‘Childish Fantasy’: Gun Control and the Victim
On the evening of December 14, when the horror of Sandy Hook Elementary School was quite rightly the only subject on everyone’s minds and lips, I was in my car listening to talk radio. I tuned to one station and then another before choosing Dennis Miller’s program. I was eager to hear Mr. Miller’s take on the day’s sorrows, but I was astonished to hear him and his guest (I’ve forgotten who) discussing … the fiscal cliff. How could this be? It was as if the massacre hadn’t happened.
It took me a few seconds, but then I remembered that Mr. Miller broadcasts live from Santa Barbara, CA, in the morning, but here in Los Angeles his show airs on tape delay in the evening. And so for those fleeting moments I was taken back, in a way, to the time before I or Dennis Miller or his guest or anyone else outside of Newtown, CT, had heard of Sandy Hook Elementary School. How pleasant it all seemed that morning, how trivial were my own worries, and how horribly, horribly different the day would turn out to be.
That fiscal cliff seems not to be such a big deal after all, does it? And now we have all but abandoned talk of fiscal cliffs and begun our “conversation on guns.” Or have we?
Based on what we’ve heard so far, this “conversation” amounts to little more than an attempt by one side to shame the other into silence and acquiescence. If you refuse to admit that you, the gun owner, are part of the problem; if you dare to suggest that the public at large would not be less safe but safer if more law-abiding citizens were allowed to carry concealed handguns; if you refuse to acknowledge what is so patently obvious to your enlightened betters living in colonies along both coasts — which is that firearms are inherently evil and have no place in a civilized society — then you are an abettor in the slaughter of children and deserving of public scorn if not imprisonment and even death.
Indeed, this “conversation” has been marked by ignorance and emotionalism on the part of those who would see Americans surrender their guns in advancement of the utopia envisioned in such places as the Upper West Side of Manhattan. Manifesting this ignorance and emotionalism for all to see was CNN’s Soledad O’Brien, who, while engaging in what was purported to be a “conversation on guns” with economist John Lott, seemed gobsmacked when Mr. Lott presented an argument in favor of fewer restrictions on citizens carrying concealed weapons — an argument based on his own extensive research. “I have to say,” stammered Ms. O’Brien, “your position, your position completely boggles me, honestly. I just do not understand it.”
That she did not understand Mr. Lott’s position was obvious, as she was so completely boggled that she failed to address even a single one of the points he made, instead veering off on tangents that did little more than reveal her own lack of knowledge on the subject at hand.
I’ve said this before in response to the anti-gun crowd and I’ll say it again:
A firearm is the only thing that can put a 90lb woman on equal footing with a 200lb rapist
Guns really are all about equality. They do not make you invincible, but they give you a fair chance against an enemy who possesses greater physical size or numbers.
Moreover, the fiscal cliff has much to do with gun control, at least for those who have been paying strict attention and are willing to follow the trail, wading in the muck as needed – http://adinakutnicki.com/2012/08/07/barack-hussein-obamas-deconstruction-plans-green-wise-via-the-economy-disarming-the-citizens-via-gun-control-connecting-the-dots-addendum-to-the-second-term-plans-of-an-obama-presidency-c/
It must be understood that one is wedded to the other, and disarming the populace can best be effectuated when an economic crisis reaches critical mass.
Forewarned is forearmed.
Are you STILL trying to peddle that?
Communism only killed millions to bring you free healthcare– do your part to ban private ownership of guns! (Hey, Bill Ayers would think so.)
I have to disagree with you… slightly. A gun does not make things equal for you and a criminal, it actually gives you a slight advantage because you do not have to get the hell out of the area for fear that a LEO will be arriving “soon”.
How about finding something out about how and when rapes occur, then reassess whether these shoot-em-out scenarios make any sense.
http://www.rainn.org/get-information/statistics/sexual-assault-offenders
The same concealed carry law that gives the good guys guns gives the bad guys guns – and only they know that they’re bad guys, and when or where they will strike. They will choose their circumstances to suit their advantage, and thanks to you guys, they can carry a gun with them without breaking any laws.
Except that they don’t bother with concealed carry permits. And the statistics show this. The ignorant one here is you.
And yet, somehow, they still have guns. Ah well.
Yes because they are criminals you dolt and they have their guns ILLEGALLY moron
“and they have their guns ILLEGALLY moron”
So how’s that happen, then? Think the process through.
Techno:
Illegal drugs are illegal. Criminals and drug addicts still have and get illegal drugs. So how’s that happen, then? Think the process through.
Handguns have been completely freaking illegal in Great Britain for almost 15 years. In that time, handgun crime has doubled. So how’s that happen, then? Think the process through.
It’s very, very simple, really: people break the law. Apparently, this is a shock to you.
I dunno, Techo.. Where do you get your dope?
“Illegal drugs are illegal. Criminals and drug addicts still have and get illegal drugs. So how’s that happen, then? Think the process through”
Guns don’t grow in hydroponic set-ups in people’s roofs or in winnebagos in the desert. They’re manufactured in factories, and overwhelmingly (today) within the US. Guns are also a lot easier to detect coming through customs – requiring (in practice) the use of conspicuously-shaped metals, and not being something that can be stuffed into plastic bags and swallowed. It’s fairly difficult to disguise guns as, let’s say, frozen chickens.
I don’t see anywhere the suggestion that guns being used in the US illegally are coming from anywhere but the US. They’re being manufactured by somebody domestically and then sold – be it illegally or legally. If the US had implemented sensible controls on that process decades ago, the supply of illegal weapons wouldn’t be what it is today. That was, as it happens, one of the motivations for the australian gun buy-back – to get guns out of circulation to stop the growth of the black market. Guns don’t evaporate after a few decades. Some of them go rusty and can’t be used, the rest eventually get handed on to somebody – i.e. they change hands. Without controls over that process and their original supply, it’s impossible to prevent a black market.
It’s hardly sustainable to try to claim that nothing can be done when the ultimate source of most illegal guns is the US itself. With the exception of the smuggling of weapons across borders (probably minimal – I mean, why bother?), every single illegal gun in the US today began its life (at some point) as a legally-owned weapon. Every single gun sold and owned legally today is a potential illegally-owned gun in the future, and the pro-gun lobby has made their unregulated and untraceable transfer easy. The legal market feeds the black market, and gun show loopholes and poor registration and tracking of firearms enables it.
As long as the US is awash in guns, getting them illegally will continue to be easy. This is the paradox that the pro-gun lobby refuses to accept – you arm yourselves to “protect” yourself from the previous few decades of people with the right to arm themselves. What are you going to do with YOUR guns when you’re finished with them? Have them destroyed? Not likely. You’ll either sell them or pass them along to somebody else – after which time you have no idea what will happen to them, and unless something changes neither will anyone else.
“Handguns have been completely freaking illegal in Great Britain for almost 15 years. In that time, handgun crime has doubled. So how’s that happen, then?”
Because you either imagined it, you were lied to or because you made it up. No gun crime as “doubled” in the UK since 1996. All gun crime – every single category – has fallen since 1996, and has been steadily falling for a decade, and it’s still falling, and at levels that shame the US. Your statement is just flat-out wrong. See my other post for links so you can check the figures for yourself.
“It’s very, very simple, really: people break the law. Apparently, this is a shock to you.”
Yes. People with legally owned guns sell them to people who don’t have a legal right to own them. That’s how illegal guns happen. Or do you think the bad guys are just making their own guns out of liquorice? The only ways to deal with the illegal guns are (A) magic, or (B) start regulating and restricting the supply, sale and transfer of legal guns.
That’s why I asked you guys to think about the process. You didn’t do it, so I have to explain it. Now you’ll tell my I’m lying or a communist – commence now.
Concealed carry laws allow the bad guys to have guns? Do you really believe this? If a “bad guy” is prepared to break the law to rob/rape/kill, then why do you think he (or she) will go through a lengthy training and certification process (that includes an LEO background investigation they will probably fail) rather than just carry the gun illegally? DOJ statistics actually show that the CCW holders violate gun laws only at the same rate as police officers.
In reply to your last comment:
Gun crime in the UK has increased 85% in the last decade. This was published by a UK publication:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1223193/Culture-violence-Gun-crime-goes-89-decade.html
Guns are mostly manufactured in the US, Not true:
Glock: Austria
Taurus: Brazil
Mauser: Germany
Heckler & Koch: Germany
Israel Weapon Industries: Israel makers of the Tavor, Galil, etc
Caracal: United Arab Emirates
Izhevsk Mechanical Plant: Russia
Accuracy International: UK
There are also thousands of armories around the world creating the AK-47 or some variant.
These are just the larger manufacturers I could find in a few minutes.
Really in this instance your argument is invalid, as arms are made around the world.
*sigh*
Regarding the daily mail article … you just didn’t read what I wrote at all, did you?
Nowhere in that daily mail article does it mention the change in reporting policy. Rather than actually talk about what has happened in reality, they get a quote from an opposition figure. The hint that they’re not at all interested in an honest comparison is that they ignore the per-capita rate and publish the straight figures. Another hint is the cherry-picking – they explicitly exclude air-weapons from the “injured of killed” comparison. Why? Because even WITH the reporting changes, they would have had to report a fall in the numbers. This is what they do. Try finding even ONE newspaper in the UK that reports what that BBC article I mentioned did – that crime is at a 30 year low. Stuff like that just doesn’t sell.
If you’re at all interested (and I suspect you’re not, because you went straight for the UK press for your answers and thought you’d hit paydirt), you’ll go to the link I provided, download the excel spreadsheet, look at table 2.02 for yourself (the one used in that article) and notice the footnote on the 2002/2003 figures, specifically:
“The introduction of the NCRS in April 2002 means that data prior to this date are not directly comparable with later figures”
If you go find yourself a copy of “National Crime Recording Standard (NCRS):
an analysis of the impact on recorded crime”, published July 2003, you can take a look at efforts to estimate the effects of the NCRS on statistics.
Or, if you want to compare it with the british crime survey, you’ll notice that most types of surveyed crime (particularly violent crime) peaked in 1996/1997 and have been dropping since. Look for “British Crime Survey – Measuring crime for 25 years” by Krista Jansson.
You’re just wrong. That’s all there is to it. It’s not an easy area to get simple answers on, I know. But the sheer quantity of (actual) data available says that crime in the UK is not increasing, and has not increased since definitely 2003, probably 2001 and possibly 1997/98. And even if it were increasing, it’s still way, way lower than all kinds of violent crime in the US.
As for your last attempt:
“Really in this instance your argument is invalid, as arms are made around the world.”
Then Stop Importing Them! The underlying problem remains the same – legal guns become illegal guns. Get control over legal guns and then you’ve got a fighting chance of doing something about the latter. If you think you’ve got a good argument for why THAT’S wrong, let’s hear it and leave out the nonsense about switzerland making guns as well. Yeah, well, china and russia make guns as well.
“God made men, but Sam Colt made them equal.” Who said that? I dunno, but the ’73 Single Action Army wasn’t called ‘the peacemaker’ for nothing.
Thank you.
That’s a six-shooter revolver. It shoots 6 rounds before it needs to be reloaded, which takes time. Unlike the supposedly “banned” 30-round magazines easily available to anyone with cash money to spend.
As much as I think the whole self-defense schtick would be unnecessary if the US simply got a clue about semi-automatics, if the whole country just agreed to ban everything except “the peacemaker” … a lot of problems would be over. Your gun homicide rate might just return to levels comparable with rest of the developed world.
yeah, like in jolly ole’ england where they confiscated guns and now GUN CRIME is up substantially, LMAO at liberalism, cancer that it is
Bless the Brits for willingly becoming the bad example for the unintended consequences of draconian gun control.
Not only is gun related crime there on the rise in spite of their total ban on handguns and most long arms, but their incidence of rape is twice that of the United States, and overall rate of violent crime in general five times ours.
*sigh*
Guys, before calling me a communist stooge and liar, at least put the effort into actually looking at the references below.
This is where we run into the problem of definitions. And, to some extent, the UK press.
What counts as “gun crime” in the UK is nothing like the US situation. Most gun crime in the UK today is either people in possession of replica weapons (like the one recently pictured with kate middleton) or vandalism – literally, kids shooting out windows with BB guns. Don’t believe me? Check for yourself:
This is the only direct link I’ll post, or this will end up in moderating and never come out.
http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/publications/science-research-statistics/research-statistics/crime-research/hosb0212/
This is stuff that the FBI simply wouldn’t even bother recording – but it’s the sharp end of the UK’s “gun crime”. And even ignoring that fact, the actual per-capita rates of gun crime in the UK are tiny by US standards.
Look at the gun related assault and homicide stats, and you’ll see that they’ve fallen since 2001. I don’t know if I can get full figures back to 1996, but I’ll give it a go if there’s sufficient demand. The conspicuous spike around 2001 was due to a tightening in reporting requirements. Really, it was – just go look at the numbers and you’ll see that EVERY SINGLE statistic went up – violence, property crime, jaywalking, everything – then very conspicuously started to decline. Where the figures are available, they appear to have been fairly flat, or increasingly slightly, immediately prior to the sudden 2001 change. The UK didn’t just become a war zone overnight.
Look at violent crime generally, and you’ll see that it’s fallen rapidly since 2001, and it’s still falling. And they put the US in the shade.
Take those home office figures for 2011 and you’ll see in the summary on table 2.02 that, of 11,227 firearm offenses – 2,399 resulted in injury. That’s ANY injury (from minor scratches to death). Compare that with the CDC figures for the US – 75,000 people sought medical attention for gunshot injuries in 2010. Go check for yourself – the CDC has a nice online search engine, and it’s easy to find (although the SAS database keeps dropping out – sorry, I didn’t build it). In the last year that the CDC has figures for (2010, from memory), 106,000 Americans were recorded by the CDC as being shot – 31,500 or so died, the rest needed medical attention. Compare that with the UK’s 2400, total (with about 1/7th of the population).
Translated to Australian population the US results would 7,700 people a year in a country of 21 million – if that happened here, there would be nationwide marches in the streets, demanding action. We’d kick out our governments if they allowed that sort of gun crime to occur. You guys just demand more armed guards in schools.
Google “BBC Crime data: Homicide at 30-year England and Wales low” and look at the chart. Or read the whole article, even. That title is entirely accurate, and possibly even understates how well the UK is doing.
But this isn’t what you’ll hear from the UK press, because they desperately need to sell scandal to be in business. The competition for eyeballs over there is astonishing. The US print media has nothing like it – it’s cutthroat competition among 10+ major dailies in London alone. They have no interest at all in telling a story about a safer Britain. Nobody will pay for that. Generally speaking, if it seems sensational, and it came from a UK newspaper, then you really should doubt its accuracy until you’ve checked for yourself.
Note particularly that, when it comes to crime reporting, most UK newspapers will just ignore facts and just run with a quote from the opposition. It’s no wonder the world thinks the UK is hell in a handbag. Look at the actual figures, though, and Britain’s a quiet place.
Check this stuff for yourselves. The UK’s gun crime did not go up by 30% because gun laws were introduced – the statistics DID go up because the government got tough on reporting requirements and shook up the police to get busy. And it’s weapons-grade chutzpah to compare the UK’s levels of violence (of any kind) with the US.
Yeah, this is what I’m talking about.
“Not only is gun related crime there on the rise”
No, that’s flat-out not true. Every category of gun crime has been falling for a decade. Every. Single. Category. The statistics are available, just go and have a look.
“in spite of their total ban on handguns”
Well, almost total. Some pistols are still allowed for specific purposes, but yes, they are very hard to own legally.
“and most long arms”
Hmmm, depends on what you mean by “most”. Semi-automatics are mostly banned, but rifles in general are fine. Self-loading .22 rifles are apparently still permitted.
“and overall rate of violent crime in general five times ours”
Not even slightly close to being in the general region of true. That statement is the opposite of true. It struggles to even be wrong, it’s so flat-out false. Reverse the statement and you’ll be much, much closer to correct.
“but their incidence of rape is twice that of the United States”
This one’s difficult. I’ve been putting a bit too much time into looking at this particular claim. It’s staggeringly difficult to compare rape statistics between countries, because definitions are completely different. In australia, the ABS doesn’t even collect rape stats – it uses a much broader category of sexual assault (and no, I’m not excusing sexual assault, so leave it out).
In the US, the FBI UCR only groups data on “forcible rape”. I.e. penetrative rape, with violence. Statutory rape isn’t counted unless violence is reported. An unconscious victim – it’s not clear to me, but I suspect not unless drinks were spiked. For some reason, if the victim is male it goes under “assault”, and doesn’t appear in the FBI rape statistics at all. The arrests are recorded, sure – but you will never see those crimes appear in the headline figures.
So while australia (I’m not sure about the UK) considers any unwanted assault having a sexual nature in its headline “sexual assault” statistics, the US only considers a very strict subset of those attacks.
The good news, though, is that the FBI announced that it’s going to broaden its definition of “forcible rape” from its current 1920 definition (yeah, seriously). So stay tuned for a bit of an increase on those UCR figures.
So if we ignore the official country statistics because they’re not comparable, then what to do? Well, we could look at victimisation surveys – where a research company interviews a random sample of the population and extrapolates, but these are still country-specific and highly volatile, with different questions based on local assumptions and a completely different standard of proof (which is not to say that anyone’s lying – but you can’t compare anonymous reports over the phone to only those cases that have been through the courts and proven beyond reasonable doubt, you just can’t). So even victim surveys aren’t easily comparable (and I suspect that you’re comparing the BCS with the UCR figures – or somebody’s done if for you – and that’s just ridiculous for the above reasons).
The UN collects surveys through the UNODC, but they’re patchy – cross-year coverage is all over the place, and it’s a mishmash of official figures and victimisation surveys. I have no idea how any can use that stuff to do international comparisons.
However … there used to be one standardised international victimisation survey – the ICVS. Check it out, THEN come back and claim the UK’s (or australia’s) rape figures are higher than the US (hint – page 79 of the main report)
http://rechten.uvt.nl/icvs/#Key_publications_%28including_older_ones%29
Sadly, the last run was in 2004/2005. I’m also worried by the way their numbers jump around. I wonder if that’s why they discontinued it.
No, I very much doubt that rape is more prevalent in the UK than in the US.
30 rd. magazines aren’t banned. They were banned for awhile when you communists had your black, scary guns ban in place. That by the way is the only definition you mental defectives ever really had for “assault weapons.” They were just guns that were really scary to limp-di*ked liberals.
Oh, and I’ll guarantee you that Congresswoman Gifford would not be alive today if she’d taken a round in the head from that old blackpowder .44. Instead of the nice, clean path made by the high-velocity, low mass Glock round, that big, heavy dirty lead ball would have made just one Helluva mess where her brain used to be. The only two military-style rifles I have are a Ruger Mini-14 in .223, the same ammo AR platform weapons like the Bushmaster use, and a P1853 Enfield rifled musket in .58 caliber. You’ll have a Helluva lot better chance of surviving one shot from the Mini-14 than from the Enfield, a 450 gr. minie at 1200 fps really makes a mess of bones and organs, the 55 gr. .223 at 2700+ fps just makes a hole.
You lose.
Criminals have guns that they obtain illegally. They scoff at the law, hoping that you will obey it, because you are then a defenseless victim.
The reasons for the 2nd Ammendment are many, and it appears that all of the reasons are outside your comprehension. That’s OK with me. It is not necessary that you understand, it is only necessary that I and people like me understand the concept.
You and your ilk are not safer because you think you may have an opportunity to disarm me and deprive me of my liberty in the doing. When the SHTF, your personal fan, you will discover that the police apparatus has no duty and is not chartered to protect you from violence; they will not protect you, but they will collect the crime scene evidence that will later become part of your cold case file.
The truth of the matter is that, if the US government breaks the ties that bind us to the Constitution by attempting to destroy of subvert the right to keep and bear firearms of any type, there will immediately arise a black market for firearms that we, the ones that will refuse to surrender that right, will create. That market state currently exists on a limited scale for the crimnal element; why would a gang banger, a drug dealer, or even the common mugger want to have in his possession a federally registered firearm that would be traceable back to him when he uses it in a violent criminal act. Against you, say.
Once you statist nannies criminalize us, and there are very many of us, what would stop us from replaying 1776 on you folks? Damned little, I assure you.
The cops won’t save you. When you need them right now!, they are only an hour or so away. I damned sure would think twice about hazarding myself or anyone I know to save you, knowing that you are either a willing and slavish tool or an enemy to liberty.
I think Sam Adams had it right.
“It shoots 6 rounds before it needs to be reloaded, which takes time.”
Not nearly as much time as you lefties who are afraid of guns think. I have an 1851 Colt Navy in .44 and I have three extra cylinders on my gunbelt. I can get off 24 really big nasty rounds very quickly, not as quick as I can change magazines, but a whole bunch quicker than reloading chamber by chamber. Most WWII infantry weapons had 5 – 10 round magazines; they managed to kill a LOT of people with them.
19th Century blackpowder weapons were lethal enough to kill more men in the Civil War than all other American wars combined. Black powder, muzzleloading weapons enabled the British to rule most of the World. People seem to think that since they’re not modern, they’re not effective. In my experience with re-enactments and such, the two biggest liabilities of blackpowder weapons are the fact that the smoke obscures your sight picture and the smoke reveals your position. The biggest advantage the breechloading weapons of the late Civil War had was that they were much easier to load and fire while lying down behind works. It took a very experienced and skillful infantryman to load and fire a muzzleloader lying down and those who didn’t become skillful died quickly. From the overland campaign onward, the primary cause of combat death was GSW to the head or upper torso as the result of men having to rise above earthworks to load and to aim and fire. The superior rate of fire of the breechloaders was offset to a great degree by the weight and bulk of the ammunition. That’s why the breechloaders were largely a cavalry weapon and Union cavalry came to function essentially as mounted infantry because their horses enabled them to carry adequate ammunition. I’ve carried an Enfield cartridge box with 60 rounds; you definitely know it’s there.
At the time the Colt was made, it was State-of-the-Art technology. It replaced “cap and ball” pistols, which were even slower to reload, and less reliable. A Glock, and/or several other pistols, are the current “State-of-the-Art”
remember: too many good people live in a virtual reality which is projected by television, newsmedia, and academia . for too many of these people being right means agreeing with the majority view
to make any progress in restoring sanity to the nation we must break the spell — which means helping good people see they are watching a show that is controlled by “the man behind the curtain”
it’s hard to do because when a person scraps their media-taught PC opinions they can no longer chit-chat with their buddies without being ridiculed
Welcome to my world. I unplugged from the alphabet media almost 10 years ago. The bulk of my news/information flow comes from the Internet. Unlike most of the low information proles I deal with on a daily basis I read as much as I can from both ends of the political spectrum, as well as from the middle. I am better informed than most of the people with whom I interact and I enjoy a lively debate. In most cases when I engage an “enlightened” progressive using facts, the exchange ends with me being called an extremist. This is particularly common when debating the clear language of the 2nd amendment.
Those who are in favor of arming teachers ignore four important points:
1. Schools are hardly the only soft targets. Why focus on schools? Why not also restaurants, barber shops, theaters–there have been spree shootings in all of those types of establishments too.
2. So we’re really talking about arming some the staff of every public establishment.
3. The chances that most public establishments–especially in liberal Blue States–will agree to that is nil. These proposals to arm teachers and principals are being made without actually *asking* teachers and principals if they would go along with that. I haven’t heard any teachers and principals from Columbine Colorado or Newtown Connecticut demanding firearms now. (Contrast with airline pilots after 9-11, who did demand weapons.)
4. Unless the background checks and certification required to get a license to carry a gun are vastly increased, the more people you arm, the more nutcases you will arm. (In every walk of life, it’s safe to say that at least 1 percent of the people are mentally ill, and another fraction are alcoholics prone to public drunkenness.) So that while a spree shooter might be stopped by a sane armed citizen, there will be a lot more spree shooters out there doing a lot more spree shootings. The body count will be “made up on volume,” so to speak.
Your “Four Important Points” fail to withstand the harsh light of logic.
First, schools are a special case, since they are primarily run by the govt, full of helpless kids among a small percentage of adults, and in the political forefront, with many areas proclaimed “Drug, Gun, or Whatever, Free School Zones”
Other public areas have more adults, and a higher probability of someone there with the potential of fighting back. Plus, if they are smart, they will not put up signs righteously proclaiming that they are a gun free establishment. The Aurora theater made themselves a target by doing just that. In that case, the gunman passed other movie theaters and chose Aurora instead.
No, we are NOT talking about arming someone in every establishment. We are talking about not interfering with individual Americans’ rights to defend themselves.
For your important point 3, the above applies also. With the exception of certain groups like pilots, who have already demonstrated a level of competence in stressful and dangerous situations, nobody is expecting a teacher like the heroic Victoria Soto to be compelled to arm herself. The logical option for most schools is to hire an armed guard. The Obama’s kids’ school, for example, has a whopping eleven.
Your important point 4 is almost to absurd to respond to. A little research on your part would show you that in areas where gun laws have been relaxed, violent crime has gone down. In addition, legal gun permit holders have an overall lower rate of criminal behavior than the general public. In fact, even in situations where the gun owner feels compelled to shoot, they have a lower rate of shooting someone innocent than the police. This is not a slur against the police, but can be explained with simple logic. The gun carrying citizen is already on the scene and knows exactly what is going on, while the police have to rush in and make a split second decision using incomplete information.
You have no idea what you are talking about. You are required to get a full police background check to get a CHL in 46 states. The remaing three states have constitutional carry. People who have CHLs have extremely low crime rates and those who carry on a regular basis practice far more often then many police officers.
No one is arguing that teachers be required to be armed. It would be on a voluntary basis. It might come as a surprise to you but there are quite a few teachers who have been in the military and some who are still in the reserves. I bet there are even few ex-LEOs in the classroom.
Many of the other “soft” targets you talk about already allow concealed carriers in their place of business. Every time I enter a restaurant there is least one armed citizen on the premises. You probably don’t know that Nick Meli stopped the Clachamas Mall shooter when he pulled his gun. Unlike a NYPD officer he didn’t take the shot out of fear hitting the wrong person but it was enough to induce the shooter to commit suicide.
“but it was enough to induce the shooter to commit suicide”
Any you know this … how? The shooter ran around for a while after that encounter, and actually chose NOT to shoot another unarmed mall employee before shooting himself.
It’s an impossibly long bow to try to conclude that one guy pointing a gun at him (which he might or might not have even seen, or processed) had the magical effect of ending the spree several minutes later in another part of the building.
Sheesh.
No, Techno.
It is not only *not* an “impossibly long bow”. It is my direct experience. I was faced with one of the attempts to kill me, with only a sharp hand-axe-like rock of about 4 pounds heft, that by luck, I was able to find just as I also found myself in a dead end. My assailant, quite capable of killing me otherwise, and possibly still capable even with that weapon in my hands, found I had a weapon. It took about a minute to back him down, without violence. People who do this, without any warrant or actual need, are seeking to be predators.
I know this because I have been told so by more than one person, while they tried to kill me.
Once they find out they are *no*longer* certain predators, while facing someone who is certain prey, and have possibly even become prey themselves, they very often fold. It is the change in their minds, from predator to prey that is needed. It is an armed citizen acting within constitutional law that can most quickly and efficaciously make that change happen, because they are right there at the scene, not 20 minutes away.
Uh huh. And have you discussed these things with a professional?
Matches my experiences and observations.
Some of my relatives have legally been declared criminally insane.
Oddly enough, they have never attacked or robbed anyone who could injure them or they knew to be armed.
In any particular incident, we don’t… but that is a strong and recurring pattern in mass shootings, that the shooter stops when confronted by armed opposition, often killing themselves.
A little actual knowledge on the topic is so helpful.
“In any particular incident, we don’t… ”
And if you’d stopped there, that would have been fine.
I see that you’ve used “confronted” there, rather than “stopped”. The shooter in that case was not stopped. He continued on his merry way. Something did happen in his outlook, though – because he had the option of shooting another unarmed person in another part of the mall and didn’t. He wasn’t prevented by armed resistance, he wasn’t cornered, he just decided (for whatever reason) that enough was enough. He could very easily have just kept going – nobody was stopping him.
The reality is that we have no idea what was going through his head. To claim that “it was enough to induce the shooter to commit suicide” is ridiculous.
Re: 3
The odds of “educators” arming themselves in most places are infinitesimally small; the vast majority of them are mind-numbed lefties.
Re: 4
This is silliness. You don’t need a license to carry a gun; if you want to carry, you just strap on a gun. It ain’t bloody likely that the cops are going to pull you over just to see if you’re carrying or even that the cops will care that you’re carrying so long as you’re not misbehaving. An unlawful carry, like marajuana possession, is just something that gets added on if you get arrested for something else. I carried without a permit the whole time I worked in downtown Atlanta and the neighborhood cops knew that I carried just like every other shopkeeper in downtown ATL. I stood on the sidewalk BSing with the beat cops a zillion times with the butt of a .38 Chief’s Special sticking out of my belt. When I went to the bank I’d walk up to the security guard, hand it to him, transact my business with the teller, and go get my gun back.
Here in AK you can carry unless prohibited and can open carry as well. At any time the odds are pretty good that someone in your field of vision is armed, though few carry openly other than a few tubby bearded guys trying to make a point at public events. We do have a formal permitting system but the only reason to get one is to be able to carry when you travel to states with reciprocity. As far as I know, people who are prohibited from owning a gun because of criminal convictions rarely slip by the background checks. If you have a conviction in our courts, anybody can look it up on the court system’s website. Other states may not be so accessible and illegal aliens are their own issue, especially aliens with convictions in their home country. Since one can get a fake identity and an illegal gun on the street in any city in America, those who want to engage in crime and have or use a gun have no trouble doing so without a lot of legal niceties interfereing.
Most states have severe penalties for having a gun while intoxicated. Most states that allow concealed carry prohibit carrying in a licensed establishment. Most states prohibit bringing a weapon of any sort, concealed or open, into a licensed establishment. Consequently, the person that goes on that drunken spree you’re so worried about is breaking two or more laws before he ever fires the weapon. And realistically, the odds of that alcoholic you’re so worried about strapping on a gun and shooting up the neighborhood tavern are somewhere between slim and none.
The real issue with mass shootings is sicko young males who’ve been protected by the mental health system and their parents and who won’t show on ANY data base no matter how intrusive the government tries to be with the current state of mental health law and medical privacy laws and policies. The rumblings are already starting with articles in the NYT picked up by McClatchy today about the poor ATF’s outdated data systems and all the NRA backed restrictions on the ATF’s ability to do its job. Well the ATF’s reputation as jackbooted thugs is well established and they should be abolished, not given more power.
The only thing that all this hysteria will accomplish is restricting the activities and rights of people who obey the law. The NRA had it right a long time ago with, “When guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns.” How many crimes are committed by someone lawfully carrying? How many crimes are committed by the lawful owner of the gun used in the crime?
You obviously have issues with guns and gun owners but the reality is that lawful owners rarely commit gun crimes. Blacks, illegals, and whacko young men using stolen or otherwise illegally obtained guns commit gun crimes. Obviously mentally ill young men are protected by their parents and by the mental health system. Maybe you and the ACLU can look into doing something about that before you tamper with the rights and privileges of law abiding citizens.
Well said. A lot of what you said about Alaska applies to Wyoming as well.
You obviously don’t read the stories from New York about people with licenses in their own states being arrested for carrying their pistol in New York. A few years ago Harry Connick Jr was arrested for having an unloaded pistol in his checked baggage while changing planes in New York.
Your experience in Atlanta is absolutely not applicable in other parts of the country like New York, New Jersey, Massachusetts, Detroit, DC or Chicago. Anybody who listens to you is likely to be in for a very hard time. Police in those places love to “take another gun off the street” and it is much easier for them when the person they arrest is someone who ignorantly fell afoul of their laws rather than some meth head or gang banger just out of prison.
If you are on trial for felony gun possession in one of the blue states, the “some guy on the internet said it was no big deal” defense is not going to do you any good.
You misunderstand, Gilligan. I know it is illegal to conceal carry without a permit in most places. Adultery is still illegal in most places and that must be why nobody does it. The only people who obey laws are the people who obey laws and people who don’t obey laws don’t care that carrying is illegal. All they do is stick a pistol in their pocket when they feel like it without a thought of a permit. It was illegal in ATL at the time and permits were hard to get. There was also a war going on between merchants and cops and the street thugs. Ultimately the street thugs won and downtown ATL is pretty much abandoned, at least by whites, at sundown except the heavily protected sports venues, Underground Atlanta, and a few other places that have their own security or “special” relations with the community, e.g, some of the fancy clubs and strip joints frequented by professional sports figures and entertainers. When we left ATL in ’74, I sold my handguns and didn’t even own another one until the early ’90s. On the rare ocassions I go see my relatives in GA, I fly into Hartsfield, get my rental car, and get out of ATL as quickly as I can. Some of the ATL burbs are very nice, however.
All the cases I know of like Connick, the Tea Party guy, others that have made the news involved some kind of screening, the Tea Party guy was changing planes or something, or some other act that brought them to the cops’ attention. It may happen ocassionally that a cop says to himself, “hey, that guy’s jacket fits funny, I think I’ll go see if he’s carrying a gun,” but I don’t think it happens much except maybe in neighborhoods where lots of people are known to be armed or in dealing with people who are already known to the cops. Anyway, it should be the fashion police who get the guy whose jacket fits funny; any good tailor can make sure that a reasonably sized weapon doesn’t print your suit jacket.
do re me me me: “Sinz I left you baby, my whole life has changed…”
“2. So we’re really talking about arming some the staff of every public establishment.”
Those places where I live don’t need an armed staff member when I’m patronizing them, because when I’m there I’m armed.
“Those who are in favor of arming teachers ignore four important points:”
No-one is advocating arming teachers, although many of us are in favor of posting armed guards in our schools.
“1. Schools are hardly the only soft targets. Why focus on schools? Why not also restaurants, barber shops, theaters–there have been spree shootings in all of those types of establishments too.”
Why did Willie Sutton rob banks?
Because schools are where the children are, dummy. They are the most vulnerable, and are therefore most in need of protection
“2. So we’re really talking about arming some the staff of every public establishment.”
No…that’s the straw-man argument that you have decided to set up so that you can marvel at your ability to knock it down. You are fooling no-one here but yourself.
“3. The chances that most public establishments–especially in liberal Blue States–will agree to that is nil. These proposals to arm teachers and principals are being made without actually *asking* teachers and principals if they would go along with that. I haven’t heard any teachers and principals from Columbine Colorado or Newtown Connecticut demanding firearms now. (Contrast with airline pilots after 9-11, who did demand weapons.)”
Then the liberal blue states, like Connecticut are being negligent in doing what we know works to avert violent crime in banks, jewelry stores and police stations.
THEIR negligence is no just cause to infringe upon the rest of the nation’s rights.
And FYI, my wife works in a high school, and several of the teachers and aides possess CCW’s. While they are prohibited from carrying in the building, They are allowed to have their guns in their locked vehicles in the parking lot. And I certainly hope that they DO.
“4. Unless the background checks and certification required to get a license to carry a gun are vastly increased, the more people you arm, the more nutcases you will arm. (In every walk of life, it’s safe to say that at least 1 percent of the people are mentally ill, and another fraction are alcoholics prone to public drunkenness.) So that while a spree shooter might be stopped by a sane armed citizen, there will be a lot more spree shooters out there doing a lot more spree shootings. The body count will be “made up on volume,” so to speak”
This is the same “our streets will be like the Wild West” argument that was advanced when the move to liberalize CCW permitting was in full-swing. It was wrong then, and it is wrong now.
In fcat, the EXACT OPPOSITE of what the gun-control weenies predicted happened. Violent crime DECREASED. Our streets became safer.
> No-one is advocating arming teachers
Well, some people are. But more to the point, I don’t think those people are suggesting that we should require all teachers to be armed even if they don’t want to be, but rather that we should allow carry to whichever teachers wish to be armed and are adequately trained in doing so.
I would permit teachers who did not want to personally carry a gun to protect the children to fulfill their responsibility by hiring armed guards.
Protecting the children should be a responsibility of any school employee. That is part of what they are compensated for.
“Protecting the children should be a responsibility of any school employee. That is part of what they are compensated for.”
No, it isn’t. There are some schools that have armed security; they do have some responsibility to protect the children. Other school employees were hired for some body of knowlege, skill, and abilities, none of which included facing an armed assailant. The custodians, the clerks, the teachers, the principals can rightfully be obligated to not harm the children. They are obligated to not be negligent and negligently cause or suffer harm. But they cannot be obligated on the basis of the skills for which they were hired to take action to save the children.
Putting on my employer hat, trained, certificated law enforcement officers do enough dumb stuff that creates liability and gets people hurt, so we want to give the power to use deadly force to somebody who has nothing like the training in lawful use of force that a LEO receives. Ok, I know all the arguments about how much more range time a CC holder has than a typical LEO, but range time isn’t shoot-don’t shoot training. And even with the training the LEOs blow it from time to time.
In order to defend the city or school district, you’d have to come up with a job classification for “Armed Teacher,” set out the knowlege, skill, and ability required to be an Armed Teacher, determine the essential functions of the job of Armed Teacher to determine what disabilities can be accomodated under the Americans with Disabilities Act, set out the distinguishing characteristics of an Armed Teacher as opposed to an unarmed teacher, set out the specific training required, have your testing and interviewing techniques validated for racial and gender neutrality and to prove that any requirements that are not neutral have legitimate business utility, write reams of policy and procedure and probably promulgate legislation about when an Armed Teacher can be armed, can use those arms, and is obligated to use those arms. And there’s probably more but those come readily to mind.
And then after you do all that, you get to have twelve morons with driver’s licenses determine just how much the government has to pay because your Armed Teacher shot somebody, or didn’t shoot somebody, or why some screwup didn’t get hired or promoted to the position of Armed Teacher. And all this for people the vast majority of whom do not want to even touch or see a gun.
schools need only invite volunteer unpaid guards from retired cops, retired military, and the like. they provide their own guns and frangible ammo.
@John Cunningham -
Totally unrealistic in today’s legal environment; the liability issues are insurmountable, and, frankly, so are the management issues. It is damned hard to supervise volunteers and if you let them volunteer for duties with a governmental employers, that employer is liable for what they do.
@Art Chance
I really enjoy your frequent posts reflecting your real world experience with the inner workings of government/unions/lawyers. A little reality is always useful. That said, here I think you give up too easily on a part of a real solution- partial always, I understand. A gun free zone without internal self defense is a free fire zone once penetrated. The question is not whether some kind of internal armed security in a school is a good idea, it is how it could be accomplished.
Is it impossible to imagine an authorizing act, a law, which could alleviate or correct many of the bureaucratic stumbling blocks you listed? A limitation of tort responsibility, with clear cut training and screening requirements? An agreement with the local teachers union to exempt this issue from bargaining, to safeguard the kids? Simply qualifying a few willing teachers and administrators as part time special deputy sheriffs, even w/o pay?
I’m reasonably familiar with the glacial pace and unreasonable rigidity of government bureaucracies, but sometimes the answer has to be, not giving up on an answer, but grinding one out- or, more normally, going over their heads with a law, executive order, or, in most of my experience, a command decision. This seems to me to be one of those subjects that require a solution instead of tolerating their roadblocks. And I bet you can figure out a way over or around those roadblocks better than I ever could. Somebody has to.
If the left keeps the issue one of gun control and the media keeps spending weeks cogitating over every incident, in painful detail, this will happen again.
Months of arguing gun control and changing medical privacy laws will simply peter out into silence until the next nut shows up.
@DaveJ
You could do it, and you probably should, but you can’t do it by saying, “Make it so.” You’d have to use some sort of designated security staff or all the other problems would just overwhelm you. Sorry, I’d never authorize arming teachers or even letting CC authorized teachers carry in the school. I went through this with probation officers who wanted to be armed once upon a time; Ok let’s do the psych evals, the range qualifications, etc. Oh, you smoked dope when you were in college; sorry! I didn’t make the world we live in, but I do understand it.
@Artt Chance
Actually, I agree that designated security types whose sole job is just that, security, is by far the better solution. They are obvious, which helps discourage the nuts, and not tied up with the teachers unions, the students and their problems, etc. Paying for them would be bucking the teachers unions, but I suspect they’d get less than a teacher and be better at what they do.
Volunteer special deputies/officers?
Yes; I can foresee a serious problem having some of Obama’s faithful teachers becoming disgruntled over not enough students paying homage to the “Mess Eye Ya”.
I can speak Hegelian dialectic when it’s absolutely called for. That’s why I advocate arming students.
See, some people don’t realize how moderate we’re being when we call for teachers not being debilitated from the means of defense. That’s because they can’t imagine any stance farther away from their own. To that end, I offer myself here.
Arm the students, say I. First choice, mandatory firearms training for every one of them. Second choice, parent-validated volunteers only. Third choice, JROTC.
There. Now, “arming teachers” doesn’t look so radical, does it? You’re welcome.
Sensible people are advocating allowing any teacher to arm himself, if he wishes to do so.
Not THIS sensible person; see my comment above. And remember unlike most pontificating here, I’ve actually defended an employer for its employees actions and disciplined and dismissed employees for their actions in the course of their employment.
You seem to be ignoring, or ignorant of the fact that the state of Utah has been doing this for 10 years now. No school shootings and no legal problems so far. I also suspect that if the principal at Sandy Hook Elementary had pulled out a .38 and shoot the perp, you couldn’t find 12 people in Connecticutt who would convict her of anything!
Back “in my day” as we geezers say the principal would have had a 12 gauge in the corner of his office and all of the male teachers would have had a non-discussed plan. The janitor would have been in on the act and all would have come to pass with no discussion or debate. The kids would have been told to not be afraid since the men were in charge. “Now, let’s not talk about it and let’s all get to work on our lessons”. Those days are gone and we’re paying the price.
I’d be willing to bet that I could find 12 morons in Connecticut to convict the principal of murder if s/he fired on a perp or who would award a bazillion dollars in damages against the SD or the State for having let the principal have a gun. Have you ever been to CT? Yeah, it has some ritzy NYC suburbs but mostly it is a worn out third world shithole. Yeah, if I’m a plaintiffs attorney, I can find a good jury there.
you act like you the smartest person here but you are a real dolt a very simple drafting of a law WOULD get rid of all your straw dod arguments loser and stop acting like you know more then anyone esle because you really don’t dolt
@Bill Sellers -
OK, genius, tell us what your magical legislation that would allow concealed carry eligible or permitted teachers to be armed at school and use arms in defense of themselves and others would look like. If your fundamental premise is that the teacher and the school/SD/government would be relieved of liability for a “good shoot,” tell us what your policies describing a good shoot would look like, who would decide if a shoot was good and how, and who would be liable for a “bad shoot.”? In the case of a bad shoot, and they happen even with well-trained cops, how would liability be apportioned between the school employee and the school system/government? How do you intend to rationalize your state or local law with federal law? So far, school shootings have been the exclusive province of whites but that won’t always be the case. What if the shooter is black, the armed school employee who shoots him is a “white hispanic” and the state or federal government doesn’t agree with your School Board’s conclusion that it was a good shoot? Who defends? Who pays?
Most states and polisubs have waived some or all of their sovereign immunity because of the political liability of facing the people with the government’s refusal to allow itself to be sued. Do you believe that it is a good idea to reinstitute sovereign immunity generally or just for the specific purpose of protecting a school’s management and employees in the case of a shooting by an armed school employee? How do you distinguish for purposes of asserting sovereign immunity an armed school employee from a commissioned law enforcement officer or would you extend sovereign immunity to cover shootings by cops as well? Your turn genius.
@Bill Sellers -
Oh, and Bill, I may or may not be the smartest person here but I’m one Helluva lot smarter than you when it comes to composing and punctuating English sentences. Maybe I’m just old-fashioned but I think a person’s grammar and syntax says a lot about them. Maybe you can get your money back from whatever school taught you English.
By definition, if you are not advocating that we do away with the senseless prohibitions on citizens arming themselves because they happen to be teachers, you are not a sensible person.
By your definition, Markv, not mine. You’d have to do away with a lot more than just carry laws applying to teachers. Do you know any teachers? We really aren’t talking about people with the training or inclination to be given authorization to use deadly force on behalf of the state. Only in the rural areas and some of the West is there much likelihood that a person with an Ed Degree has ever handled a gun or faced any danger or confrontation.
This is an excellent column, and you’ve made an excellent response – dramatically misread by most of the previous responders.
You are really asking, what can we project if we increase the number of guns, and you list some valid downsides (plus or minus some technical quibbles). The answer many give is that the increase in guns tends to negate some of the downsides, that most nutcases, knowing how many more guns are about, turn their nuttiness somewhere else. Crazy does not equal stupid!
And of course, in many schools, knowledge that the teacher has a gun will lead to students working to steal the gun, for fun or profit.
What your argument really proposes is that maybe the status quo isn’t so bad after all. Fewer guns mean fewer good guys have them, more guns mean more bad guys have them. Maybe we’re not as dumb as all that after all, or at least no clearly better situations are available on either side.
Holy crap, you are in way over your head, Josh:
“And of course, in many schools, knowledge that the teacher has a gun will lead to students working to steal the gun, for fun or profit.”
So knowledge that the teacher has money, a car, sunglasses, etc., etc., is causing a theft crime wavew in many of our schools? Huh? Is someone paying you to write zany stuff like that, are you doing it for fun or profit?
Have you ever had a kid, seen a kid, been a kid, been in school?
Okay Josh;
Let’s give all postal personnel permits to carry since there’s been so many instances of shootings at Postal Facilities.
Well I had three girls that are now women and they all carry guns concealed and are proficient with these weapons (legally of course) my wife is dead and she was also a great marksman we are all law abiding and pleasant and we know how and when to use our weapons, to date no problem…stand by for updates Stupid liberal/progressive/communist/socialist!
You see we are the norm not the nuts you think we are prepared and you are not so when the SHTF it will not only be all over your face but we will be alive and you my misinformed idiot will be gravely harmed or DOA!
Odd how all of these “insane” people manage to make very sane decisions when it comes to choosing their targets.
Your arguement demonstrates how out of touch you really are. The whole idea of concealed carry is the word CONCEALED! Nobody knows who has a gun. I carry my guns concealed just about everywhere I go and nobody knows it but me. All of this Bull S**t about teachers dropping their gun or loosing their gun or having their gun stolen is mindless propaganda. Every responsible gun owner knows you NEVER let anything like that happen. These lib lies are completely discredited here. Go back to Obama Fantasyland where terrorist attacks are blamed on youtube videos. You have no business in the real world.
Here are the serious four points for anybody taking on this debate:
• loss of control of its territory, or of the monopoly on the legitimate use of physical force therein
• erosion of legitimate authority to make collective decisions
• an inability to provide public services
• an inability to interact with other states as a full member of the international community
from the wiki article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Failed_state
The political left and progressive factions are convinced that rightist platforms, policies and legislations are leading to these conditions. That is why they oppose universal gun ownership and support gun control. All the rest is blather…….
Quoting Wikipedia is to serious conversation as Burger King is to gourmet food.
I could’ve quoted from the Guardian article oh, wait……. that’s another discreditable source…….
NEWS FEED: thinking liberals oppose universal availability and distribution of firearms due to the failed state issue. They’re convinced proponents of conservative issues and pro-gun policies do not take it seriously. Those are legitimate concerns, though certain conclusions are not justified. Let’s revisit this after the fall off the fiscal cliff and see if those concerns look any more daft. I like those four points delineating failed statehood. They are very good, even if I got them out of the bin. The talk around here about armed guards and the lot ignoring this is a waste of time……..
I’m up to my bits in stuffed teddy bears and placards with weepy sentiments written in neon marker pen. Are you? I’m also up to there with bulletproof sliding glass doors and alarm systems and lock downs and combat training for reluctant first form teachers. Hello…… the argument for gun control comes from a logical place. The argument AGAINST that argument comes from there, too, if anybody’s interested……..
lzzrdgrrl;
“Logic” is not transient, nor an attribute of the Ph.D.
It once was a college level course of its own. And intensive study of mathematics and the hard sciences teach logic.
PHILOSOPHY has NOTHING to do with “LOGIC”, reasoning, or rationale.
Due to the elimination and corruption of math and the sciences at the elementary level, America now has a monumental IQ problem blatantly obvious throughout the current generation of politicians and their electorate.
How little you know.
Logic remains “a college level course of its own” – typically taught in the Philosophy department. Often the Philosophy department has at least three logic courses listed in the catalog, a lower-division logic and practical reasoning course for non-majors, a rigorous introductory symbolic logic course intended for majors and an upper-division advanced course also for majors. The whole field of logic was invented by philosophers. It only got adopted by mathematicians after it was developed enough to be arithmetized and by computer engineers after the methods of logical calculus were made rigorous enough to be mechanized.
Micha Elyi;
I know this discussion can lead to tomes of debate, so, I’ll yield here.
I meant to imply to “philosophy” in the “ideological” sense, and “logic” in the sense of “validation of arguments”.
Thanks for the reply; It’s been a few decades since I’ve seen any college curriculum. My last “logic” course was offered in the math department at my campus.
I categorically reject all four points as being alien and antihetical to the principles of the American Constitutional order, and to the protection of liberty in general. The American state does not exist to provide services, but to make sure that nothing, including itself, impairs the liberties of the citizenry, and their freedom to sell services to each other. The American state does not control territory, the citizens do that through private property, which the American state holds sacrosanct, and will defend with deadly foce against any foreign invasion. The American state consists of fifty States, among which the use of force is divided and highly constrained, and there is no monopoly on the use of force by any one agency, nor is the use of force monopolized by the state in general, but shared with the citizenry according to Reason and the inherited common law. Moreover, the federal government was created by the States and continues to exist at their pleasure. That list of four points seems to have been composed by some New Age Marxian-indoctrinated Leftist think tank (in other words, by a bunch of inebriated college sophomores) who got jobs at the UN.
sinz54, you are wilfully blind—at best.
I’m a teacher: if my board offered courses in the use of a gun and allowed me to carry, I’d be first in line. (And I’ve wondered if that brave principal grabbed a chair or other, very heavy, potentially lethal object, like the paper weight beside me now: to have run into danger with no hope of offence, or just defence, isn’t very helpful.)
You ask, “Why focus on schools?” That tells me a couple of things about you, sinz: you have no children and no imagination. You ask, so I’ll tell you “why . . . schools”: listen up.
To the civilized, our children are our most precious gifts: precious beyond price. Most new parents are utterly swept away by the fierce love they feel for their child—whether it’s #1 or #10: after having a child, most parents feel “in love” with the miraculous creation in their care. They truly understand John 15:13 (that’s in the Bible): “Greater love hath no man than this, that a man lay down his life for his friends.” Unless they’re very emotionally/spiritually wounded, mothers of just about all species—and human fathers—will willingly and courageously lay down their lives for their children. A slaughter of the innocents hits civilized people where we’re most vulnerable. So, sinz, that’s “why . . . schools”.
(Check out Matthew 2:16-18.
“Then Herod, when he saw that he was deceived by the wise men, was exceedingly angry; and he sent forth and put to death all the male children who were in Bethlehem . . . Then was fulfilled what was spoken by Jeremiah the prophet, saying: ‘A voice was heard in Ramah/ Lamentation, weeping, and great mourning,/ Rachel weeping for her children,/ Refusing to be comforted,/ Because they are no more.’”
The Feast of the Holy Innocents is in two days, sinz, on December 28. You might meditate on this.)
Protecting the lives of our children is more important to mature adults than protecting ourselves. We can’t always do that, but when we fail, we try to find ways to a different outcome. Along with my teaching responsibilities, I’d be altogether willing, and even honoured, to be charged with the responsibility of having a weapon I knew how to use—in case I needed to. It seems to me that arming willing teachers is a VERY reasonable thing to do.
I think you use the term “civilized” incorrectly. Civilizations have massacred and tortured children and other humans for eons. The Incas and Canaanites, for example, sacrificed children to their gods, and they were hardly unique. All civilizations have always accepted the right of the monarch to kill without explanation, and that continues to this day, in spite of the fact that today’s “monarchs” allow us to complain about it, even as the judicial murders continue unabated. Julius Ceasar killed 25% of the population of Gaul. It is hard to know how many millions were killed by the first emperor of China, but it was many millions. Point is that the term “civilized” has nothing to do with “loving”, “humane”, “life-affirming”, or “just”. It is part of our ever deepening crisis that we are so afraid to use the term “God-fearing”, that we have to turn “civilized” into a euphemism to avoid saying the unspeakable truth. A few outcast philosophers who usually ended up ostracized or dead to the contrary, no civilzation ever concerned itself with being humane until enough God-fearing people appeared to make kings and emperors kneel at His altar to maintain their legitimacy. We are so determined to avoid offending the secular-minded among us, and so accustomed to being offended by the secularists, that our tounges are tied, ans so we never get to the heart of the truth.
I think you’re missing the point about civilizations sacrificing their children; if you’re beseeching the “GOD’s” for a miracle, you offer up your most precious possession. The Bible notes that point when Cain’s offering is rejected because it isn’t his best.
“So we’re really talking about arming some the staff of every public establishment.”
Yes, AKA the 2nd amendment, which the Supreme Court had upheld many times. What is wrong with that? You must be a cheap tipper.
The point behind all this kurflaw is that more laws will NOT prevent more slaughter. A shooter that wasn’t stopped by 14 laws will not be stopped by 15. Or 1500 or even 15,000.
Just a fact. Criminals do not care about breaking the law, that is why they are criminals.
You want more laws, try them somewhere else. The media or violent console games would be a logical place to start.
First, not every teacher or principal or school would have to be armed. Those who have personal reasons or are squeamish or are unable could opt out. This can all be done privately where perhaps only the principal and the police know which teachers are armed. A would-be shooter would not have access to this information and would be guessing and hoping.
To get a concealed handgun license in my state, you have to submit 2 photos, 2 sets of fingerprints to be run by the FBI and kept on file by the state. You have to pass state, BATFE and FBI background checks. You have to take classes on state law. You have to take classes on alternative ways to deal with violence and felonies. You have to pass a competency test with a handgun at a shooting range. Mine was at a police range with a policeman giving the test. It all cost about $300, not including any gun or ammo. I know, it’s too easy to get a concealed handgun license.
sinz, it frankly doesn’t matter what they post or agree to. Like the CCW holder in Oregon who stopped the Clackamas shooting by being there armed, unless the business wants armed guards at every entrance equipped with metal detectors, I will be carrying concealed. Concealed, for morons, means they won’t see it unless I need it.
Even in CA, a state notoriously stingy with CCW’s, you can rely on someone having a gun in two types of public place (mainly because CA hasn’t become so deranged as to prohibit store owners, and their designated employees, from “packing”):
Jewelry Stores, and Gun Shops.
In fact, some jewelry store owners have, over time, gathered themselves a reputation for apprehending criminals who try to rob them; but they don’t usually send them to jail, but to the morgue.
When was the last time you heard about a strong-arm robbery at a gunstore?
Happens very rarely since most employees are carrying openly. You want to knock over a gunstore, you do it when it’s closed, and there’s nobody there to shoot you.
Also, no one in their right mind would ever try to rob the bartender or patrons at a “cop bar” (right, Jack?).
The solution is for relaxed CCW requirements (are you listening Sacramento, L.A. Co., and L.A. City?), and for employers to not be such sticks-in-the-mud when it comes to their employees packing on-the-job.
7-11′s policy of just giving the guy the money, and never having a gun on the premises hasn’t really done much to cut down the robbery attempts in their stores.
A few dead robbers gets the attention of the thugocracy.
They know that the cost of doing business is too high, and that they need to set their sights on more low-hanging fruit.
Another good approach is laws like VA’s, which adds serious time to any crime committed with, or simply carrying, a firearm. Criminals avoid that hazard too.
The state of Vermont has very relaxed gun laws, Massachusetts has draconian gun laws. Please compare and contrast the state of crime in those 2 states.
Answer: Much safer in VT than in MASS, thanks Massholes!
Can anyone point out where gun control has worked? Is there any state in the world where guns for the citizens are banned and there isn’t anyone with a gun who isn’t in law enforcement or the military? I’m sure Iraq, Iran, Syria, Egypt and the former USSR absolutely banned citizens from owning guns and they got in anyway. I remember the kurds in Iraq who I am sure weren’t allowed to own guns fighting against the Iraqi government and they weren’t using harsh language or emotional manipulation. The point is you can ban guns all you want but they will get in anyway. You’ll never stop a determined crazy or criminal from obtaining a gun. It’s a kindergarten fantasy. Isn’t it better that a person who is law abiding, as the overwhelming majority of legal gun owners in the united states are, own the guns? Unfortunately in uncertain times the crazies come out of the woodwork. It’s an unfortunate fact. We don’t live in a safe world. We never have and we never will. No amount of laws will change that. Maybe if we as a culture stop glorifying violence and dysfunction then these people seeking their 15 minutes of fame might try something other than “shocking” people with their egregious deeds. Which leads me full circle. Can anyone identify anywhere in the world where gun control has worked?
I can:
1911 – Turkey disarmed it’s citizens, and between 1915 – 1917 they murdered 1.5 million Armenians.
1929 – Russia disarmed it’s citizens, and between 1929 – 1953 they murdered 20 million Russians.
1935 – China disarmed it’s citizens, and between 1948 – 1952 they murdered 20 million Chinese.
1938 – Germany disarmed it’s citizens, and between 1939 – 1945 they murdered 16 million Jews.
1956 – Cambodia disarmed it’s citizens, and between 1975 – 1977 they murdered 1 million Educated people.
1964 – Guatamala disarmed it’s citizens, and between 1964 – 1981 they murdered 100,000 Mayan Indians.
1970 – Uganda disarmed it’s citizens, and between 1971 – 1979 they murdered 300,000 Christians.
(H/T to whomever it was that originally put together the above list)
It must never be forgotten that the goal of disarmament is totalitarianism.
Sandy Hook, as it relates to gun control, is a red herring. The left does not give the first s*** about those poor children that were shot to death; if they did give a s*** about the health and well-being of children, you’d find them railing about the holocaust of abortion in this nation. The only difference between those kindergarteners and the aborted fetus is a matter of a few days.
This is about the usurpation of power granted to the citizen as an individual by God, and guaranteed by the Consititution.
Rahm Emmanuel put it best “Never let a crisis go to waste”
And just as you could have read Mein Kampf during the 1930′s and gotten a very clear message about the intentions of Adolph Hitler, you can read and, in our modern age, watch exactly what these nacant dictators want to accomplish.
From Jeremiah Wright to Anita Dunn to Van Jones to Barry Soetoro, all of these crypto-marxists have provided ample documentation of their traitorous intent. It is abundantly clear that only in hindsight (as it was in post-nazi Germany) will the blind see the error of their ways.
1938 – Germany disarmed it’s citizens, and between 1939 – 1945 they murdered 16 million Jews.
This one needs a revision. Germany murdered 6 million Jews and 5 million others (Jehovah’s Witnesses, Gypsys, homosexuals and others). Not all of them were German. Most of the Jews were from other countries like Poland and the Soviet Union.
Your point stands, though. Death by government was one of the leading causes of death in the 20th century and disarming the population was one of the ways they accomplished their mass murders.
Turfmann , thanks for the stats . It appears disarming citizens has more population thining effects than out right war.
Sadness comes when one realizes the victims were sane and Liberal Insanity killed
them .
turfmann, well said!
(English teacher that I am: it’s “disarmed ITS citizens” and “nascent”.)
Many thanks for your helpful information.
Are you my long-departed English teacher chastising me from the Great Beyond or are you merely a mortal English teacher?
My grammar and syntax are inversely related to the rage I feel as I type – kittens and puppies = no errors, Barack Obama causes I too go of the deap end wid my spellings and grammer.
Roger that! I truly unnerstan: Obama drives me CRAZEE to.
Cheers!
Before I get into this I want to be clear that the regimes you mentioned represent some of the darkest times that ever occurred and I will never try to defend them or the horror they imposed on their people. As oppressive as these regimes were they were not able to completely stop guns from entering their country. Nazi Germany had various armed resistance groups fighting from within arguably most notably was the french resistance. The USSR had rampant organized crime syndicates throughout its territories which were well armed. (Again I am not taking a moral stance on the USSR’s organized crime and you may have a good argument that they were armed by the government but they were there and they were armed) Pol Pot had various armed factions fighting against his regime. Guatemala saw the guerrilla army of the poor and the organization of the people in arms just to name a few. Uganda also saw its resistance in the Lord’s resistance movement. The point is these oppressive regimes forbade guns and they got in anyway. In some of the cases eg the lords resistance movement the resistance was as bad as the existing regime. Again I belive the list of governments you mentioned were horribly oppressive and their actions are indefensible. In the context of an oppressive regime preventing groups from obtaining guns, the guns still got in. You may have me on China as I can’t find any armed resistance in china.
Regarding the comment dec 27 7;13 Am is mine. Sorry I forgot my name. Another one for the blooper reel.
“Can anyone point out where gun control has worked?”
The question is “worked for whom?” For the examples you give, it worked out very well for those who did the disarming.
It always does.
And that’s the point.
The key phrase here is
First of all, the gun-controllers (or, let’s be honest, and call them what they are- gun-banners), simply do not believe this. They are firmly in the camp of those (including lawyers) who believe that government can do anything if given the power they believe it should have.
They believe, as an article of faith, that government can make everything perfect, safe, clean, and tranquil… if everyone outside of same just shuts up and does whatever those inside of same tell them. Exactly how they intend to accomplish this, in defiance of roughly 100,000 years of human evolution, is something they either haven’t thought about, or else believe they don’t need to consider. Why?
Because they are the “enlightened elite’”. The ultimate product of evolution. The Alpha and Omega of human experience. Not only have they evolved to a higher moral and intellectual plain than everyone else, they can never be “out-evolved”. Human perfection begins, and ends, with them. Q.E.D.
As such, whatever they want to happen, will. Simply because, to them, it is logically impossible for them to be wrong, factually or otherwise, about anything.
This carries with it an utter and complete contempt for anyone who dares to disagree with them. Sometimes it is veiled, but more often these days it is open, sneering, and frankly nearly violent. They do not view “differences of opinion” as legitimate; they view them as a challenge to their self-perceived perfection, and the power they believe they are entitled to. And they tend to react like the Alpha male of a pack of feral canines when challenged by another dog.
Therefore, they believe that government not only should, but must, have absolute power over the people. Because they believe that only they should govern, and that they should be “free” to make whatever decisions they see fit for society as a whole. For the “greater good”.
This is of course straight out of Plato’s Republic, one of the nastiest examples of a plan for a “dictatorship of the chosen” ever conceived by the mind of man. I believe only Mein Kampf exceeds it for the sheer ruthlessness with which Plato intended to enforce his supposedly greater wisdom on everyone else;
This probably explains why our “thought leaders” don’t care much about facts, or actively misrepresent them, when engaged in one of their crusades, no matter what the subject. As Jack Nicholson said in A Few Good Men , they firmly believe that we “can’t handle the truth”. And they know what it is, because the “truth” is whatever they want it to be.
The trouble with this mindset is that reality rarely conforms to the wishes of those who believe their theories outweigh facts. In past eras, this was rarely a problem, as those who refused to conform their dogmas to fact didn’t last too long.
The Zulu were taught that their tribal shamans’ spells made them immune to bullets. The .577/.450 Martini-Henry was not impressed. The Children’s Crusade was conceived by monks who believed that faith alone could make the Caliph of Baghdad conform to Christian values. He probably thanked them for delivering so many slaves to him with no strings attached. And so on.
Our problem today is that, in spite of all assumptions to the contrary brought on by improved telecommunications and education, we live in what is probably the safest society the world has ever seen. People rarely die of malnutrition these days. They seldom fall victim to plague. And they rarely are killed by an army sacking a city after it is taken in war. (Google “Mehmed II, Constantinople” and/or “Tilly, Thirty Years War” for some object lessons in what that’s like.)
The result has been at least two entire generations of (pseudo-)intellectuals who feel the need for a grand campaign to prove their superiority… who have nothing useful to campaign against. As such, they have decided to campaign against… the rest of their own society. Especially those who do not think as they do, and/or refuse to obey them when they demand obeisance.
They really hate being asked “Why should I let you make decisions for me? Someone you don’t know, and don’t even particularly like, because I’m not exactly like you?”
This is at the heart of the “gun control” debate. The “elite’” see gun owners as different, and therefore automatically classify them as a threat- to them. This explains why many such insist on having armed bodyguards when they want the rest of society disarmed. They not only fear the rest of us, they will not feel even halfway “safe” until we are (a) helpless, and (b) under their complete control.
And even then, they will insist on their armed bodyguards, as much as anything else to rub our noses in their “superiority”. R.H.I.P., and all that.
In short, for all their multicultural pretensions, gun-control mavens are some of the worst bigots on Earth. They luxuriate in the idea that they have found a group of people (gun owners) whom they can hate with a clear conscience, simultaneously indulging a base, rather corrupt human emotional desire while still telling themselves how “enlightened” and “broad-minded” they are.
Now consider what might happen if they, and the rest of their cohorts (deep-ecology activists, other “progressive reformers”), ever attained the total, unchallengeable power over everyone else they crave.
It wouldn’t be pretty. And I’m not entirely sure civilization would survive the results.
clear ether
eon
You’re absolutely right (though nobody will pay attention because you said “evolution” instead of “creation”).
The only thing is that I think that mass violence is much, much, much closer to our doorstep. The Younger progressives (21-30) are steadily clamoring for those who disagree with them to be killed, thinking that the deaths of anybody older than them are all that’s standing between them and their “holy trinity” of legalized marijuana, free abortion-on-demand, and gay marriage.
The youth vote puts the “party” in “Democrat Party” and reacts VIOLENTLY to anyone who tries to make them emotionally grow up (especially since so many of them went to school for technology disciplines and made comfortable money right off the bat).
It’s easy for those who pull the levers of power to manipulate them into voting the death of their own nation.
While the “younger progressives” might want me erased, they also might be surprised how little I disagree with them on.
My objection to their demands for Taxpayer-Funded Free Dope For Life is only to the “Taxpayer-Funded” part/ If they want to fry their noodles (and remove themselves from the gene pool early, before they can collect Social Security), it’s no skin off my nose. I just insist that if they do anything stupid, like operate a motor vehicle while baked and harm someone else, they get the book thrown at them. Their right to self-destruction does not include anybody else.
Abortion? My attitude toward it is precisely the same as my attitude toward capital punishment and the use of lethal force in self-defense. It was summed up by what The Stranger (Clint Eastwood) said to Mordecai (Billy Curtis) about ambushing the three gunmen caoming to burn down Lago in High Plains Drifter (1973);
My objection to the left’s attitude on abortion was summed up by P.J. O’Rourke, who pointed out that a dedicated humanist might object to both abortion and capital punishment, while a ruthless pragmatist might be in favor of both. However, it takes a very special sort of psychosis to be in favor of killing unborn children for any reason, or none at all, while being absolutely opposed to executing an adult who has demonstrated their willingness and ability to take the life of an innocent, by already having done so.
As for gay marriage- not my problem. What two (or more) consenting adults do in their own lives and/or bedrooms is none of my business.
In short, I believe in minding my own business. I simply insist that, as long as I harm no one, society accords me the courtesy of not trying to mind my business for me.
Progressives believe their “superior wisdom” makes it mandatory that they do mind my business for me. And as you state, many are immature enough to become tantrum-prone when someone tells them , “No”.
One of my best friends is a hardcore liberal. He doesn’t quite worship the ground Obama walks on, but close. He is also absolutely against tampering with the Bill of Rights in any way, shape, or form.
He doesn’t own a gun, or ever intend to. (I might add, he fired expert with the M-16 rifle in the Army- he was Signal Corps.) And he wants regulations to keep guns out of the hands of the criminal and mentally infirm. However, he would fight in court to protect my right to own a gun- because he doesn’t believe I, a rational, law-abiding citizen, should be deprived of that right, or any other in the Bill of Rights, either to “protect society” from dangerously unstable people, or for the government’s convenience.
He agrees with me on the other issues I mentioned, as well.
Yes, he is a registered Democrat. And no, he isn’t popular at local Party functions. Anymore than I would be walking into a GOP meeting with the very same opinions.
Dare I suggest that the problem is a combination of (1) dogmas which have attained the status of religious cult beliefs, and (b) political groups which consider the attainment of power to be a be-all and end-all, which are willing to use those dogmas as levers to get what they want?
It certainly seems that way to me. And it is true that when those groups fail to attain their goals at the ballot box, there is a strong temptation to unleash the mob, just as Roman emperors once did.
It’s amazing how little changes over time.
clear ether
eon
But, friend, you left God out of it. One Day He will ask you, “Did you love your neighbor as I require? Did you go and make disciples of all nations and baptize them as I directed you to do? Did you worship Me as I require? Did you abstain from certain behaviors as I require? Have you really trusted, loved and obeyed Me? And, as is the case with each and all of us, your eternity will be based on your reply.Nobody runs games on God. You may say that you disbelieve. What if, a nanosecond after your spirit leaves your body, you belatedly discover that you had it all wrong? There is no way to go back and fix it, then, There is now.
Did I say I disbelieve? No.
Never “assume”. It is a six-letter word which makes an ass of “U” and “Me”.
My relationship with the Almighty is my, and His, affair, thank you very much. I do not attempt to decide for others, nor should I.
My soul, and eventual destination, are my responsibility. Others must make their own judgments, which is what I was saying if you were actually paying attention.
clear ether
eon
You can’t legislate people into being saved.
It’s not all that dissimilar from Muslims trying to force people to either convert or submit to slavery (only with less violence).
Excellent points, eon. Gun control is just one facet “elites” use to garner the ultimate power & control. Add to that global warming & their pattern of “tax & spend” to that list.
What will happen if they get the power they crave? Just look around. They already have it. Of course, it takes a few years and it is still necessary to avoid acting in a way that might snap the fools out of their trance, but that cat is out of the bag, my friend.
Sinaz54 #3:
Your strawman does not even require a gun to knock down, even an unloaded one. The range of possible intelligent responses is vast, but I will give you one that is appropriate to your absurd pointless point.
Nobody gives a rat’s rump about barber shops and the like.
Barbershops and restaurants and so forth get shot up EVERY FRIGGIN’ DAY! And we don’t put the flags at half mast afterwards. It’s called robbery with murder, and people have come to accept it as a cost of Leftism. We are not willing to accept shooting up our schools.
Statistics show that a criminal is 9 times more likely to be killed by his victim than he is by the police. The primary reason is that victims are
almost always at the scene of the crime, whereas the police almost never are. Aside from that, as Off Dunphy could no doubt tell you, an officer involved shooting is accompanied by more paperwork and very rarely involves a suspension from duty on the part of Sears or Wal Mart or wherever the victim works. The police have a reason to avoid shooting a perp but the victim has the exact opposite motivation; you are very rarely sued by a dead felon who has been convicted for 17 priors. I know someone who lost his home in civil court to such a felon because he did not use a large enough caliber response when confronting an armed burglar who opened fire first.
Shoot to kill. There is much less paperwork, and you might get to keep your house.
The very last person you want testifying against you is somebody you shot! A good rule is never just TRY to kill somebody.
Dead perps don’t commit more crimes.
Dead perps don’t come back for revenge.
Dead perps aren’t repeat offenders.
And lastly… dead perps don’t call lawyers.
If someone comes into your house at 3:00 AM and it’s dark… it’s safe to assume he didn’t come for a friendly chat and a spot of tea.
Empty… the… mag…
Dead perps often have families who, while they may be relieved that their violent sociopathic relative will no longer torment them, will be happy to hire a lawyer to sue you and take everything you own.
When you pull the trigger, bad stuff is going to happen. The reason you pull the trigger is that even worse stuff will happen if you don’t.
Yes, but said family has one significant disadvantage: The perp won’t be able to tell any lies about what happened.
But no responsible gun owner shoots to kill. That’s murder no matter who does it.
We shoot to stop the threat.
There is a world of legal difference between the two, and mouths (or keyboards) running over with macho are not conducive to remaining a free citizen.
If, in the course of stopping the threat, the perp happens to expire, oh well.
Try to limit your armed response to the intruder into your castle to not more than one magazine. This is especially true after the invader is lying prone and bleeding out on your living room rug.
Cops and DAs take a jaundiced view of homeowners who reload two or more times and continue to fire into the (lifeless, probably) body of their would-be attacker. Dead already doesn’t seem to serve as a defensible argument in this case.
Not just snark, either. There is a current case when a homeowner took down his man and then proceded to emty the Glock two more times into him.
yeah…….
http://facepunch.com/showthread.php?t=1228670
Yes, indeed. That’s a great way to turn a case of legitimate self-defense into a murder case.
Hard to fathom someone being stupid enough to do that, and THEN to just tell the police that’s what you’ve done.
But really, it’s no less stupid than the common practice of posting macho signs like, “Trespassers will be shot. Survivors will be riddled.”, and other such chest-beating nonsense. Yeah, I laugh when I see something like that, but no way would I ever post such a sign at my house. I cannot comprehend the stupidity of someone who does.
I know doctors who are sued for malpractice if a patient is discharged early from the hospital, and as a result they have complications.
Too bad we can’t do the same to a judge or DA when they release a criminal early and there are “complications” from further criminal behavior.
Hear, hear!
Where is our media in publishing the names of the District Attorneys, Parole Board members and Judges that release violent felons out of prison…if they ever get to prison at all…to prey upon the law-abiding?
Instead a New York suburban newspaper happily publishes the addresses, and maps them, of the homes where law-abiding people with New York handgun licenses live.
Right, Bilgeman;
They really want this kind of war?
We CAN publish the names and addresses of the attorneys, judges, and advocates that are responsible for unleashing these felons back into the community.
I don’t think they will like it very much.
Holding Parole Board members, DAs, etc, responsible for crimes committed by criminals they release is probably the single most useful comment I have read. In fact those responsible in any way for releasing a violent criminal should be automatically charged with the same crime the criminal might commit after release; even murder, which could result in the death penalty for the head of the parole board.
But we all know this idea has a snowball’s chance in hell of ever becoming law in any form because politicians and political appointees could be punished.
One thought I also want to make is that over the last 30 years, or so, I have attended scores of gun shows – mostly across the Old South. While there, I have never seen a bunch of high-testosterone guys (young and old) so polite to one another. I wonder if this might be due to the fact that virtually everyone at these gun shows speaks the language of guns. It is also a fact that I have never heard of anyone actually trying to rob someone at a gun show – or even coming or going while outside.
Yes, there have been a couple stupid gun accidents at gun shows, but any bell-curve distribution of people must have a low end, and managers of gun shows know how to deal very quickly and effectively with the situation if there is an accident.
However there have been several deliberate attempts by anti-gun people to sabotage gun shows by staging an incident to generate “bad press”. Back during the height of the anti Vietnam War protests of the early 1970s, I was at a gun show in Birmingham, Alabama, when suddenly a bunch of uniformed police swarmed in as the loudspeaker told everyone to hold their position and not move. What had happened was that several anti-war activists had come into the show with live ammunition of various handgun calibers and loaded several guns resting on dealer tables (those were the days before all guns either carried in by customers or on dealer tables had to be strapped open). The activists intended that a dealer or customer would shoot someone, but gun show customers know to check and clear a weapon before pulling a trigger (you should never “dry-fire” a gun anyway). The end of this little trip down memory lane is that the activists tried to flee, were tackled by customers who found loose cartridges in the pockets of the activists, and treated the activists “very poorly” until the police secured (rescued) them.
It doesn’t have to become “law” to publish the names and addresses of the officials that continually release criminals back into the community.
The legal system can be used against these advocates of career criminals to bear responsibility for their negligence in not keeping the perpetrators incarcerated.
The authors of these articles can, and should, be researched with their political affiliations and pet projects made public.
They want exposure? Give it to them.
If they really want to engage in witch hunts, there’s plenty of witches to be exposed by grassroots investigative bloggers,
with the criminals’ arrest records, prior convictions/infractions, and current addresses and relatives they are living with.
Until they go complete “commie” and shut down sites like Facebook, Myspace, Twitter, and texting, they can’t stop the publication of this information.
And when these sites start being censored and shut down “for your own protection”, it’s time to armor up and hunker down, because next will come urban “cleansing” of the bloggers.
All the guns shows I’ve been to require under trespassing and prohibitions in the concealed carry law of my state for every gun to be unloaded and sealed by a police officer before they can be carried into a gun show. The only people with loaded guns allowed inside the shows are police on duty.
Thank you for the interesting column.
But we all know that common sense, facts, information are useless against the totalitarians whose goal is to disarm the people.
They have made the schools “gun-free” and now they accuse us of causing the massacres. This is the style of the most classical stalinist propaganda.
People are under the mistaken impression that the government, and the police have a duty to protect them.
That is a false assumption.
When seconds count, the police are only minutes away…
And court rulings all the way to the Supremes have affirmed that the police cannot be held liable for failure to protect you. They have no legal “duty” to protect. The most recent, a few years ago, was a Supremes ruling saying the police cannot be held liable for harm caused by someone repeatedly violating a restraining order—an order that the cops are supposed to enforce vigorously (and do against many innocent husbands during divorces, a debate for another day).
The Liberal extremists can never be satisfied; After guns are completely eliminated, any crime committed while having a rock or a stick in your possession will be given more extreme punishment.
And the image and cave address of anyone with rocks and sticks in their cave, will be posted on the local tree for all the community to see.
This nation’s entire economy is, and has been on the ropes, for years. Within days, it will go over the cliff. We are staring at hyperinflation, where your life’s savings will not buy a loaf of bread. It may start in six days.
Half of last June’s college grads can not find a job.
Twenty three million are out of work, and millions more are taking any crummy job available.
While Congress and the President play, on holiday.
While the talking heads blow about gun control.
I think we should sell the White House to WalMart.
Maybe the Chinese would buy Capitol Hill.
They are not doing us any good.
“Everything else is wishful thinking.”
Truer words were never written, but the political chattering class in the US eats, sleeps, and breathes wishful thinking.
I would be far more inclined to take gun control people seriously if they were not oh so comfortable with terrorism. Knock down a skyscraper? No problem. We need to look into ourselves and see why they hate us. Good men are killed at our embassy on the anniversary of the first massacre? No problem. We need to look into ourselves and see why they hate us.
They bombed a subway in Madrid. No problem. We need to look into ourselves and see why they hate us. Innocent schoolchildren are killed in Israel. No problem. We need to look into ourselves and see why they hate us. Good men are killed on an army base by someone they trusted? No problem. We need to look into ourselves and see why they hate us.
This is all about control and nothing more. We need to have more means to protect ourselves not less and if they do succeed in taking away guns we will have to hold classes among ourselves so that the public is more versed in firearms so that they competently use them when that right is restored (either through government sanity or more likely government crack up.) In fact, those people who do not carry guns should be at least educating themselves in what firearms are, how they work and the safe way to use them.
Some points regarding gun control
1) The Sidwell School, where Obama and the Missus, send their children has 11 armed guards in addition to the Secret Service Detail. Reports say they are looking for a 12th. The attitude of the elites is Gun Control for thee but not for me.
2) When the government can control illegal immigration and drugs, I may give them a respectful hearing regarding gun control. Until then, I am looking to upgrade to a Bushmaster.
3) The Second Amendment was written to allow the citizenry to throw off the yoke of tyrannical government. Home defense is secondary. Shotguns are impressive but you really need an AR to do what has to be done should it become necessary.
” Shotguns are impressive but you really need an AR ”
AK47 would be even better.
When you are looking at the wrong end of a gun and don’t know what the person holding it is thinking, all guns are impressive.
Meh, I have one and it is good for what it is for. With iron sights I keep most of my shots on a 18″ swinging gate at 300 yrd from a sitting position. However it lacks the range I would want for any real engagement. House to house it is fine though.
What I have my eye on is a Coyote Special from Rock River Arms in 6.8 SPC. 3/4 MOA out of box, which is better than most can shoot. At $1200.00 it is at a good price point for AR’s. And the 270 round will let you reach out to 800 yrd if need be. While giving the close in one shot knockdown the 5.56 lacks.
Course that was $1200.00 before the obama/feinstien hysteria.
While an AR-15 does a nice job, nothing sends a chill up your spine like the sound of a 12-ga shotgun’s breech slamming home. 5 rounds of 00-buckshot makes short work of whatever it is fired at.
Bushmaster was bought some years back, and then a few years later their factory in Maine was closed and production was moved to a factory with excess capacity by the new owners. Current Bushmasters are not manufactured by the factory or workers who made the Bushmaster a respected firearm.
The old Bushmaster CEO got together with the unemployed local workforce of the closed down factory and they re-opened as Windham Weaponry. Their rifles come with a lifetime warranty.
This is also why protective orders are fools gold. If someone is willing to break laws, a judge’s order is supposed to to stop him? Seriously?
Precisely; this is why all those restraining orders work so well…
Funny, the only people fantasizing about killing law abiding people are the left/liberal/progressives.
Most gun owners I know may go over scenarios where they have to use their gun to defend themselves or others, I’ve never heard one say, “I want so and so killed…”
Be not afraid of any man
No matter what his size
When danger threatens call on me
And I will equalize
–19th century ad for Colt revolvers
Disarming people makes politicians more powerful and that is the actual object in this case. The goal at play here is not “gun control”, its ‘people control’.
What is happening across our culture is a slow process of psychological and cultural conditioning where we are converted from thinking that we are a nation of free people living equally under constitutionally defined laws and liberty, to a nation where the relationship between the government and the people is the same as that between jailer and prisoner. My problem is not those who want to be the jailer( those people are always with us), my problem is how easy so many of the rest of us fall comfortably into the role of being a prisoner.
“Firearms are second only to the Constitution in importance; they are the peoples’ liberty’s teeth.” George Washington
These words were true the day they were spoken, and they are still true for today as well! History shows government attacks the people with force when they disagree, we will not be disarmed! This is what makes America exceptional in the whole world! We will not give in to Tyranny of the political class of the elites!
Innocents Betrayed, The True Story of Gun Control!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iDivHkQ2GSg
“I suspect that those who seek a legislative solution to crimes such as this one are on a fool’s errand.”
Not true at all! At least as long as those who seek to write or change the laws are writing the correct laws. Laws that get rid of those “Gun Free” zones are a start – allowing for security or police presence – allowing qualified teachers to carry a weapon. Why does this make so much sense to me – but not the loons?
Gun-free-zone signs are a joke – nothing but a beacon for someone wishing to do harm to others that do not wish to be stopped before they can inflict maximum damage. Seems they do not mind dying at some point after. Either offing themselves or letting the cops do it. If I wanted to kill the max amount of innocents as possible I certainly would not try it at the nearest police station. I’d probably head for the nearest school! No guns!
Our leaders – from small town mayor right up to the president are all escorted by armed guards. The more important they are the more guns that protect them. Children in ‘special’ schools such as that which Feckless Won’s children attend have half a dozen armed security guards – and more than likely secret service agents too. You won’t find a ‘gun-free-zone’ sign out front! Why are those children more precious than our children in fly-over country? These ‘leaders’ will have armed guards surrounding them for the rest of their lives. Why? Because a phone call to the local police won’t get help to arrive in time to avert a possible killing. Why would they deny us those same considerations? Only one thing comes to mind – they fear us. That fear helps (somewhat) to keep them in line – for now any way.
Unarmed men, and unarmed nations, can only flee from evil. And evil is not overcome by fleeing from it.
− John D. “Jeff” Cooper, Lt. Col., USMC (Ret.)
Well said, Jack.
I’m with XSANDEIGOCA post #14
If armed guards are good enough for a QUAKER School then they are good enough for my kids.
Who am I to argue with the wisdom of the smartest person to ever become President.
More to the point–who among the Left will be willing to challenge President Obama’s quite PUBLIC personal choices for the protection of his children?
Or to put it another way–why are “more guns” the solution to the problem for him and not for anybody else?
It is clear that even “crazy” people seek out the softest target possible. Even the Fort Hood shooter picked the one place on base that almost nobody was ARMED. None of these wackos picked a Hell’s Angels biker bar, or a MS-13 section of a really bad part of town. Even though they were seemingly PLANNING on killing themselves, NONE or few was willing to encounter armed resistance.
That alone should be a telling point.
FYI, there is a petition on the White House site, calling for the White House and Capitol to be declared “gun-free zones” (including the Secret Service).
See: https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/petition/we-demand-obama-issue-executive-order-making-white-house-federal-buildings-and-events-gun-free-zones/JlLk2nfs
“Indeed, this “conversation” has been marked by ignorance and emotionalism…”
What else do you expect from most Americans? The public school system cranks out mostly ignorant, illiterate, emotionally overwrought basket cases. Most graduates have no concept of logic or rational thinking let alone the training to think about the things they read, to do basic research and draw their own conclusions. What they’ve gotten instead is the self-esteem nonsense, grinding training for tests they don’t understand and the constant drama of teen life, heightened by the media aimed at them.
So, base emotional manipulation is in, reason is out. We saw that in the last two elections. Republicans tried to reason against Obama’s emotionalism.
Liberalism is driven by emotion. Recall Plato’s chariot metaphor with the horses being not by reason but by the passions. Emotion drives all issues for Liberals which is one reason they never work, why the consequences are negative and never foreseen, why they rant and rage at those who disagree, and why they must have high “self-esteem”, i.e. feel good about themselves.
# 13 – It has long been my position that if the schools can mandate the “banana” classes, they should also mandate some kind of “gun recognition and safety 101″ early on, followed by H S discussions of options/tactics during an armed intrusion incident.
The sight of a weapon should not paralyze any group. If more info is good for H S kids in the area of sex ed, driver ed, career ed, First Amendment ed, why not in “gun ed” ? GBUSA
Gun Ed, is actually an interesting point. It’s a rare boy who isn’t exceedingly well acquainted these days with virtual guns from video games. Could a little reality, and the warnings that go with it, be a bad thing?
Might improve attendance, at least for the couple of days or weeks involved.
Josh, good point on attendance. To clarify, I wasn’t advocating “hands on” demonstrations. (Current liability law prolly prohibits ?)
The point is to break loose the mentally paralyzing “Progressive” conditioning.
Two points are that : 1) weapons are real and produce real results. The victims don’t bounce back up and begin another game. 2) The mere fact of a weapon being displayed or activated doesn’t mean that everyone in range is now automatically going to die.
If we teach kids about the potential as well as the limits of other things, why not weapons also.
Humanity is about hope. One of the classic techniques is to try to remove hope from individuals and groups. Another is to remove the tools that could enable resistance to the conditioned reactions.
Part of the current debate seems IHMO to be directed toward manufacturing a perception in the public that firearm owners are “other”. “Divide and conquer” can work. Part of this will be driven by the answer to whether identity comes from the group or the individual.
Those who deny that the source of our rights was, in the Declaration, unambiguously defined as being off-planet, use fear force and power to throttle our ideas of Constitutional governance as structured through consensual delineation of authority.
Many schools allow the use of info packets sent home with children to “educate” parents to a proposed policy, danger, or advocacy. Should weapons info become part of that awareness ?
GBUSA
Instead of practicing putting condoms on cucumbers, they can put them on pistols.
LOL, sounds like a good “all net at the buzzer” line for the MSM, though the protection level might be a couple orders of magnitude less when installed on a firearm.
There has been a long trend to give kids (and parents) more info at an earlier age, and I think that since by grade school most kids will have been in the proximity of someone who owns or carries weapons, less conditioning and more info would be helpful.
Of course there will always be those who will desire school board McCarthyism in loco “elitis”….
#14 – It is not only Sidwell/Obamas, certain loud advocates for trillions in public education(union) funding carefully ensconced their own children at St. Albans.
“But the mere possibility that one or two staff members at a school might be armed may offer just enough deterrence to inspire second thoughts in any but the most determined assailants. And if such a determined assailant proceeds with an attack, is it beyond the pale to hope for intervention by an armed teacher?”
Thank you, Mr. Dunphy. That is in my view the absolutely correct view. I would add tht I believe such staff members as you suggest should be plainly dressed just to keep the bad guys guessing. But why your wish not to join the NRA?
Yooper
Life Member NRA
What I’ve not heard yet is a discussion of the “lockdown” procedure that this (and most) schools seem to employ. Lanza encountered a group of kids who were not even allowed to scatter, but were placed in one convenient location for him to shoot at leisure.
This to me seems to instill the illusion of safety, while in fact being quite dangerous.
Most lockdown procedures are not that useful, though certainly better than nothing. However . . . as I’ve seen posted in a couple of places, teachers should be encouraged to leave their classroom doors ON LOCK at all times. When both seconds and being out of the line of fire are crucial, the time it would take a teacher to get his/her key and step into the hall to lock the door—one can’t lock from the inside—might be the difference between life and death. In my experience, most elementary teachers, all the time, leave their doors wide open and not on lock. I wonder if some of the Sandy Hook kids and their teachers might still be alive if their rooms had been more secure.
During the latter years of my long career, I always kept my door on lock and often closed. No big problem. Classroom door windows should also be covered, except, perhaps, for a peep hole. These are simple, no-cost expedients that could make all the difference.
(In the teachers’ defence, huddling together is actually important and not a stupid idea: one finds the least vulnerable spot in the room and then all the kids—that’s a LOT—and the teacher(s) have to fit it that small space as best they can. And, if the assailant is blocking the door, running around isn’t much help either. Not to mention, that in the very frightening situation of a real lockdown, the kids WANT to be near their teacher.)
I have another two ideas that could make a huge difference: yes, they’d be against the fire codes, but I’ve not heard of one child or anyone else, for that matter, ever killed in a school fire. My ideas would be a trade-off between two incidents unlikely to ever occur. Here they are: if classroom doors opened inward, each teacher could devise a simple barricade for his/her door. A heavy, inside bolt, to further secure the door on the inside might also help. (Except . . . there is a danger of kids barricading themselves inside for one reason or another. So, maybe not!)
Newer classroom doors are also made of metal—more difficult, if not impossible, to shoot through. Any doors with large panes of glass—I had a classroom with one of those—should be replaced.
I also think it’s especially important for first floor classrooms, especially those near the entrance, to be secured. Schools do their best, but are generally lax security-wise: the purpose of a school is to educate, not to be a fortress, so this is not surprising. However, I believe if some of my low-to-no-cost ideas were routinely implemented, our kids would be less vulnerable to the kind of horrendous assault that occurred in Newtown.
Lockdown without an armed defender is a suicidal tactic. If the reacher has a gun he can shoot the attacker in the face as he comes through the door.
The reason for glass doors in schoolrooms is to mitigate the chance of lawsuits due to inappropriate behavior or the suspicion thereof. They could be made bulletproof.
So I guess for a lockdown to work, it must be meaningful, and that’s the problem in this case. While it’s not clear exactly where the dead students were found, various reports mention that it was one classroom; other teachers talked about hiding with their students in a “closet”; that the kids were found in a “closet” (like a small supply room) or single room. Evidently not a very secure location, and once the door was breached, that was the end.
Obviously most classroom doors aren’t designed to withstand an assault like this, and perhaps that should be taken into consideration if schools are going to institute a lock-down policy. This is why I have never understood why they do it. Lockdowns seem like they work- right up until they don’t- and then it’s not a small loss of life, it’s massive.
No, no, no. Lockdown is fundamentally wrong. The last thing we should be doing is grouping targets together! A huddled bunch of children is fish in a barrel!
Scatteringis what is called for. NOT grouping!
Correction: They are trivial to shoot through.
Trivial.
They are, at BEST, fire doors. Probably 16 gauge steel at best. More likely 18, which is thinner. (Sheet metal is measured in “gauge”. A lower number is thicker than a higher number.)
Even if it were as thick as 10 gauge (trust me, it’s NOT! that thick) it would not stop bullets from a medium caliber rifle.
Inside that thin steel shell is some fire-resistant material which is about as bullet resistant as paper. Actually, layers of newspaper closely packed would be MORE bullet resistant.
More likely, they are standard-duty hollow steel doors. 20 gauge, possibly 18. A .22 will go through them.
http://www.steeldoor.org/T-DOC/SDI-108.php
tdiinva and David IV, I hear you, but . . . there won’t be an armed teacher in every room. However, I think teachers should think in terms of having classroom objects as weapons, e.g., a chair can be lethal.
And the purpose of a lockdown is to keep the assailant out of the classrooms in the short run: if s/he can’t get in, that certainly helps. But, help has to be on the way too. Lockdown would be suicidal if everyone were simply waiting for the assailant to go from class to class and pop everyone off. But, as I said, lockdown is a very worthwhile short term expedient, and it can certainly save lives.
Bullet proof glass: yes, great idea, but that’s very expensive. I was proposing can-do, right-now possibilities for doing one’s best to reduce the number of deaths and injuries. There is no way to attain absolute safety anywhere. But, IMO, doing one’s best, with the resources at hand is a very worthwhile endeavour. So far, most schools haven’t tried that.
One aspect of stealth security currently employed by the Federal government is elevated galleys that give unobstructed view of every room, except restrooms, of course.
This security measure is effective enough to give the impression that there is always some observation taking place, whether it is live or not.
Anyone taking liberty with their access to our children may be observed either by one person, several supervisors and management, or by recorded video.
These galleys can be fitted with ports to return fire against anyone foolish enough to try and commit the atrocity carried out without resistance in Sandy Hook.
The major resistance to this security technique would, of course, be the unions.
The arming of teachers in whatever form it may take might require a deal with the devil e.g. current teacher unions. Make arms certification equal to several endorsements or eligible for stipends – equipment/ammunition/and gear allowances, then let the respective unions have their cut. With a large segment of the teacher workforce having some applicable training, there is a chance that the current unions split 3 ways – the namby pamby nea/IFT type, then the trade union for the STEM group, and an FOP for the arms-certified group.
I do not advocate arming teachers at all.
In the use of “galleys” to observe classrooms, I can see the unions protesting over their teachers being scrutinized while conducting their classrooms.
I’ve noticed on several employment applications or job descriptions, that if you have been under any domestic violence order/charge, you would not be eligible for the position.
Teachers are regular people, and go through marital, family, and civil problems just like everyone else. These situations can cause a permit holder to be suspended or canceled due to a charge of this nature, and subsequent revocation of the permit.
With a galley, trained professionals would be employed, and have a variety of concealed vantage points. Their employer would have the responsibility of removing the employee from the “armed status”, and suspending them, or placing them in a desk job if they were under any kind of court ordered status.
The “galley” keeps all weapons out of the classroom. There is no interruption of classes when observation is taking place.
I don’t see why you can’t have both: permitting law abiding, sane, responsible individuals to carry concealed weapons while making it much harder for insane, irresponsible individuals to have access to any of those guns. The two do not have to be mutually exclusive. Both require making it impossible to just walk into a store and pick up a lethal weapon, which is what most people posting here seem to be demanding.
“Both require making it impossible to just walk into a store and pick up a lethal weapon, which is what most people posting here seem to be demanding.”
I’ve not seen one post demanding any such thing.
What you are talking about is the law of the land already. Walk into a gun store and see if you can purchase a weapon without filling out paperwork, and getting a check made through NICS (ie National Instant Check System.) Ain’t gonna happen.
Oh, and a concealed carry license, not exactly difficult to obtain, but only law abiding people apply for those.
Finger prints, and paperwork submitted to local sheriff. Background check against state records and FBI.
The whole idea of screening for mental illness is a complete joke. These laws have no teeth whatsoever. All the potential gun owner has to do is lie about their mental health history.
It’s not like there’s some kind of database of crazies that the government or gun shop owners can access. Health records- especially mental health records- are locked up tight. The law would have to undergo significant changes for there to be any meaningful way to keep the mentally ill from owning guns- you can be sure that patient’s rights and mental health advocacy groups would have a fit before that would ever happen.
Not to mention that in the psychiatric profession, “illness” is literally in the eye of the beholder, when the beholder happens to have a Ph.D.
True story; I have encountered three different psychiatrists who were contracted to examine uniformed officers, plainclothesmen, and crime-lab techs (including myself) for mental stability. It’s a standard, periodic check required by law for all departments, from city police on up.
Of the three, one held that all “cops” were insane. Why? Because they wanted to be in a job that required them to carry a gun.
The second opined that all “pigs” were “oppressors”, and therefore were “insane” on that count. (Yes, this was in the Seventies.)
Only the third saw an actual need for law enforcement, and understood that it takes a specific mindset to be useful in that profession.
I don’t pretend that this is a “scientific” sample, but my personal experience (in college and on the job) tells me that what we call the “mental health” system in this country is a farce, that the politics of the so-called “experts” are what drives most of their decision-making, and that as such whether or not a given “disturbed individual” is considered disturbed enough to be eligible for care, or even to be kept away from sharp objects, is pretty much a crapshoot.
Just my opinion, take it for what it’s worth.
clear ether
eon
“Farce”?
I think you are being too kind. There’s nothing even remotely scientific about the practice of psychiatry.
Actually, there IS such a database. It’s called NICS, and it is SUPPOSED to be populated by the states with info on all whackos, uh, excuse me, persons suffering from mental illness.
It’s… let’s say, “incomplete” due to the states not participating. Why have the states not participated? Various reasons, but mostly funding and… oh, those pesky medical privacy concerns.
The doubts of some in the government’s long term sincerity regarding protecting the public are not eased by the possible granting of a driver’s license to one who attempted to assassinate a President. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Hinckley,_Jr.
Some of the recent discussion has focused on mental health screening as a condition for firearm ownership and/or carry permits. If, after thirty years, there is still doubt about this case, how can we trust the “experts” ? GBUSA
My best friend in high school is now a public school teacher in a Blue State. We shot together a lot as kids, I kept up the interest, he did not. He called me yesterday and during our Christmas greeting the conversation turned to firearms, he wanted something smaller than his six shot .357 Magnum that he could carry in school to protect his kids.
I made a few suggestions. The idea that this guy couldn’t help in a rampage shooting is fatuous. He’s been a dead shot since his teens and, although he’s never been in a gunfight I’m certain he would have the mindset to protect “his” kids. Is he the only teacher in his high school who would or could? I doubt it. I further think that he would teach, for free, any of his co-workers who asked.
Would it be legal? He doesn’t care.
Good for him!
But good shot or not, I strongly recommend that your friend get some serious training. It’s not enough to be a dead shot.
After a lifetime of being an avid, and good, shooter, I was shocked at how much I learned the first time I took a serious course.
And by “serious course”, I do NOT mean your local NRA handgun course.
Think Ayood or Farnam or Gunsite or Thunder Ranch or the like.
The British satirical magazine Private Eye has for many years referred to Piers as Piers “Morgan” Moron [sic].
Disarming America is not and has never been about reducing crime or making our nation a safer place.
Disarmament is on the leftist agenda for the same reason that widespread dependence on government entitlements is part of their agenda: the disenfranchisement of the American people.
It is not possible to create a socialist dystopia in a free and prosperous nation. Anyone seeking to achieve that goal must first impoverish the nation. They must also destroy the ability of the people to resist. Trying to get as many people as possible hooked on the government teat achieves the first step. Disarming the public achieves the second.
Any noise they make about guns and safety, or guns and crime, are a smokescreen and a con job. Do not be fooled. Remember what Mao said: Political power comes from the barrel of a gun.
Oh, the irony. I suggest actually reading the quote in context:
http://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/mao/selected-works/volume-2/mswv2_12.htm#p2
Now … does that read like a man who wants to disarm the people to keep them poor and powerless? No. He saw guns in the hands of the common people as a GOOD thing – something to shake up the state and keep power out of the hands of the powerful (or at least that’s what he said, but like most people who get power that way, he had no idea how to govern and had no desire to let go of that power).
Or are you quoting the man approvingly? Because when you put what you just wrote alongside what mao said, I think you’ll find an interesting correlation.
I love it when people use quotes but don’t bother to go find out what they actually mean.
Ah, that would be why Mao disarmed the populace once he gained power…
Not really. As far as I can tell, China only introduced restrictions on gun ownership in 1966, after a shooting accident in tiananmen square. They were tightened up in the 90′s.
So yes, the communists did introduce gun controls – but only well after the bulk of the murdering and starvation was implemented. During the chinese revolution (which wasn’t a single event, like taking beijing or something), the chinese people were free to own guns, and the communists seem to have encouraged it even AFTER taking power. The only serious impediment was that most chinese were too poor to buy one.
If you look, you can find references online to a gun control law introduced n 1935 … which, to anyone who knows anything about the history the chinese revolution, kind of stands out as having had nothing at all to do with the commies, and very much at odds with their own program of arming the countryside.
There are also references to alleged laws passed in 1951 and 1957. As far as I can find, those are myths. They never happened. As it happens, I’m not the only one who has looked:
http://maoistrebelnews.wordpress.com/2011/10/07/pro-gun-activists-lie-about-chinese-gun-ownership/
This is the same China that crushed it’s children (students) under the treads of Tanks in Tianmin square?
They have gun control and probably anti tank weapon control also yet still decided the best way to address the students concerns for freedom was to use tanks against them.
Even when disarmed the Government still fears it’s citizens (subjects) to the point of using overwhelming power to stop what was basically the same action as the occupy crowd.
I thought we were talking about gun control policies. Why do you guys keep changing the subject? At no point have I said that china has a good government, I don’t believe I supported mao’s actions – the guy was a talented military leader, and an incompetent and corrupt political leader with bizarre ideas about, well, everything.
But I can’t let this next bit go … oh, why. Why can’t I just ignore this stuff. I’d be so much happier …
“This is the same China that crushed it’s children (students) under the treads of Tanks in Tianmin square?”
Actually, no. There is no evidence that anyone was crushed under the treads of tanks in tiananmen square. It does seem that there was one incident OUTSIDE of the square, in which an APC got separated from its formation, panicked, and ran over some protesters. The crew was then killed, and the APC was torched. I can’t find any mention of any other incident. There is much made of a quote from a BBC reporter that tanks were “crushing vehicles and people with their treads”, but the article that refers to doesn’t actually say that – so perhaps it was edited since the event.
According to cables leaked by wikileaks, there actually wasn’t much violence inside the square itself – the army did its beating and shooting on the streets around the square, including after negotiating with protesters in the square to leave.
“Even when disarmed the Government still fears it’s citizens (subjects) to the point of using overwhelming power to stop what was basically the same action as the occupy crowd”
I agree. But if the national guard ever decided to follow an order to do something similar in the US, I’m sure they’d be more than capable of executing it. An armed populace didn’t prevent the kent state shootings, it didn’t stop the national guard from putting down riots in LA without a much real resistance.
Over at Instapundit, Reynolds was bumping a long article by a guy named Correia. The article cites an interesting statistic… but Correia doesn’t provide footnotes, so you can’t know his fact’s provenance. Anyway, this is what he says:
These mass shootings always end in one of two ways: 1) the cops show up and either the bad guy surrenders or shoots himself or is shot by a cop; or 2) someone on the scene who is armed (perhaps an off duty cop) shoots the bad guy. In the former cases, the average number of deaths is 14. In the latter cases, it’s between 2 and 3.
I conclude that Piers Morgan and the other fatuous asses will not be satisfied if just 2-3 people are killed. They demand the full 14.
Hmmmm. That’s an unusual name.
If it’s who I think it is, he knows whereof he speaks.
“There are two kinds of people in the world my friend, those with loaded guns and those who dig. You dig.” –Eli Wallach as Tuco in The Good, The Bad and The Ugly.
Actually, that was Clint Eastwood as Blondie, speaking to Eli Wallach as Tuco, at Arch Stanton’s grave.
/Just sayin’.
cheers
eon
As a first step, why not start with allowing school personnel who already hold concealed carry permits to carry inside their school?
What I learned from Columbine.
It takes deadly force to counter a person with a weapon.
911 police response is far too little and too late, when seconds count.
Sidwell school for rich people have 11 armed security people on their school site, confirming that guns in the proper hands deter crime.
That with Sandy Hook, we learned nothing from Columbine or Sidwell.
And if a teacher had time to hide students in the closet an then be faced with an armed lunatic and no weapon, would she also have had time to hide students in closet and take a vantage point to protect the class room and fire on anyone entering.
Personally I prefer toasting with a hero, the person that killed a lunatic, than mourning and remembering that person.
and all should ask, would this teacher and students be alive, if she had a gun and was protecting her classroom and students with that gun.
As law-abiding citizens we are expected to navigate the labyrinth of conflicting state laws regarding firearms and we do successfully everyday. Although many of these laws don’t seem to make sense to firearm owners we still respect them and abide by them everyday.
Firearms are used more often by law-abiding citizens for self-defense than by deranged criminals to commit horrible acts of mass violence. For several examples for the recent use of firearms for defensive purposes not typically reported by the national media please visit: http://www.equalforce.net and forward this address to others to whom this information may be useful. @forceequalizer
1. Arming the teachers will create more complex problems.
2. Many teachers will refuse to “carry”; That is their right.
3. The priority needs to be placed in perspective- PROTECTION OF THE SCHOOLCHILDREN IN THE CLASSROOM.
4. Any teacher that can qualify for concealed carry may do so on their own and at their own cost.
5. An “elevated galley” may be staffed with trained professionals separate from the teachers unions and employment standards. These professionals would be shielded from gunfire of anyone attempting to shoot up a classroom.
I’ve seen many teachers that I would not want to be permitted to carry weapons in the classroom. They qualify as mentally unstable, yet are qualified to teach our kids. (And many seem to think that their bizarre personality is a desirable trait).
Arming teachers would COST BAZZILLIONS. Next, the unions would be bargaining for hazardous duty pay. The compensation bandwagon would never cease.
And when the teachers go out on strike, they WILL be manning the picket lines WITH THEIR WEAPONS.
AFTER ALL; THEY ARE NOW LICENSED TO CARRY.
It would be very desirable to have a plan in place at the earliest possible moment. Armed security at all schools not now under this practice should commence as soon as school goes back in session, since the security status of just about every school in the nation has been publicized.
Minimizing the ability for the use of deadly weapons within any classroom should be the end result of any resolution.
Arming up anyone other than trained professionals is leaving open all classrooms to another savage attack by another mentally unstable individual, even if they are only temporarily mentally unstable.
Three points:
1.This talk about elevated galleys is insane. You would have to essentially re-build every school in the country. Even the added cost to a new building would be outrageous considering the level of the threat.
2. The real answer is armed security people, either with law enforcement credentials or school employees. Volunteers could be used, but an agency would have to be responsible for training and assume liability.
3. Given the question of liability, and the problems of ed unions, bureaucracy, and tort lawyers, legislation authorizing the guards, with limitations on liability and specifics on training and authorization, would probably be necessary. Which means some states could get it done quickly and some not at all. It wouldn’t need to be complete sovereign immunity, but limits on what damages could be sought, and a limit to gross negligence or willful misconduct as grounds, would be a good start.
Personally, I would favor law enforcement sponsorship, not only to put the policy in the hands of those who understand the problems, but because there would inevitably be situations where a guard would be forced to intervene in other situations, i.e. especially at the high school level, student fights or assaults on teachers.
A bullet proof, bomb proof, and stealth galley for the PROTECTION OF OUR SCHOOL CHILDREN INSANE?
For your information; Most of the government facilities that employ the galleys are buildings retrofitted with them, since these buildings have been acquired through bankruptcy, mortgage default, and failed businesses.
Many Post Offices are housed in leased facilities. A few of the post offices I know of, have been built on land from failed businesses.
Your argument sounds like what would come from the teachers union.
And “volunteers”? Ever heard of “volunteer teachers”?
Your local bank, grocery store, and shopping mall already has trained semi-professionals on duty with weapons. These individuals are employed by security companies that have the liability, licensing, and permits to operate as “officers” for the protection of the public.
I’m not an Einstein or a Henry Ford; But, I do know that implementing an effective method to reduce the possibility of a repeat of Sandy Hook in a school near me is going to be like making sausage.
Somebody’s got to do it.
1. First, you have an honest civil society where you don’t have all that crap…….
2. You don’t have a recognised, above-ground ‘school’ facility anyplace. Education will be done in clandestine, undisclosed locations that change without notice. Effectively, everyone will be ‘home schooled’ – that may be an improvement…….
3. Don’t worry about the government, worry about organised crime when they hoover up assets and offices of the former state once everything starts to fall away. If you’re unfortunate enough to live someplace where they are sitting atop things people need and there is no one else to go to, as they say….. ‘well, I feel for ya’………..
Maybe people should focus on the real reason for that this horrific event happened which is people with mental illness. The government lets them out on the street because they have rights. A lot of people with mental illness should be committed to a physciatric hospital but instead are let out to be among society. When they kill people, everyone seems shocked when they should have seen it coming and could have been avoided.
Guns don’t kill people, people do. Since cars kill more people than guns, should we ban cars?
The environmentalists would like to do just that.
Also, they will be able to use security cameras to make sure that you’re reading something uplifting like Mother Jones or the Utne Reader, as oppose to National Review.
Which will be gone anyway, due to “paper shortages”. (Google “paper shortages UK 1970s” to see how a government can use that to get rid of “incorrect” periodicals.)
Progressives have just one argument;
All “factions” on that side are simply different iterations of that premise.
clear ether
eon
Blah, Blah, Blah!
It all boils down to this, we can never legislate of regulate evil.
I couldn’t agree more. It’s impossible to watch situations like Sandy Hook & the Aurora theater shooting without feeling the emotions of shock, horror, revulsion, etc. You wouldn’t be human if you did. But watching Don Lemon & Piers Morgan, both of whom I’ve always thought very reasonable & enjoyed watching, go off on tirades to the point where they became unhinged, was truly bizarre.
In Lemon’s case, CNN should have yanked him off on the the 2nd day of the Sandy Hook coverage and they did him no favors by leaving him out there. Journalists, like cops, need to maintain a sense of professional detachment if they are to do their jobs properly. One needs only to contrast the spectacles that Lemon & Morgan made of themselves with the polished, professional performance of Wolf Blitzer and Brooke Baldwin to see the difference. As a viewer, I felt that Blitzer and Baldwin showed me some respect by simply providing me with up to date information and allowing me to make my own decisions.