OBVIOUSLY, YOU AREN'T A HUNTER.....
I had been wanting to write something about how the MSM does not understand anything about guns and the people who use them, be it for food, sport or "spreadin' democracy", but Hippie Killer captured my feelings a lot better than I could:
http://hippiekiller.wordpress.com/2009/11/06/obviously-youre-not-a-golfer/
We could still hunt like we want here in WV if there were reasonable gun restrictions that could help prevent shit like Fort Hood. I think most of my friends agree with me even though they all belong to the NRA.
Advertisement
This is amazing, fricking amazing.
I do not wish to sound trite but I have seen such tech changes in pc's, cable, cameras and the like that it comes as no surprise to me that there have been great 'advances' in gun tech by the masters of war who have more money for R&D than all other human endeavors.
With a gun like this and a little practice, I could kill a hundred people tomorrow so easily.
Hell everybody up here is a hunter.
But scopes piss me off. I mean it is so unfair.
That makes me a lefty pussy up here.
November 7, 2009 7:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
Not sure you have a clue what you are talking about. The Browning HiPower 9mm with a 13 shot mag was developed in 1935, the Colt 45 acp in 1911, the AK47 in, yep 1947. Today's guns are no different, no more powerful, than those built decades ago. What has changed is our society, our culture. Today kids idolize rap-killers, thugs, hit men, etc, and spends thousands of hours watching videos and playing games where the main action is murdering and torturing scores of people. That has to have an effect on people. If a 30 second ad can change someone's behavior and make them do something (buy a product) what could thousands of hours of this stuff do to them?
BTW, the Ft Hood incident showed the total failure of gun control once again. Trained soldiers were unarmed sitting ducks, because one bad guy broke the rules. There will always be bad guys, people will always break the rules, and being unarmed only makes you a helpless victim. When one person with a gun showed up (the cop) the killing was stopped. Had there been others with weapons the killing would have been stopped sooner, or never started.
November 8, 2009 7:16 AM | Reply | Permalink
There is more gun violence in places where guns are easy to obtain (US) than in places where guns are less easy to obtain (most of Western Europe). There may be cultural factors at work, but it does seem that easy availability of guns correlates with higher levels of gun violence. This suggests (though it doesn't prove) that gun control actually works. It's true that once someone starts shooting, other armed people can disable the shooter. But the real problem is the number of people able to start shooting, and gun control may be effective at reducing that number.
As a gun owner and avid hunter myself, I think gun control laws make sense, particularly in more crowded areas of the country. That said, I do think the second amendment is important, and the right to bear arms is a fundamental one that should be preserved. But just as free speech doesn't give you the right to yell "fire" in a crowded theater, the right to bear arms shouldn't mean you can carry a loaded weapon on the subway.
November 8, 2009 7:28 AM | Reply | Permalink
Your analysis is extremely simplistic. There is much less violence in places here where guns are common (Utah, Idaho, Wyoming) than where guns are effectively banned (DC, New Orleans, Chicago). You also neglect to include the gun violence in those great european countries that is the result of their occasional government sponsored genocide.
You say that gun control may be able to reduce the number of people able to start shooting, but the war on drugs proves that banning something does not make it disappear. Anyone who wants drugs can find them, despite being totally banned in every state. You think gun laws will work more effectively? This also ignores the simple fact that murders happened BEFORE guns were invented. Mass killings are possible with bombs, bottles of gasoline, even swords. Guns provide the only effective means of self defense.
As far as carrying a loaded weapon on the subway, do you feel safer on the subway with police on board? Why? Because they have GUNS. There is no difference between a cop and a civilian except the snappy uniform. I would much prefer being on the subway with everyone armed than on a subway with only one person armed, because that one person might be bad. There are no mass shootings at police stations or gun shows, they occur at gatherings of unarmed helpless people.
November 8, 2009 8:26 AM | Reply | Permalink
See reply below (addressed to Mr. Complex Analysis).
November 8, 2009 8:44 AM | Reply | Permalink
So how many people do you think Hasan could have killed with the Browning before he was stopped?
My personal feeling is that one should be an originalist about the Second Amendment and hold that everyone is entitled to a muzzleloader because that's all the Founders had in mind.
The true barrier against tyranny in modern America is not the possibility of ordinary citizens confronting that well-equipped modern American army but that ordinary citizens make up too large a portion of the army for it to be used against civilians.
Comparing crime rates in ranch land versus crime rates in cities and attributing it all to the respective rates of gun ownership is absurd and simply makes you look ridiculous.
November 8, 2009 8:45 AM | Reply | Permalink
I guess freedom of the press only means the hand operated printing press, freedom of speech does not include the internet, and freedom of religion only encompasses those religions practiced by the founders?
As far as crime rate comparisons, it's no more absurd than comparing the rates for totally different cultures to ours. It is also stupid to assert that all of the west is ranch land. It is also stupid to claim that the overall level of violence in Europe is much different - people killed with knives are still dead.
November 8, 2009 9:17 AM | Reply | Permalink
An originalist position which is too literal does lead to ridiculous results, doesn't it?
What underlying principles do you think the Framers had in mind when they spoke of a well-regulated militia?
Western Europe is probably a great deal more like Chicago than is Wyoming culturally. And even if such comparison were incorrect that does not make yours any better.
Guns are rife in Detroit and too many children have died as accidental victims in drive by shootings which haven't been at all deterred by the fact that the intended victims also own guns. Robert Parker has an invincible private detective in his stories but even he recognizes that a weapon is no defense when someone shoots you in the back when you are jogging.
Unless you are Wyatt Earp and never eat with your back towards a door or a window it is impossible to assure that you are effectively armed against a determined assailant.
November 8, 2009 9:54 AM | Reply | Permalink
The term 'well regulated' meant well equipped and trained, not regulated by laws. And that part of the amendment is the preamble which is there to explain why the right is important, not to limit it.
Much of western europe is comprised of small towns like Wyoming. Yes there are also large cities, but in most cases the populations are ethnically similar and there is little violence. Violence is present most often in ethnically diverse areas, like the Balkans. In Brittian there is a lot of violence in certain areas, like Brickston.
As far as a determined attacker, of course nothing is a defense against that, but although police may be killed in a shootout trying to prevent a crime, they are seldom the targets of crime. The point of being armed for self defense is to reduce the likelihood of being a victim, not to absolutely prevent it.
November 8, 2009 10:18 AM | Reply | Permalink
A gun in the household increases the risk of a successful suicide, an anger killing or accidental killing in the household and has minimal effect against a burglary unless you sleep with one eye open.
Any cites for your interpretation of 'regulated'?
November 8, 2009 1:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
Just got back from hunting actually. I'm happy to report that Massachusetts's relatively strict gun control laws were no obstacle. While I don't have the proper permits required to carry a weapon like the illustrated pistol, my 16 gauge works just fine on pheasant and grouse.
November 7, 2009 8:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
Our country is doomed. We are on the decline, and we are an outlaw state that ignores its ideals. Read any history book; we are on the way out, and the uber-wealthy will relocate. Hopefully they will be rejected, but as the Nazi's were welcomed in South America, those who can buy their way into this or that country can leave their devastation behind. Hopefully the official end will come before all our natural resources are ruined so we can rise again. Sorry to post such a depressing assessment. Please feel free to correct me. It would make my day.
November 7, 2009 9:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yes, Mr. Complex Analysis, there is more gun violence in urban areas than rural. That has to do with a denser population and other social factors. It has nothing to do with gun control laws or frequency of gun ownership.
November 8, 2009 8:43 AM | Reply | Permalink
Salt Lake City is not a rural area. It's population is around 1 million people. DC is around 600,000. Gary Indiana is around 100,000. Both have way more gun violence.
November 8, 2009 9:22 AM | Reply | Permalink
"and the uber-wealthy will relocate..."
So, when does the whole globe become too common for them, and they head for outer space?
Removing the last vestige of royalty from our inherently conservative culture, whether inherited or delusional, might actually create a world of equal opportunities.
Problem is, the closer the uber-wealthy move to be near the cheap labor they depend on for their extreme selfish, economy-constipating personal wealth, the less security they have on the mean streets.
It is still safer in NYC than along the Mexican border.
Most of the time.
November 8, 2009 9:24 AM | Reply | Permalink
The "gun problem": isn't in the general culture, it is in the Wall Street mentality that promotes gun sales.
The NRA hasn't always been a pawn of the gun lobby. There was a time when hunters and sportsmen filled those ranks, but these days, it is all about gun profit.
As usual(R), their public front seems so noble, but under the sheets, there's hanky-panky goin' on.
When the hunters (The People) take back their NRA from the gun lobby, (Wall Street) you may see sanity return to this issue. But as long as greed alone moves them to manipulate the minds of so many well-armed lemmings, we can only hope the 'baggers don't go bonkers.
November 8, 2009 9:39 AM | Reply | Permalink
After the brass cartridge and smokeless powder were developed in the late 1800s, firearm design progressed rapidly until World War I. Innovators like Hiram Maxim and John Browning developed semi and fully automatic small arms during that period.
Countries with higher murder rates than the US are, in order: Colombia, South Africa, Jamaica, Venezuela, Russia, Mexico, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Belarus, Ukraine, Papua New Guinea, Kyrgyzstan, Thailand, Moldova, Zimbabwe, Seychelles, Zambia, Costa Rica, Poland, Georgia, Uruguay, and Bulgaria.
It is not obvious that gun ownership is more prevalent in these countries or that their gun laws are more lax. Socioeconomic dysfunction, as well as racial, linguistic, and religious conflicts seem more correlated with high murder rates.
November 8, 2009 12:39 PM | Reply | Permalink