't and now we have 10 dead people.
I find it very odd why the press even ask what the motive was as if that will solve anything, when they step over the 800lb gorilla called means. The perpetrator had the means and that is what created the motive - because he knew he could killl 10 people easily with the purpose built killing tool.
And from March 23 Star Ledger, Essex County edition
page 21 - Elliot West shot to death in Englewood
page 27 - stray bullet in drive by attack kills Cynthia Mack |
notehead
Supporter
Username: Notehead
Post Number: 2171
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Wednesday, March 23, 2005 - 9:49 am: |
|
Newone: let's say someone is standing with a gun pointing toward you, with the intention of shooting you. Are you more interested in solving the puzzle of why he wants to shoot you, or in preventing the shooting from happening? |
Rastro
Citizen
Username: Rastro
Post Number: 804
Registered: 5-2004
| | Posted on Wednesday, March 23, 2005 - 10:00 am: |
|
Notehead, either way, you're going to get shot. telliong the shooter that guns are bad is not going to stop them from shooting you...
Lotts, you seem to think that anyone who is not in favor of a 100% gun ban is advocating shooting little children will M60s. We're not.
And a few articles supporting my newly formed group "Knife Control, Inc."
RCMP arrest two in stabbing death
Woman charged over stabbing death
Charges laid in reservation stabbing death
Inmate charged in attack, stabbing of fellow prisoner
Yonkers man charged in stabbing
Hazlehurst stabbing victim dies
16-year-old girl charged in Berkeley stabbing
Police Say Stabbing Story Doesn't Add Up
Addison man gets 14-year sentence in fatal stabbing
.
.
.
|
Lotts of guns
Citizen
Username: Lotts_of_guns
Post Number: 17
Registered: 3-2005
| | Posted on Wednesday, March 23, 2005 - 10:18 am: |
|
Correct - I am in favor of a 100% gun ban. The only purpose of guns is to kill things. Why do you want them out in society Rastro ?
|
Rastro
Citizen
Username: Rastro
Post Number: 805
Registered: 5-2004
| | Posted on Wednesday, March 23, 2005 - 10:33 am: |
|
Actually, there are other purposes to guns besides killing things. Shooting (target shooting, skeet shooting, marksmanship competitions) is a sport. You might not enjoy it (neither do I), but there are millions of people that do.
Also, there are times will killing is not a bad thing. If my wife or children are being attacked or assaulted, and killing the perpetrator is the only way to stop it, is it wrong of me to kill them?
Again, you're assuming that I "want them out in society." I never said that, so please don't put words in my mouth. I simply recognize that it is highly (HIGHLY) unlikely that a full gun ban will ever be passed, I am certain it will never be enforced, and to push for that alone as the solution radicalizes the position. It is the same problem I have with "abstinence-only" sex ed programs, and "just say no." It's unrealistic and ineffectual. |
Rastro
Citizen
Username: Rastro
Post Number: 806
Registered: 5-2004
| | Posted on Wednesday, March 23, 2005 - 10:35 am: |
|
And we know that you are in favor of a 100% gun ban. It's how you portray those that are not that I was refering to. |
Lotts of guns
Citizen
Username: Lotts_of_guns
Post Number: 18
Registered: 3-2005
| | Posted on Wednesday, March 23, 2005 - 10:48 am: |
|
I don't portray them as anything - how I portray those in favor of the status quo of wholesale death is not the issue.
The issue is the prevention of wholesale gun killing, the most immediate aspect of which is severe retrictions on the manufacture and ownership of guns. If my incredulity at those who cannot conceive that there is an issue is taken to be an adverse portrayal of them then so be it. There are bigger issues than their feelings.
What do you recomment Rastro, both in the immediate term and in the long term ? |
Lotts of guns
Citizen
Username: Lotts_of_guns
Post Number: 19
Registered: 3-2005
| | Posted on Wednesday, March 23, 2005 - 10:55 am: |
|
But you do think the level of killing is unacceptable, correct Rastro ?
And, if you do not want guns banned, then you want them "not banned" meaning ...out in society. What do you mean then ?
Bad analogy warning: re total abstinence - since we know that this doesn't work, preventitive measures are also available -ie actions are taken to offset the idealistic standpoint to deal with the empirical result.
But, when it comes to guns, we should take no preventitive measures ? |
Rastro
Citizen
Username: Rastro
Post Number: 807
Registered: 5-2004
| | Posted on Wednesday, March 23, 2005 - 11:15 am: |
|
Lotts, I've stated my position many times here. Yet you keep asking me what I propose. I’m in favor of all the things Walker recommended above, and for stricter enforcement of existing laws.
As for the analogy regarding total abstinence, in both cases, we know it's not going to happen. In both cases, a more realistic approach will garner more overall support for the plan. Preventative measures are available for the gun issue as well. It's called enforcement of current laws. Background checks.
Again, you insist on putting words in my mouth when you either don’t, or don’t want to understand my position. "But, when it comes to guns, we should take no preventitive [sic]measures?" No, and I don’t know where you get that from my posts. It’s like every post I make stands on its own, and you refuse to go back and read anything else written.
Banning all guns is absolutely a way to prevent the average Joe from having a gun, and will most likely reduce the amount of gun violence (and overall death). You seem to think that is the only way. You know what else will? Killing everyone who has ever committed a crime. Most criminals are recidivists. If we kill them, they can’t commit any more crimes. (no, I’m not advocating that, so please don’t accuse me of wanting to kill anyone convicted of a crime)
The freedoms one is willing to sacrifice for security all depend on whether one exercises those freedoms.
I’m done with this. I’d rather argue with a brick wall. It’d be more effective. |
Lotts of guns
Citizen
Username: Lotts_of_guns
Post Number: 20
Registered: 3-2005
| | Posted on Wednesday, March 23, 2005 - 11:36 am: |
|
Thank you for clarifying your position and agreeing with me that banning guns will reduce gun violence.
By the way you are not arguing with me because I am not on this board to alter my position - I am on it simply to promote it.
I take each point everyone makes and recycle it with clarifying remarks -otherwise this board would be a discussion of crime statistics (the NRAs preferred alternate universe) and not gun death issues, which is the issue.
I have not said the banning guns is the only way -several times in fact - but my issue is not to discuss all the possible causes - it is to implant the concept that severely reducing the existence and availabilty of guns is the most immediate and effective step to take.
You will find the NRA agrees with you - and I - on all your points except this one - the only one that will actually bring results.
Ye gods, even in the wild west the sheriff knew that having the boys hand over their guns when they got to town would reduce the killing. But apparently Charlton and his posse can't remember this.
|
newone
Citizen
Username: Newone
Post Number: 231
Registered: 8-2001
| | Posted on Wednesday, March 23, 2005 - 7:02 pm: |
|
I personally am not for banning guns - like others said it will never happen. I am all for strictly enforcing the laws. Plus (and I hate bringing this up because of the can of worms it will open) but there is something called the 2nd amendment giving me the right to bear arms. Let's not get into a discussion on the definition of militia. Just like you can write freely under the 1st and we're trying to protect Schiavo with the 14th. The constitution works for all of us and good luck having the 2nd repealed. If you do get rid of them (the guns), someone will always find an alternative method. I believe someone used fertilizer and gas one time...
Ever hear of Project Exile? This would be a great thing if every state had it and enforced it. Basically if I recall, it will take any criminal that uses a gun in the commission of a crime and sends them out of state to prison. No plea bargains, no deals - go straight to jail. BTW - this is an NRA sponsored program.
Now I want to go to the range and do some shooting. I only intend to kill a bunch of paper targets....promise. |
SO Refugee
Citizen
Username: So_refugee
Post Number: 85
Registered: 2-2005
| | Posted on Friday, March 25, 2005 - 5:24 pm: |
|
Why don't the folks who decide to shoot up their classmates/co-workers/etc. and, then, turn the guns on themselves, simply shoot themself first and be done with it? Sad, but a lot less tragic for the rest of us.
|
Closed: New threads not accepted on this page