One thing about it, now because of all this hysteria and controversy and political maneuvering, a lot of guns and ammo have been sold just recently; and you have to wonder how much of it has already gone to the loonies, wackos, and psychos.
-
An intellectual says a simple thing in a hard way. An artist says a hard thing in a simple way. Charles Bukowski -
A quick check of the markets shows that quite a few of the big gun names are up 5+%. Yeah, lets add to that 270 million gun stockpile.Originally posted by Qqmike View PostComment
-
I have no real set final opinions on this topic. I can argue both sides and most points equally. However, dmeyer's peice is the most sensible thing I've read or heard on it so far.
I did have a new thought on this topic this morning; While listening to the news on the radio on the way to work I wondered how in the HELL could a few dozen (or even hundred) terriorists take over a whole section of Mali and why the HELL don't the locals step up and where is their damn government when these radicals move in?
Now, I live in the inner city of a very large city on the edge of an even larger one. There are shootings every day here. I do not own a gun. Why? I have kids. Too many kids die from their parents guns to be worth the risk in my opinion. Plenty of my neighbors do have guns. I feel no less or more personally safe because of this fact. But I also know if a group of thugs walked down my street kicking in doors and threatening everyone a couple of my neighbors would be more than happy to introduce them to the action-end of a weapon and the local police would be on my street in 30 seconds or less to finish them off. Our cops love to shoot those kids of people. So over-all, private ownership of guns makes me feel safer.
Next year, we are moving to the country on the edge of a small town. I will likely purchase a gun there (and a safe). Why? Because I will be alone in the woods with my wife and kids. No neighbors and cops too far away to help.
Back to my thoughts on the Mali situation: Those people don't have many guns - private or government. 1.1 guns per 100 people vs. 88.8 per 100 here in the US. [gunpolicy.org]. No doubt there are radical groups here and no doubt they have places they control (parts of Idaho and white supremacists comes to mind) but can you imagine a group like that invading Los Angeles? No way. And why not? They'd never make it past Crenshaw Blvd. By then time our Army arrived, they'd be pinned down and half wiped-out already. I don't know if thats a good thing or not, but on the surface it feels reassuring.
The 2nd amendment arguments are very interesting also. One side makes a great point that the intent was to ensure private citizens could own guns to protect us from our government. Sort of a balance of power thing - I get it and support the concept. The other side argues that the framers had no way to imagine what kind of weapns would be available in our time and it (the amendment) needs restriction on that basis - another totally valid point.
Finally - how does any of this protect us from what happened at Sandy Hook or Columbine? It doesn't, period. Nut jobs will get guns, will plan massacres, will stock pile ammo, will do what they will and gun laws don't help.
The only thing that will slow this sort of thing is better a mental health system (detection and reporting), better communication between law inforcement agencies (to weed out known felons and mental patients), a public dialog about and functional way to detect people in need of mental health services and the ability to get them that help - and prevent them from any sort of gun access. Good luck getting that going...Comment
-
Ok, I know this doesn't totally relate to your point, but its interesting to keep in mind when drawing parallels with Africa. I come from South Africa, I study in America but I've spent a ton of time in Africa. To be fair its only really been sub saharan Africa but I'm sure it translates just as well to Mali:Originally posted by oshunluvr View Post
These aren't simple rebels or terrorists. They are trained military units. Let me give set the scene. An African country gains independence and they hold their first "democratic election." Usually the election is fairly democratic but shortly afterwards nepotism and greed start to creep into he system. Democracy disappears shortly thereafter. Alternatively it is possibly that the election is rigged from the outset. Anyways, the state of affairs degenerates and people become upset with the status quo. Usually a military faction decide to break off and try take power, a general or two usually wamt in on the action.
After a possible coup d'etat you are usually left with two power groups that are backed by militant units. Militant units that often got training and weapons from the USSR. Next one of the factions gets pushed to a more distant part of the country where they may have either sympathizers from the local population or are geographically far enough that they set up a power base.
Over the next twenty or so years these factions tend to take power, lose it, splinter and just generally run the country into the ground. You are almost always stuck with two factions though and both are as bad as the other.
So these terrorists and rebels are actually quite well trained and are hardened by constant war. They are funded by usually controlling some key resource and use it to buy weapons and continue their constant guerillas wars. Tanks, rocket launchers and artillery are not unusual for the "rebels" to have.
Most peace in Africa comes down to some sort of mutual ceasefire which breaks down occasionally. Essentially there is no all powerful and unified government like in most of the Western world. There is often one government in the capital city and another government in in the rural regions.
OK, so what about the people standing up for themselves? Well that’s about as sane as people standing up for themselves in America. They wouldn't last ten minutes against highly trained militants even if they had the guns. People forget that war isn't easy to wage, even the most insane warlord knows how to plan brilliant ambushes and is a great tactician - that's how they get there in the first place. So essentially the people are out gunned from the start. One, must also remember, that most of these people are heavily impoverished. You can't fight on an empty stomach, without equipment, training or any actual combatants. Men are often rounded up and forced into service - its usually one of the only ways to provide for their families. In essence, the population becomes reliant on the faction to survive. Think about a small American town where the local military base is integral to the local economy; same idea. Why would you rebel against your life line? You wouldn't.
Clearly, there is nothing anybody can do in Africa to change the status quo. African countries have started to sort themselves out in the last 10 to 15 years but they have a very long way to go.Comment
-
oshunluvr: "Finally - how does any of this protect us from what happened at Sandy Hook or Columbine? It doesn't, period. Nut jobs will get guns, will plan massacres, will stock pile ammo, will do what they will and gun laws don't help.
The only thing that will slow this sort of thing is better a mental health system (detection and reporting), better communication between law inforcement agencies (to weed out known felons and mental patients), a public dialog about and functional way to detect people in need of mental health services and the ability to get them that help - and prevent them from any sort of gun access. Good luck getting that going... "
Exactly.
Perhaps gun ownership of certain types of guns can be tweaked slightly, somewhat. But that won't stop the problem of the recent mass shootings. It MAY reduce their intensity (e.g., fewer deaths in one incident), but it will not address or prevent the phenomenon rampant in modern culture. In addition to oshunluvr's points, I happen to feel that the (lack of) health of the family is an issue--something has failed at the family level.
Second Amendment, all the way. No problem with basic gun ownership. But that is not the problem here.An intellectual says a simple thing in a hard way. An artist says a hard thing in a simple way. Charles BukowskiComment
-
@dmeyer: I realize I was totally simplifying the situation - it was more a quick thought that ran through my mind. Thanks for your insight. We rarely hear anything about Africa here, much less any in-depth analisys into the why's. I try and watch Al Jerzeera news when I can, but it's on late in the evening here.
@Qqmike: Re. family mental health: Part of this problem IMO is the public shame involved with having a family member (or oneself) having to admit and treat a serious mental health problem. I see those folks every day sleeping on the streets in my neighborhood. It will take a huge and lengthy effort to change public sentiment.
Several years back there was a police shooting on my corner. A homeless and obviously mentally unstable man was wielding a knife and threatening passers-by. The police responded of course, and after many minutes of stand-off the man charged an officer and the three of them opened fire. The results might seem extreme if you read it in the paper, but each of those officers has a family and they all wanted to go home to them. Their action was the only one available to them in the situation IMO. Frankly, had I been armed and he charged me or a family member or neighbor I would have shot him myself. Several days later, the family of the homeless man held court on the corner demanding "justice." I wanted to ask them where the hell they were when their brother needed help and why was he on the street in the first place, but I held my tongue. This is the real source of the problem. I never heard one reporter ask the parents of the boys that shot up Columbine why they didn't notice what was going on. I wouldn't even let my kids wear their pants low on their hips or their hat brims sideways and I sure wouldn't have let them build up a supply of arms and hate material.Comment
-
I have a question, how many of us nerds are pacifists? I know I am, but I am still against completely disarming the population, if the poop hit the fan, I would pick one up again (had a lot of exposure to hunting guns as a kid).Comment
-
Oh I stand with you on this. I wouldn't hesitate one second to kill anybody who threatened me or the people around me. Those police officers were justified as can be in my opinion but the US legal system is probably going to make such a mess of that. Police officers put their lives on the line on a daily basis for our safety and hardly get properly rewarded for their sacrifices. I bet if another crazy charged at that homeless man's family they would have wanted the police to have taken the shot as well.Originally posted by oshunluvr View Post
I also agree with you that people need to start caring for their fellow man. Honestly, all this apathy, even within families is really dangerous. Whenever my friends and I talk I quickly realize how incredibly messed up the family dynamic tends to be. South Africa is going the same way and its definitely happened in the UK. People think traditional family values are antiquated and aren't important anymore but they are now more important than ever. I mean seriously, what is wrong with discipline? Come on, sometimes a firm hand and a good talking to is needed. Empathy isn't just about giving welfare checks to the unemployed, having special programs for handicapped students or being overly politically correct etc. Empathy is caring enough to make the difficult decisions that nobody else will make.
My dad gave me a spanking once or twice, I didn't end up as a wreck. Actually, we've only recently stopped with any form of corporal punishment and now society is starting to degrade. Traditional family dynamics were honed over hundreds of generations since antiquity, why do we think that in 20 years we can create a far superior system. Obviously we shouldn't be opposed to change but we shouldn't change for the sake of it. This probably can apply to education and a ton of other things we change unnecessarily.
We should totally do a poll about pacifism amongst nerds! It would be vital that we phrase the question carefully so that we don't confuse pacifism with non-confrontational - related but we need to be more specific. Asking "Would you kill to defend your home from enemies with the intention of killing you and those you love" is better for pacifism whereas "Would you rather just walk away from a fight when somebody starts with you at a bar" is more suitable for non-confrontational.Comment
-
No one knows the answer to that question unless they have actually been in that situation. You may think you know, but you don't. I know the answer, but unless you have the experience you don't know.Originally posted by dmeyer View PostComment
-
My wife and I are frequently asked to babysit our grandkids. I don't want my 6 and 11 year old grandsons to be able to get their hands on the gun. I keep my handgun in a biometric safe. It takes me 3 seconds to retrieve it. I push a button, put my thumb on the window and the dead bolts slide open. The gun is kept in there, locked and loaded, ready to shoot by pulling the trigger. That safe insures that I have quick access. and doesn't require that I find a key in the dark and fumble with a lock. I have a nanosafe for use in the car so that I conform to Nebraska laws concerning carrying firearms in the car. Even in a casual situation it can take 15 to 30 seconds to retrieve the key and unlock the gun. I am allowed to carry it in the open on the car seat next to me, but I am not allowed to carry it concealed unless I have a concealed carry permit.Originally posted by oshunluvr View Post
When I was around 10 I bought my first BB gun. That was 60 years ago. An identical model is now on sale at Walmart for $22.95. When I was 12 or 13 I bought a .20 caliber Sheridan Bluestreak pump air rifle. Eight pumps gave the pellet the power of a .22 short. When I was 15 or 16 I took a bus to the Dave Cook Sporting Goods store in downtown Denver, where I bought two M1-Garand surplus rifles. No ID, no permit forms, nothing. Just pure 2nd Amendment. I rode the bus home with those guns and no one gave me a second glance because it was not unusual. Pickups had guns in gun racks in the back window. Many, but no one knows how many because such statistics weren't taken, had pistols in their glove compartment and carried one in their pocket. I'd hop on my bike, guns strapped to my back, and ride west 10 miles to the foothills to hunt or target shoot. Or, I'd ride it 6 miles SouthEast to Cherry Creek Reservoir to do the same. Back then the farmland began less than a mile east of my house, now it starts 15 miles east. I suspect that guns were more prolific then than they are now, because of illegal gun restrictions now in affect.
Illegal? Yes. The framers of the Constitution made it very clear how important guns were to the 1776 revolution when they added the phrase "shall not be infringed" to the 2nd Amendment. Without it the other Amendments or the Constitution itself is unenforceable. To "infringe" is to trim away at the edges. Trimming can continue until there is nothing left. The NY legislature passed the most restrictive gun laws in the country a few days ago. This despite the overwhelming evidence that past gun bans only increased gun and other crimes because citizens were left defenseless. They, and all anti-Constitution people say they are "being reasonable" and you aren't if you disagree with them. The NY crowd even claimed they "protected the 2nd Amendment" (their words)! How? By not confiscating the guns!!! With friends like that the 2nd Amendment needs no enemies.
The police you say? 30 seconds? The average response time to a 911 call varies around the country but generally is between 6 and 8 minutes. Sooner IF a squad car happens to be in the area and available. 30 seconds? Only IF they are parked outside when your emergency arises. Many times police do not come at all when a citizen places a 911 call. When seconds count the police are only minutes away, if they come at all.
The SCTOUS has ruled twice, in 1987 and 2005, that the police have NO obligation to protect any particular citizen even if they know that that the citizen is under current threat of lethal violence, which was the reason for the two lawsuits. Everyone screams about the children, but their only solution is to put up signs on school property that declare it a "Gun Free Zone", in compliance with the American Safe Schools Act of 1995, which made the schools decidedly UNSAFE by prohibiting armed guards in public schools. However, our elected politicians gave an exemption to the Sidwell school, where they and the media elite send their kids. Sidwell has 11 armed guards to keep their children safe.
The Founding Fathers also carved into the Constitution what they thought would be a bed rock guarantee that the Constitution would be protected and defended. They put it in the oath that Congress, Senators and Federal servants have to take before they assume their elected office:
ALL have to swear an oath to "support and defend" the Constitution against ALL enemies, both foreign and domestic, and that they will bear TRUE FAITH AND ALLEGIANCE to the Constitution, they take the OBLIGATION freely,and WITHOUT any mental reservations or purposes of evasion.I, [name], do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God.
So far, only a few of our Senators, Congressmen have upheld their oath. The majority, while not abandoning their oath altogether, have allowed infringements to many of the amendments in the Bill of Rights, not just the 2nd Amendment. The rest, who constantly vote for any and all restrictions, and would support a nationwide gun ban if they could, are liars whose actions demonstrate that they are domestic enemies of the Constitution who pick and choose which parts they will support and defend, but have mental reservations about the rest, if they weren't outright being evasive (fingers crossed behind their backs) when they took the oath.
Just take a few seconds to pause and think about all that has happened in this country since Bush pushed and passed the Patriot Act, formed FEMA and the DHS, which gave rise to the TSA and its nationwide VIPR teams, the "Constitution Free Zone" that puts 110 million Americans outside the full protection of the Constitution, which is even less than what the rest of us have.
And you don't think it will get worse? When push comes to shove what will you do? Our Founding Fathers wrote what they did in the Declaration of Independence. In that document they made it very clear that the 2nd Amendment is not about duck hunting or sport shooting, or even personal protection, all thought those activities are an auxiliary spin off of the 2A. They learned that political power flows out of the barrel of a gun, and the Europeans learned that too late, twice. Mao, Stalin, Hitler and a host of other knew that as well, which was why their first act after seizing power was to confiscate all weapons, and in doing so they illustrated the 2nd Amendment all too well: He who owns the guns makes the rules.
Once you give up your right to make the rules someone else will make them for you, regardless if you like it or not. England gave up that right and now they are reaping the consequences: the highest violent crime rate in Europe of not the world, even as the police state seeps into every aspect of their lives with cameras and audio equipment watching and listening to their every word. And they thought they were being "reasonable"."A nation that is afraid to let its people judge the truth and falsehood in an open market is a nation that is afraid of its people.”
– John F. Kennedy, February 26, 1962.Comment
-
Lest anyone forget.
Supreme Court Strikes Down D.C. Gun Ban, Upholds Individual Right to Keep and Bear Arms
Published June 26, 2008 / Associated Press
"The Supreme Court ruled Thursday that Americans have a constitutional right to keep guns in their homes for self-defense, the justices' first major pronouncement on gun control in U.S. history.
The court's 5-4 ruling struck down the District of Columbia's 32-year-old ban on handguns as incompatible with gun rights under the Second Amendment. The decision went further than even the Bush administration wanted, but probably leaves most federal firearms restrictions intact.
The court had not conclusively interpreted the Second Amendment since its ratification in 1791. The amendment reads: "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."
District of Columbia v. Heller - Supreme Court of the United States
http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/07pdf/07-290.pdf (full opinion on the Supreme Court Web Site)Windows no longer obstructs my view.
Using Kubuntu Linux since March 23, 2007.
"It is a capital mistake to theorize before one has data." - Sherlock HolmesComment
-
GG: In my neighborhood, response time is very fast. I live less than a mile from Police headquarters and there's almost always a patrol unit within a block or two just passing through. Unless it's the middle of the night or a bona fide emergency, I usually don't call 911. I just stand out front and flag one down.
Oh, and there's a donut shop on the corner a half a block away so there's that
Comment
-
Comment
-
-
@claydoh
Now that's a good one LMAO
The unjust distribution of goods persists, creating a situation of social sin that cries out to Heaven and limits the possibilities of a fuller life for so many of our brothers. -- Archbishop Jorge Mario Bergoglio of Buenos Aires (now Pope Francis)Comment
Comment