The general decline in standards today

[1961MJS]

Godwin's Law. Finally..

"Godwin's law (also known as Godwin's Rule of Nazi Analogies or Godwin's Law of Nazi Analogies is an observation made by Mike Godwin in 1990 that has become an Internet adage. It states: "As an online discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches . In other words, Godwin observed that, given enough time, in any online discussion—regardless of topic or scope—someone inevitably makes a comparison to Hitler and the Nazis.

Well, that's not fair, he got an easy one, them Nazi's were into EVERYTHING.

Later

 

[Widebrim]

Are there any concrete theories about what might be done in the US to avoid these issues, while still maintaining people's rights to carry weapons?

One constant proposal has been to only ban semi-automatic weapons, but even this has been met with stiff resistance.

Now, for those who haven't really read the 2nd Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, here it is:

"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."

For many years it was debated as to whether the above applied strictly to those enrolled in a militia (which the wording of the amendment would strongly seem to validate), or simply established the right of any individual to bear arms for lawful purposes (e.g., protection of his/her domicile). In addition, it was argued as to whether the "shall not be infringed" part applied to only federal regulation, or to also state/municipality infringement. In the 2008 Supreme Court case of District of Columbia v. Heller, the Court finally sided with the view that the amendment protects an individual's right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia in order to use that weapon for traditionally lawful purposes. It was also ruled that this right could not be infringed by states and municipalities as well as the federal government

 

[1961MJS]

You will have to forgive us John, no other country in the West that I know of has the same gun culture as the US. We have difficulty understanding how something like that can become so ingrained in the psyche of a nation and could invoke such passion in people. The thinking that a person has the "right" to carry a deadly weapon wherever they want without questioning seems very foreign to most of us....

You have to remember that most if not all of our country was either kicked out or left the rest of the "civilized world". Our break from Britain was because of our lack of rights with respect to taxation. We took and kept others too.

Our politicians have reacted to various shooting massacres, and we have had a few, by taking definite action in restricting the types and numbers of firearms available. Our police did not even carry sidearms until the late 1970's.

Then again, out politicians don't have to worry about being shot dead, as many American politicians would have in the backs of their minds. Yes, we did have an attempted political assassination attempt in the 1950's, however this was not firearm related, although a pistol was used.

Again, we're not all that civilized. We actually like and expect our politicians to have some worry about being shot dead. Godwin alert, several people whom you will remember from history didn't have to worry about it and their people suffered. Hitler, Stalin, Lenin, Pick a South American dictator, pick an African Dictator. We also have the tradition of NOT (except for Illinois) sending our outgoing leadership to prison or the firing squad.

It appears that he had a shooting license, I wonder if a personal interview is required to be done prior to one being issued? I occurred to me that if he had been interviewed in his own home for the license alarm bells would have been raised and this incident avoided.

Are there any concrete theories about what might be done in the US to avoid these issues, while still maintaining people's rights to carry weapons?

Not being much on the whole police state, unless a crime is likely to have been committed in my home, I'm unlikely to be interviewed there. Concealed Carry Permits are usually taught by NRA (the enemy) Pistol Instructors with the background check being done at the state and local level by the police. No interview is required, too many Sheriffs back in the 1980's and 1990's took the power to disallow most requests for a Concealed Carry Permit using the interview. "We have Concealed Carry Permits, but YOU can't have one."

Most states (at least a lot of states) are "shall issue" for concealed carry. What Jimmy Holmes probably had was a hunting license which requires that you know and understand the state hunting laws. You usually have to shoot a .22LR to qualify to hunt. You will note that the only person (so far) that has come out and said he was a nut job prior to Friday was the gun range owner who wouldn't let him on the property.

Later

 

[1961MJS]

Are there any concrete theories about what might be done in the US to avoid these issues, while still maintaining people's rights to carry weapons?

Sorry, missed the important one. There are theories, but none that are concrete. Back in the 1970's or 1980's, (I was chasing women then) our country's Mental Health system was systematically destroyed by "mainstreaming" most of the inmates. Most people who would have been in an asylum are now either being cared for at home, but overworked relatives, roaming the streets, or in prison with the rest of the prisoners. In short, we don't care for your mentally ill anymore. That being said, due to the whole political process involved in deciding who gets to be a mental patient, the idea of the government deciding whom is put away doesn't float.

We (unfortunately) have ample reason to not trust our elected officials (see Illinois quote above). Armed Detente seems to be out best bet. None of us like it that well, but there it is.

Later

 

[sheeplady]

You will have to forgive us John, no other country in the West that I know of has the same gun culture as the US. We have difficulty understanding how something like that can become so ingrained in the psyche of a nation and could invoke such passion in people. The thinking that a person has the "right" to carry a deadly weapon wherever they want without questioning seems very foreign to most of us.

Our politicians have reacted to various shooting massacres, and we have had a few, by taking definite action in restricting the types and numbers of firearms available. Our police did not even carry sidearms until the late 1970's.

Then again, out politicians don't have to worry about being shot dead, as many American politicians would have in the backs of their minds. Yes, we did have an attempted political assassination attempt in the 1950's, however this was not firearm related, although a pistol was used.

It appears that he had a shooting licence, I wonder if a personal interview is required to be done prior to one being issued? I occured to me that if he had been inteviewed in his own home for the licence alarm bells would have been raised and this incident avoided.

Are there any concrete theories about what might be done in the US to avoid these issues, while still maintaining people's rights to carry weapons?

I think that there are so many cultural differences that it's just really hard to imagine the situation in the U.S. We do have a culture of the right to bear arms (so to speak), and that is a very strong one. There are some people who agree with much stricter gun control, and others that agree that our prohibitions are too strict. Then there is the cultural differences of such a large country: you have people who were raised around weapons and people who weren't; often embedded in a larger culture of owning or not owning weapons in their part of the country. That and many restrictions are placed by the states: for instance, in my state (New York) it is next to impossible to get a permit to carry. You need to have a legitimate reason for carry a weapon- such as documented attempts on your life or a position where you are likely to mugged (such as a diamond dealer or transporter). Other states it's a couple forms to fill out and a permit cost.

We also have (and this is my opinion) many areas in the U.S. where we have very dangerous places to live, work, or walk through. These are areas where illegal drugs, criminal activity, illegal handguns, and gangs are pretty much rampant. For a "industrialized" or "developed" nation, we have a proliferation of unsafe places. In my own city, there are places I will not go because far too many people have been shot and died there- and I live in a small city. There are a lot of illegal (non-registered) hand guns in these places; which makes these places very unsafe, as only criminals own illegal handguns, and therefore aren't afraid to carry them (or even use them). Many people who have seen their neighborhoods degrade have guns as their own protection, not because they are necessarily pro-gun, but because they feel they have been forced to purchase one to protect their family. People who live in these places really live in a culture of fear. It's a culture of fear that I can't even put into words; many people know individuals who have been victims, fear for their children everyday, and don't let kids play outside because of the violence. Even worse is the fact that often police won't respond to many of these neighborhoods anymore unless there is a homicide- anything less than this they will "lose the call." These communities- the good people in these communities- are basically left to their own protection.

I'm not trying to give an impression that it is like that everywhere, but it really is so different from a culture where handguns aren't entrenched and where illegal handguns aren't a huge problem.

 

[John in Covina]

One thing is that the defenition of militia was consider to be any able bodied man from mid teens to about 60 years of age that could shoulder a rifle and that they were to provide their own rifle. We are not talking about the state militia or National Guard here. It was not considered that it was a national, state government vested militia but local communities organized to respond quickly. The idea as a frontier nation those that could bare arms would do so to protect the community and themselves, in the present day were still have bad guys doing bad things so the need has not diminessed everywheres.


There is a great painting of the Pilgrims going to church / worship and most of the guys are carrying. eusa_doh:If you watched TV pretty much everytime Daniel Boone put himself and their community under the authority of others trouble always ensued. There are a number of episodes were the Brits were trying to disarm the colonists but DB always pulled off some sort of miracle.)

 

[John in Covina]

There is a reason I no longer live in NY.

 

[Feraud]

Sheeplady I think you've done a great job of describing the varied gun culture in the U.S. Media tends to portray the participants as either pro or against but the real picture if more complex.

As a fellow New Yorker I can attest to the near impossibility of receiving a license to pistol ownership. At least we have our rifle and shotguns to enjoy.
Our current mayor never misses a beat in sticking his beak into the gun issue anytime he has a chance. The guy has jumped on the Colorado tragedy to encourage further restrictions against legal firearm ownership in the city. We should all be as lucky as Mikey Bloomberg to have 24/7 armed bodyguards with us.
On the upside, NYC is one of the safer cities and the right to carry is mostly un-necessary.

 

[John in Covina]

NYC has gone thru great changes from the time of Mayor Lindsey and Fun City, it took proactive police and fine DA's to reign in the the criminal element.

 

[John in Covina]

For myself here in the state of California, we have somewhat greater rights as to carry and pistols and such. The safest place I have ever been to was at the gun show when it was still possible to carry unconcealed. The chance of something bad happening was much reduced.

In the states that are less restrictive as to carry tend to have many crimes that are reduced, however the criminals will look for other opportunities. As an aside no state that has in last 20 years or so enacted ease in concealed carry permits has found the need to undo those laws.

I'd like to ask if you don't trust your neighbor to own a gun why would you trust them with the ability to vote?

 

[rue]

Guns don't kill people. People kill people.

.......and that's all I have to say about that.

 

[lolly_loisides]

I'd like to ask if you don't trust your neighbor to own a gun why would you trust them with the ability to vote?

I find it really difficult to link gun ownership & the democratic process together - though as Sheeplady said, it's a cultural difference. My Constitution does not give individuals the right to bear arms. We look at gun regulation as a public safety issue not an infringement of civil rights. When our PM introduced bans on semi automatic weapons over 85% of Australian people supported him.

 

[Flicka]

as Sheeplady said, it's a cultural difference. My Constitution does not give individuals the right to bear arms. We look at gun regulation as a public safety issue not an infringement of civil rights.

Which is true for us too, and we -- like say, Japan -- do not have higher crime rates than the US (including states with liberal gun laws). But then our society on the whole is very different from the American.

With that said, could we please not make this into a political debate on gun laws or self defence? Firstly because politics are supposedly banned on here, and secondly, because I think these victims deserve better than to be used as pawns in people's political agenda (and I say that as someone who has a very strong political agenda regarding gun control).

 

[jamespowers]

Which is true for us too, and we -- like say, Japan -- do not have higher crime rates than the US (including states with liberal gun laws). But then our society on the whole is very different from the American.

Hmmm...

"July 22, 2011 Anders Behring Breivik a suspected right-wing extremist disguised as a police officer, was responsible for the deaths of at least 84 young people at a political summer camp on the island of Utøya in Buskerud Norway which is quickly becoming known as the "Norway attacks" and to date is the worst known gun massacre by an individual in modern times. Breivik is also believed to have planted a bomb in central Oslo that killed at least 8 people."

 

[Flicka]

Hmmm...

"July 22, 2011 Anders Behring Breivik a suspected right-wing extremist disguised as a police officer, was responsible for the deaths of at least 84 young people at a political summer camp on the island of Utøya in Buskerud Norway which is quickly becoming known as the "Norway attacks" and to date is the worst known gun massacre by an individual in modern times. Breivik is also believed to have planted a bomb in central Oslo that killed at least 8 people."

Let me clarify: I said we do not have higher crime rates than America despite not allowing guns. But then our society is very different from yours (meaning the issue is more complicated than gun laws).

I don't know what Breivik has to do with that, but it's interesting to note that the incident did not lead to Norwegians demanding laws that made it easier to own or carry guns, yet I see several Americans doing just that in the wake of this tragedy. I would interpret that as a cultural difference.

Again, can we please not let this thread derail into My Politics vs. Your Politics? Like I said, this board is supposed to be free of politics and if it was my near and dear ones who had died, I'd hate for that tragedy to be used for pushing either pro or con gun control on the internet.

 

[Gin&Tonics]

I find it really difficult to link gun ownership & the democratic process together - though as Sheeplady said, it's a cultural difference. My Constitution does not give individuals the right to bear arms. We look at gun regulation as a public safety issue not an infringement of civil rights. When our PM introduced bans on semi automatic weapons over 85% of Australian people supported him.

And then when the government confiscated all the guns, the crime rate skyrocketed and the murder rate went up 42%. Why? Because all the lowlife criminals who don't give a rat's posterior about obeying the law knew for a fact that all the decent law abiding folks were disarmed and helpless. Open season on the general public by criminal scum.

When guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns.

 

[lolly_loisides]

^^^^
I feel I've made my point & I won't comment any further on the topic except to say I have never said in any of my posts that I agree with the banning of all firearms.

 

[W-D Forties]

Guns don't kill people. People kill people.

.......and that's all I have to say about that.

But having a gun sure makes it a hell of a lot easier.

 

[TomS]

As an aside - An aquaintance of mine owns a gun shop here in the U.S., and he's commented that his business is growing exponentially despite the depression; I'm sure there is a thesis in that someplace.

 

[Widebrim]

For myself here in the state of California, we have somewhat greater rights as to carry and pistols and such. The safest place I have ever been to was at the gun show when it was still possible to carry unconcealed. The chance of something bad happening was much reduced.

You're right, John; I always felt completely safe at gun shows, knowing that the odds were close to nil that someone was going to open fire (for obvious reasons). It's almost the same in the service when you're in country, except then you have to watch out for the occasional "accidental discharge," which results primarily when someone doesn't clear his weapon upon returning to base.