An 11-year-old boy is in custody for murder for shooting and killing an eight-year-old neighbour girl with a shotgun . . .

by nicolaou 73 Replies latest social current

• 

  SecretSlaveClass

  Vidiot:
  There's something fundamentally bizarre about a population arming itself to the teeth because it's afraid that its government wants to take away its right to arm itself to the teeth...

  Exactly. And this is where your fundamental constitutionalists (the Timothy McVeighs) find part of their support and justification for contemplating terrorism.

  There is another side to that irony you mentioned too, Vidiot. Some citizens (particularly the cons. fundis) demand the right to own military grade weapons in order to keep the government in check and criminals love them for obvious reasons. This then forces law enforcement to increase their firepower to compete with the population.

  In the early years of law enforcement up until the early 20's, revolvers were the standard issue. In urban areas the .32 and .38 calibre revolvers were standard while in the rural areas the .45 calibre revolver we the prefered arms. Rifles were Springfield bolt actions or various lever actions. Side-by-side shotguns were replaced by 5 shot pump-action shotguns.

  After World War One there was a huge surplus of .45 M1A1 Colt and Springfield (made under liscence for Colt) which the lenient government allowed cicillians access to. Unfortunately these found their way into the hands of criminals and law enforcement soon found themselves outgunned. This set a disturbing trend. Soon surplus Thompson sub-machine guns and Browning Auto 5 shotguns followed suit. This led the to the reign of terror by the notorious gangsters and bank robbers of the 20's and early 30's. Once again law enforcement was forced to up their firepower. Today civillians here complain about "military style" gear the police are equipped with but it is a direct result of the armament abailable to the general population.
• 

  SecretSlaveClass

  Marvin:

  The US is by no means unique as a country which has armed its citizenry in order to overthrow an oppressor. It happens often in third world countries to this day. And to suggest that it was because of a US gun culture that tyrants were overthrown is quite a claim. I assume part of your claim refers to Adolf Hitler. If this is the case, the influence of gun culture could hardly be accepted as a cause for Hitler's defeat except in perhaps the most minutely debatable way - the noteworthy reasons for his defeat wouldn't even entertain your suggestion.
• 

  cultBgone

  This:
  

  3) There is absolutely NO reason to own an assault rifle, unless you live on the Mexican border on a ranch or are military/law enforcement. Too many people own them for the FUN factor which really gets my blood boiling. No firearm is a toy - get a paintball gun if that's your motive for wanting one. Shooting should be enjoyable but the reason for owning a firearm should not be for FUN or to be COOL. Nowhere near enough owners take the responsibility seriously enough. Ban assault rifles - period. Go to a firing range that offers them to shoot if you insist on having fun with one.

  4) Want a handgun? revolvers only. Why? even with speed loaders, it takes a lot longer to reload a revolver than a semi-auto pistol and max of 9 rounds can be fed (.22)

  5) Shotguns with five round capacity and hunting rifles with three round capacity only. If you can't bag your quarry in 5/3 shots you have no business holding a firearm let alone owning one.

  6) Anyone applying to purchase a firearm must undergo strict training followed by both live fire exams. You only get two chances at it. A system should be in place where a firearm safety inspector can visit your residence and make sure you have a certified safe installed prior to being able to collect your firearm. He should also pay random visits on firearm owners to make sure all safety rules and laws are being adhered to. Levy a special tax on ammo purchases to pay for these inspectors. I'll happily cough up if it means cuttimg the number of reckless, neglegent firearm owners out there.

  7) Punishment for violations are an absolute joke. If you are found to be criminally neglegent, immediate confiscation of all firearms, banning of purchasimg or handling firearms and community service - at ERs if possible (yes that's a bit of a push bu it would be hreat if morons got a taste of the reality of gun shot trauma).

  8) If a child or someone not registered to the weapon in question shoots someone whether accidently or purposely, the owner gets a mandatory felony charge and sentence comparable to 1st degree manslaughter.

  
  Thanks, SSC
  
• 

  Boeing Stratofortress

  Thanks Secret Slave...you hit the nail on the head, with your well-qualified outlook. IMO.

  Any attempt by me, to convey that same level of reasoning, would've likely ended up in a half-drunken rant. Thank you, sir. Hua!
• 

  Marvin Shilmer

  The US is by no means unique as a country which has armed its citizenry in order to overthrow an oppressor. It happens often in third world countries to this day. And to suggest that it was because of a US gun culture that tyrants were overthrown is quite a claim. I assume part of your claim refers to Adolf Hitler. If this is the case, the influence of gun culture could hardly be accepted as a cause for Hitler's defeat except in perhaps the most minutely debatable way - the noteworthy reasons for his defeat wouldn't even entertain your suggestion.

  SSC, I'm not sure what you mean. It's the culture of the then US citizenry that led to it engaging 20th Century tyrants as it did. Prevalence of gun ownership was only a piece of the overall construction of that culture. Whether that citizenry's culture would have developed as it did to perform as it did in the 20th Century without its precursors holding very personal views about gun ownership I don't know. The argument is not mine, but when you think about events of the 20th Century and the role played by US citizens in defeating genocidal governmental tyrannies one has to wonder whether the US gun-owning culture played a role in US citizens' willingness to do what they did to prevent an even worse world than we have now.
• 

  breakfast of champions

  [BOC enters room]

  Ok. So yes, I have read through this thread.

  I have some thoughts on this.

  However, due to the fact that I have a self-imposed ban regarding commenting on this genre of thread.. . . .

  [BOC leaves room]
• 

  SecretSlaveClass

  Marvin:

  Sorry, I misread your post to mean that it was because of the US gun culture in part that lead to THE US overthrowing tyrannical governments instead of reading as I should have: gun culture in part may have influenced US citizenry to HELP overthrow tyrants.

  Perhaps you are correct, I would have to research that. It,is an interesting concept. Either way I was out of place commenting on that. Again, my apologies Marvin.
• 

  Simon

  I think some people are making way too much of the idea that having guns is preparation for overthrowing tyrants / oppressive governments.

  First of all - which tyrants did the US overthrow? I presume you mean the British? I would strongly recommend doing some historical research instead of regurgitating what is essentially propaganda you've been fed all your life. Next you'll be telling us that the rebels were standing up against taxation that the British wanted to impose ...

  As for later oppressive governments - many, many people from different countries fought to end the threat of Nazism, not just the US and many of those were fighting while the US wasn't. For some countries WWII started in 1939 (or earlier).

  Besides, even if correct, to use that as some justification for justifying kids and teachers to be armed in order to avoid being gunned down today is simply a huge stretch IMO.

  The notion that the 2nd amendment guarantees the rights of individual gun ownership is a relatively recent invention / ruling.
• 

  cappytan

  Many good ideas have been put forth in this thread. Some I agree with. Some I think are overboard.

  The fact of the matter remains that in the current political climate, you would be hard pressed to pass some sweeping form of federal legislation.

  On the federal level, if any steps are to be taken to solve this issue of crazy people getting guns, there needs to be baby steps. Any legislation that puts out a ton of regulations in one fell swoop is doomed to fail.

  Honestly, the low hanging fruit on the subject of this thread is requiring gun owners to secure their arms and penalizing them severely if they do not. I think even most gun nuts would agree on that. And I bet that if you don't include any other regulations in that legislation that the NRA would get behind it. Traditionally, they're pro gun-safety. Currently, they're run by a bunch of nut jobs and it's only getting worse.

  How do you eat an elephant?

  One bite at a time.
• 

  Marvin Shilmer

  First of all - which tyrants did the US overthrow? I presume you mean the British? I would strongly recommend doing some historical research instead of regurgitating what is essentially propaganda you've been fed all your life. Next you'll be telling us that the rebels were standing up against taxation that the British wanted to impose

  I'm quite sure I mentioned something about matters of the 20th Century. Little hint there...

  As for later oppressive governments - many, many people from different countries fought to end the threat of Nazism, not just the US and many of those were fighting while the US wasn't. For some countries WWII started in 1939 (or earlier).

  Of course many countries fought against Nazism, that's not the point. The point is that without US involvement in those efforts arguably it's highly unlikely that Germany would have been defeated as it was, not to mention Japan's then aggressive imperialism. If true that US involvement made the difference in outcomes then the US culture leading to that involvement was an essential element leading to defeat of tyrants of the 20th Century. Gun ownership is part of that culture. As said already, whether that citizenry's culture would have developed as it did to perform as it did in the 20th Century without its precursors holding very personal views about gun ownership I don't know.

  Besides, even if correct, to use that as some justification for justifying kids and teachers to be armed in order to avoid being gunned down today is simply a huge stretch IMO.

  Who's argued that?