Weapons...

[Daniel Harrison]

Well, I think that the argument that if everyone had guns there would be less deaths it crazy! Can you imageine every drunk, and every domestic. THere would be blood everywhere.

It is too easy to get guns in America, just look at the statistics on gun deaths in any other 1st world country and they are lower because there are less guns.

yes the bad people will still get guns, but the underworld usually busy themselves with killing each other, not good citizens.

Why one earth does a good citizen need a 9mm pistol? I have friends in america and they own pistols and guns, but it is unneccesary. There was a headline in the papers over here that said "not again"

it will happen again if nothing changes, simple as that.

 

[Daniel Harrison]

oh and I think the constitution is refering to the right not to wear long sleeves Bare arms are fine right? (just to lighten things up)

 

[John_Nevill]

Kris Carnmarker wrote


Thousands are killed or crippled every year by drunk drivers yet our law makers never mention banning alcohol again, Most of the law makers drink and often you hear of them having alcohol related accidents. Look at the famous Ted Kennedy for one.

Sorry but i'm struggling with this analogy, people being killed by drunk driving is no doubt a mixed consequence, however if you consider the components, the car's puprose is mobility and alchohol's purpose is intoxication. What is a gun's purpose?

 

[Ray West]

Hi John,

Like the car and the alcohol, the gun's purpose is whatever folk want to use it for. There are different guns for different purposes, the same as there are different cars and different alcohols. In the same way that folk get enjoyment from driving or drinking, some folk get enjoyment from target shooting or hunting. Some folk actually enjoy taking photographs, I believe, and these days, the camera is perhaps the most powerful weapon that any army has.

For the USA, the outright banning of firearms would not achieve much, except possibly civil war. The licensing of individuals and registration of firearms would gradually reduce the 'random' firearm homicides. Proper education in gun handling and use would reduce the 'accident' figures. It will be a long time, if ever, that recent incidents, such as the one that sparked off this 'poll', are eliminated.

In the meantime, if I lived or worked in some areas of the USA, and other parts of the world, I would certainly want to be 'armed'.

Best wishes,

Ray

 

[Daniel Harrison]

Hi John,

Like the car and the alcohol, the gun's purpose is whatever folk want to use it for. There are different guns for different purposes, the same as there are different cars and different alcohols. In the same way that folk get enjoyment from driving or drinking, some folk get enjoyment from target shooting or hunting. Some folk actually enjoy taking photographs, I believe, and these days, the camera is perhaps the most powerful weapon that any army has.

For the USA, the outright banning of firearms would not achieve much, except possibly civil war. The licensing of individuals and registration of firearms would gradually reduce the 'random' firearm homicides. Proper education in gun handling and use would reduce the 'accident' figures. It will be a long time, if ever, that recent incidents, such as the one that sparked off this 'poll', are eliminated.

In the meantime, if I lived or worked in some areas of the USA, and other parts of the world, I would certainly want to be 'armed'.

Best wishes,

Ray

Ray,
we are not dealing with a seasoned trained underworld killer. just a student, it could have been prevented. No one suggested outright banning firearms (i think) just stricter rules. You tell me why you need to have a hand gun in your draw? No training needed to buy the gun, just walk in at 18 and buy one.

and why would you want a gun if you went to the US, but you don't have one where you are? You obviously feel less safe there, why is that? it may have something to do with the way they handel guns?

but I do agree that the real problem is not guns, it is the people who use them. And I think that the blame for them could be spread around, stuff like this was unheard of a hundered years ago so something has changed. and a few hundered years before that worse stuff was going on. So the people are the same, it is the way in which society is heading, and the values and beliefs people are brought up with. That is the problem

But putting some sensible gun restrictions in place would help

 

[Klaus Esser]

<Any chance the USA will get in step with everyone else in the so called 'civilised world, sometime soon??>

I´m afraid: no. In no way . . . . ;-)

best, Klaus

 

[Klaus Esser]

<I believe, and these days, the camera is perhaps the most powerful weapon that any army has.>

well - you don´t kill your classmates with a camera . .

 

[Ray West]

Hi Daniel,

I am arguing for training and regulation for gun ownership for everywhere. Do they not have rules and laws re car driving - age, driving test, licence, etc? The USA needs something more than that for guns. I am saying it will not stop the 'determined' murderer. Regulation may or may not have prevented the event that sparked off this thread. Even with regulation, guns will still be obtained by folk who want to obtain them. There have been a small spate of instances recently in the UK with kids murdering each other - I'm pretty certain with illegally obtained weapons - pistols can not legally be obtained in the UK, by the general public, afaik, but they are a popular choice for the criminal.

I did not say I wanted a gun if I went to the US. I am saying, that I want the right to defend myself and others if I was having to live or work in certain areas. I am aware that it can escalate a situation, but if the situation is unbalanced to start with, then I would prefer to be able to balance it in my favour, it is not by chance that a particular weapon was known as 'the equaliser'. Its a simple thing - the more miles you drive, the more likely you are to have a car 'accident'. The more guns that are around, the more likely one will be used against you. (the same principles extend up to global warfare...)

Anyway, it matters little what we think, unless we persuade the law makers, and the laws are properly enforced. It is quite unlikely to happen. Human life matters little to the governments we have today, unless it effects them personally, - re-election, bribes, whatever. It's the share holders, not the customers that count in all businesses.

Best wishes,

Ray

 

[Ray West]

Hi Klaus,

If you shoot with a canon, its an 'n' away from shooting with a cannon. Why is it that?

The point I was making, is that photographs/video are used/doctored/hyped up, whatever, in order to start wars, and also to end them, or prolong them. It may not directly kill your classmates, but photography is certainly used as an essential aid to kill folk you don't even know. How much of your camera is a direct spin off from weapon research? On a smaller scale - how about 'snuff videos' and the ilk?

Why is it necessary to publish a photo of the perpetrator of the college massacre? He is unlikely to do it again. Do we assume that everybody who looks like him is likely to be a murderer? The media probably have a feeding frenzy to satisfy the need of the public. It is the current five minute wonder blog topic etc., maybe until something happens in football/baseball. Wait for the copycats to start. If you had an earlier photo of the guy - how much would you sell it for? How much for a recent photo? (a rhetorical question - not meant personally) I thought he was after posthumous publicity - has he got it, or what? wrt. classmates - did he have any? why not? Everyone wrapped up in their own little world, not bothering to find out about the weird guy?

Its a funny old world.....

Best wishes,

Ray

(funny - irony - I think queer has different connotations these days ...)

 

[Aaron Strasburg]

I must chime in as the contrarian here.

First, I'm not sure from where Michael Stones hails, but since the US Constitution (including the Bill of Rights) was adopted more than 30yrs before the War of 1812 it should be obvious that the 2nd Amendment was not a reaction to that war. The 2nd Amendment was explicitly included because the colonies had just fought a war against a tyrannical government which could not have been won without the ownership of and willingness to use firearms by the populace. It doesn't protect one's right to a shotgun for bird hunting. It protects us from tyranny. It does not give us the right of self defense, it merely protects that right.

Since many of OPF's readers and contributors are not from the US and obviously many who live here are unfamiliar with the process, allow me to describe the legal purchase of a new firearm in New Mexico. Bear in mind that NM is very liberal in our firearms laws. No registration requirements, licenses, and such. This procedure differs slightly for concealed carry weapon permit holders, but only in the background check.

First, one must pay a visit to a licensed dealer, one who holds a Federal Firearms License (FFL). You fill out a silly yellow form, which must be retained indefinitely by the dealer under penalty of law, in which you affirm that you are legally allowed to buy a firearm. In other words, you're not a convicted felon, haven't been convicted of even misdemeanor domestic violence, aren't a drug user, and so on. You must be buying the gun for yourself as well (so called straw purchases are illegal). Then you have to sign that form, which theoretically can mean serious penalties if you lie. That got the idiots who bought the guns for the Columbine kids in some serious hot water. The form includes lots of gory details about you, full name, date of birth, drivers license number, Social Security number (optional), and so on.

The date of birth is important. You must be 21 to buy a handgun, 18 for a long gun.

Now the dealer will phone up the state police for a mandatory background check. This is the bit that isn't required if you hold a CCW permit. They have 3 options: yes, no, or maybe. Yes, you walk out with your purchase. No, something came up and you will have to appeal directly to the state police if you believe there was an error. Theoretically you could be arrested at this point for providing false information, but that is unfortunately almost unheard of. Maybe means they need to dig a little and have 3 days in which to deny the sale or it can proceed.

This is absolutely not the case in many US jurisdictions. For example, in Washington, DC it's not even legal to buy, sell, or possess (in most cases) a handgun. Other locales require mandatory waiting periods. Some limit purchases to one per month. Basically the gamut runs from the minimum required by federal law (such as NM) to you can't buy a gun legally no matter what you do.

How difficult do you suppose it is to get a gun illegally? I don't have any first hand experience, but evidence suggests it's very easy. Want to stay legal? Jump through hoops. Don't care? Cash is all you need. The criminals already don't care, so why would we expect another law to make a difference?

I personally believe there's a strong correlation between the fact that Washington, DC has such strict rules to the fact that they bounce in and out of the lead for US murders. It's even illegal to have a gun in your home for self defense in DC. Of course these rules aren't really applied to the ruling class, so they don't have to be bothered.

There's a lady in Texas who is now a legislator who's parents were murdered in a mass shooting at a restaurant several years ago. She had a gun in her car, but obeyed the law that said she couldn't bring it in the restaurant (a McDonald's if I recall correctly). The body count was considerable and the guy was only stopped when the police killed him. Do you believe they'll be there to protect you or do you believe it's both your right and responsibility to protect yourself and your family?

Tell me all about the civilized world.

Aaron

 

[Paul Bestwick]

Hey Aaron,

the civilized world......AKA, Australia. (conditions apply........ignore Port Arthur)

Cheers,

Paul

 

[Klaus Esser]

Hi Klaus,

If you shoot with a canon, its an 'n' away from shooting with a cannon. Why is it that?

The point I was making, is that photographs/video are used/doctored/hyped up, whatever, in order to start wars, and also to end them, or prolong them. It may not directly kill your classmates, but photography is certainly used as an essential aid to kill folk you don't even know. How much of your camera is a direct spin off from weapon research? On a smaller scale - how about 'snuff videos' and the ilk?

Why is it necessary to publish a photo of the perpetrator of the college massacre? He is unlikely to do it again. Do we assume that everybody who looks like him is likely to be a murderer? The media probably have a feeding frenzy to satisfy the need of the public. It is the current five minute wonder blog topic etc., maybe until something happens in football/baseball. Wait for the copycats to start. If you had an earlier photo of the guy - how much would you sell it for? How much for a recent photo? (a rhetorical question - not meant personally) I thought he was after posthumous publicity - has he got it, or what? wrt. classmates - did he have any? why not? Everyone wrapped up in their own little world, not bothering to find out about the weird guy?

Its a funny old world.....

Best wishes,

Ray

(funny - irony - I think queer has different connotations these days ...)

Hello Ray!

You´re right - absolutely. Photographs can hurt and damage people.
But if you get a sudden insane impulse to kill somebody: would you do it with a camera?

bst, Klaus

 

[Ray West]

Hi Klaus,

I do not think these folk have a sudden insane impulse. I think it brews and festers. They, as a minimum, leave home, with the weapon and ammunition and travel to the scene. It takes time, they have intent. They will plan it out, after a fashion. For some a gun is the most effective tool. For Shipman it was lethal injections. Such people will use whatever comes to hand.

Anyway, Klaus, I'm English... I don't think I've had an 'impulse', insane, sudden or otherwise. Or, if I have, I've managed to control it pretty well. ;-)

Best wishes,

Ray

 

[Klaus Esser]

Hi Ray!

"Anyway, Klaus, I'm English... I don't think I've had an 'impulse', insane, sudden or otherwise. Or, if I have, I've managed to control it pretty well. ;-) "

I lived in London for about a year - at least Londoners absolutely DO have "impulses" when driving cars around the city

best, Klaus

 

[Ray West]

Hi Klaus,

But London is not England... Anyway, driving wise, provided you can indicate what you want to do, in London, they will let you do it. Bristol, you indicate, they will deliberately block you in. The best thing about Bristol, when I worked there for 18 years, was seeing it in my rear view mirror...

Best wishes,

Ray

 

[Klaus Esser]

"provided you can indicate what you want to do, in London, they will let you do it"

right! But that´s hard to learn for a German . .

To be honest: London is THE city i would love to live in.

best, Klaus

 

[Georg R. Baumann]

Different blokes, different strokes....<grins> I visited London once at the tender age of 16, stpped out of the Bus and..... got sick, had to throw up and that was it for me. The air just was not compatible with me I guess.

I used to live on the 36 floor in a skyscraper in Cologne, a really massive flat with stunning views, then again, I never was happy there, the stink, the noise, the whole package.... I guess I never was/will be a city boy.... 8 month in one go on the maldives is more my cup of tea.

 

[Rob Riley]

Hey Aaron,

the civilized world......AKA, Australia. (conditions apply........ignore Port Arthur)

Cheers,

Paul

i believe that was pre the current more stringent gun control measures

as a former serving soldier and ranking officer in the military police for decades, i am familiar with weapons, i actually like guns, i can handle all manner of guns. But i give up a measure of that right for the law of my land willingly because in my mind gun control is sensible, practical, necessary and it works.

Automatic weapons are banned here and i believe that's a sensible first step. There is no reason i can think of to own an AK here, no-one is planning armed insurrection to this government, nor should they in yours, that's why we vote. Certainly an amount of cooling off period, police checks into identity, criminal status, mental status, and intended purpose are methods used to slow down the legal acquisition of weapons.

Stiff penalties apply if you are found with an illegal firearm which can get you 10yrs in jail (gaol). Penalties also apply to not housing your weapons in a safe and checks are carried out by police to this effect. Gun crime is detectable, and punishable, we are in control as a society, not as a Government.

cheers for allowing this discussion, where elsewhere i have seen this same subject fiercely fought on position. And cheers to all for such a calm and sensible debate.

 

[Nill Toulme]

Rob is the word gaol pronounced just like jail, with a soft g? I've always wondered...

Nill
~~
www.toulme.net

 

[Rob Riley]

yes it sounds just the same
i deferred to the more commonly known US version for the forum
but in English usage its spelt gaol

 

[Murray Foote]

I grew up in New Zealand where even the Police did not have guns. There was an Armed Offenders Squad that would be summoned when a criminal with a gun needed to be dealt with. That would hit the headlines of the papers and happened maybe twice a year. I'm all in favour of restricting guns to those who have a legitimate reason to use them.

I guess the more fundamental question is a peaceful society and that requires a large measure of social equity. Unfortunately many countries seem to be receding from that these days.

Private use of weapons is one thing - Corporations and Governments is another. I'd like to see strict regulation and restriction of international trade in weapons and coordinated international moves to both nuclear disarmament and disarmament generally. Obviously at best this will be a gradual process rather than a flip-flop and my guess would be that the last US President to have attempted anything along these lines would have been Jimmy Carter.

I think it's like private weapons - the more large standing armies there are around the more they need means to justify their existence, the more excuses they find to exercise their capabilities and the more others are impelled to emulate. Rationality and morality often go missing. Obviously there are many competing views and entrenched interest groups in all directions but it doesn't even really seem that anyone is even trying for this sort of change.

Murray

 

[Angela Weil]

Weapons....

Today, there was a national news item here in Germany about two police officers being shot, one killed and one severely wounded. The article went on to quote the police in saying that this event was proof of how dangerous police work can be and offered some data: Sine 1945, 388 police officers have been killed while on duty nationwide - in 62 years which include several years of intense terrorist activities .... (quote in Spiegel online)
The event of today is a tragic one and I don't want to make it seem minor in any way. However, to me, that relatively low number over the years is proof how effective gun control can be. It seems, at least statistically, in Germany, it is more dangerous for a police officer to drive home after work than be on duty since Germany is the only country in the world that does not have general speed limits on the highway.
I used to live in Chicago and 'officer down' seemed like such an everyday occurrence, even if it might not have been like that (I don't know any statistics) - it just seemed to happen all the time.
Angela

 

[Aaron Strasburg]

... my guess would be that the last US President to have attempted anything along these lines would have been Jimmy Carter.

Actually former president Clinton did a lot. He had in place serious restrictions on the import of firearms and even parts. Oddly the Civilian Marksmanship Program (which is part of the US Gov't) couldn't reimport M1 rifles that had been sent abroad during WWII under those restrictions.

I think it's like private weapons - the more large standing armies there are around the more they need means to justify their existence, the more excuses they find to exercise their capabilities and the more others are impelled to emulate. Rationality and morality often go missing. Obviously there are many competing views and entrenched interest groups in all directions but it doesn't even really seem that anyone is even trying for this sort of change.

Lots of people are trying for change, but standing armies is an entirely different discussion. I suspect that US imperialism or interventionism or whatever you might like to call it would be an even more controversial topic than this one.

Without getting deep into the current situation, I find it very irritating the President Bush was elected in 2000 on a platform decrying Clinton's nation-building activities using the military. Apparently the pull is too strong to resist....

 

[Jeff Donovan]

Murray,

I think places like New Zealand and England would have an easier time outlawing guns as they are islands, and hence it would be harder (though as Ray attests in England far from difficult) to get guns into the country.

The US has over 4000 miles of common borders with Canada and Mexico. If we outlawed guns they'd be smuggled over those borders as easily as Columbian cocaine is today.

 

[Rob Riley]

one of the things that could happen though
is to remove access to automatic weapons
im not from the US, but i thought Clinton did that
as i recall a speech about, 'you dont need an AK-47 or a zip gun to hunt deer'

now it seems those limitations are gone

 

[Asher Kelman]

One thing we must remember is that civilization, like the very life on this planet, is a thin fragile veneer, held together by hope, trust and kindness as well as deception and conquest.

Guns are an evil necessity and a necessary evil at this time. However, we can restrict it to the minimum needed for mutual security.

Asher

 

[Murray Foote]

Murray,

I think places like New Zealand and England would have an easier time outlawing guns as they are islands, and hence it would be harder (though as Ray attests in England far from difficult) to get guns into the country.

The US has over 4000 miles of common borders with Canada and Mexico. If we outlawed guns they'd be smuggled over those borders as easily as Columbian cocaine is today.

True, Jeff, however I expect the problem with guns would be much less acute in Canada than the US. I think that would be at least partly due to a more effective social welfare system and less unequal distribution of income. It's probably much harder to solve this sort of problem than to avoid it in the first place.

By the way I have an Olympus 1.4x teleconverter for my FZ50. Quality is good and it's amazing that there is no light loss.

Regards,
Murray

 

[Georg R. Baumann]

Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired signifies, in the final sense, a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and are not clothed. The world in arms is not spending money alone. It is spending the sweat of its laborers, the genius of its scientists, the hopes of its children… This is not a way of life at all, in any true sense. Under the cloud of threatening war, it is humanity hanging from a cross of iron.

— Former U.S. President, Dwight D. Eisenhower, in a speech on April 16, 1953

You folks might find this article interesting

http://mondediplo.com/2006/06/12deadly

 

[Jeff Donovan]

Ray, since the right to bear arms is enshrined in our Constitution, it's not likely things will change here any time soon.

 

[Will_Perlis]

"If we outlawed guns they'd be smuggled over those borders"

If anyone wanted to bother. The "modern" personal weapon technology dates from the late 1800's. Anyone with a reasonable knowledge of machine shop operation can make the weapons and it's only a little more difficult to make the ammo.

As for emulating civilized Western Europe, I think I'll pass. My memory of the Twentieth Century hasn't quite faded.