Hello, world! This blog began on September 28, 2007, and so far nobody has come looking for me with tar and feathers.
On my honor, I will do my best not to bore you. All comments are welcome as long as your discourse is civil and your language is not blue.
Happy reading, and come back often!
And whether my cup is half full or half empty, fill my cup, Lord.
Did you know that the NRA even goes so far as to support gun sales to people who are on the terrorist watch list, and that their answer to gun violence is more guns?
True. Though some of the other factors come into play. I doubt that we are more law abiding over here, but we have fewer mass shootings. For which I am grateful.
With very, very rare exceptions we don't have mass shootings in England where it is very difficult acquire guns. NOBODY I know possesses a gun. If you have a food processor or an electric carving knife you want to use them. The same is true with guns. They are too easy, too tempting to use. Like being in a film.
My heart goes out to all Americans who have lost family members or friends.
You should listen to what President Obama has said repeatedly on the subject.
I think there are some simple fixes to the assault weapon problem. If you see someone on the street with one, shoot first and ask questions later. The "good" people who have them don't pack them around, they only keep them for protection (so they say, personally I think they keep them to avoid having to buy blue pills). So far, if you see a person in public with an assault rifle it's because he's up to no good. So just make those people an approved target. Like raccoons.
“I doubt that we are more law abiding over here, but we have fewer mass shootings.”
It’s self-evident that people who murder other people have no respect for the law, so I have no idea why our dear friend and colleague found it worth mentioning unless he thinks the answer to gun violence can be found in civics classes. Another common argument is that if you limit the number of guns, people will just find other ways to commit mass murder. Then there’s “guns don’t kill people, people kill people.” I was serious when I said that the opinion of millions—most importantly the extremely powerful lobbying group, the National Rife Association—is that the answer to gun violence is more guns. Arm teachers, put armed guards in schools (many of which can barely afford teachers), relax concealed weapons laws so that if a shooter comes into a school, theatre or whatever, he would be shot by all of the other people who were armed for such an event. No matter what, the gun lobby flatly refuses to consider any law whatsoever that would in any way limit easy access to guns, “cop killer” body armor piercing bullets, extended clips to allow one gun to shot scores of bullets, and so on.
All, I have never advocated solving problems (real or imagined) with guns or knives or even fisticuffs, but I live in the midst of a people who do. My dad owned a 12-gauge shotgun (for hunting rabbits and squirrels, which he did maybe twice in his life) and a .38 caliber revolver (for self-defense against burglars who might make it as far as his bedroom, which my mother was petrified of -- the pistol, not the bedroom). It is difficult to be nuanced on the internet and I almost. put "< sarcasm off >" at the bottom of the post. I thought it unnecessary. I thought it would be self-evident. Apparently it is not. I am pretty much in agreement with Snowbrush. However, the Second Amendment to our U.S. Constitution (part of the Bill of Rights urged by Jefferson) acknowledges that citizens have the right to keep and bear arms for a very good reason -- not that they might be able to harm one another indiscriminately and loot and burn their own neighborhoods but that they might be able to defend themselves and their families against all enemies foreign and domestic, including the possible rise of a tyrannical government on our own shores. No, the answer to gun violence is not more gun violence, but neither is it the confiscation of guns by the government (Adolf Hitler did that and look where it got him. I'm just saying). I suppose we could try mass imprisonments or frontal lobotomies or re-education camps or any number of things but what people really need to have is changed hearts. Something along the lines of doing unto others as you would have them do unto you.
“defend themselves and their families against all enemies foreign and domestic, including the possible rise of a tyrannical government on our own shores.”
That’s what it comes down to, so when liberals ask why anyone would need so much firepower, the answer is Civil War. Compared to conservatives’ fear of their government, the murder of vast numbers of people by lunatics and ideologues becomes a small matter to the gun lobby, as can be seen in their suggestion that the answer to gun violence is more guns so that the “good guys” can all whip out their guns and blast away at would-be mass murderers. It frankly scares me that this is a serious proposal, and that our country should, if it is carried out, be unique in that we’re all armed to the teeth at all hours and in all places to protect ourselves against one another. It seems to me a proposal that is only suitable in a country that is disintegrating by the hour and that instead of relying on our police and military, we have not choice but to put on body armor and walk around with machineguns. The paranoia, the lack of interest in the welfare of society as a whole is tragic. Instead of working together to solve our problems, the gun lobby would have us set ourselves against one another. It’s individualism gone wild.
As for the “right to bear arms,” this part of the Constitution came from an era in which it was thought that a standing army wouldn’t be necessary, but that such army as we had would be composed of militias made of people who stayed home until called, at which point they all grabbed their guns and went out to fight an invading power. We now have a standing army, so the reason for this law not longer exists. But in any event, to use it as an excuse to justify anyone being able to buy anything and even walk around carrying machine-guns is just too sad for words. It’s a case of saying to hell with everyone but me and mine, and where this sentiment is at its strongest, Christianity is also at its strongest. I can’t begin to understand this view of Jesus as an NRA supporter. I think it verges on mental illness. In any case, it’s mean and aggressive and the furthest thing from love of one neighbor or ones country. It's like claiming that the best way to put out a fire is with gasoline.
I’ve got quite a few of them. Some came down through my family, and I wouldn’t think of putting a modern shotgun shell in them (them being mostly shotguns) for fear they would blow up, but I also have a couple of modern high-caliber revolvers that I take when I go camping to remote areas. When I was a teenager, I drove around with a revolver in my glove compartment for no other reason than that it make me feel mature and manly. Still, I never even once felt tempted to use it when I got into a fight at school (something I did fairly often). So, I would agree that the problem is really not guns per se, but a societal climate that has somehow made murder into a serious option for so many mean people. So it it is that I’m very much for gun control because it’s clear that you can’t shoot people unless you have a gun to do it with. The question comes down to how many mass shootings are we willing to put up with. If you define mass shooting as one in which four or more are killed, America has more than one per day, so many that we only hear about the worst of them.
Did you know that the NRA even goes so far as to support gun sales to people who are on the terrorist watch list, and that their answer to gun violence is more guns?
ReplyDeleteTrue. Though some of the other factors come into play.
ReplyDeleteI doubt that we are more law abiding over here, but we have fewer mass shootings. For which I am grateful.
With very, very rare exceptions we don't have mass shootings in England where it is very difficult acquire guns. NOBODY I know possesses a gun. If you have a food processor or an electric carving knife you want to use them. The same is true with guns. They are too easy, too tempting to use. Like being in a film.
ReplyDeleteMy heart goes out to all Americans who have lost family members or friends.
You should listen to what President Obama has said repeatedly on the subject.
I think there are some simple fixes to the assault weapon problem. If you see someone on the street with one, shoot first and ask questions later. The "good" people who have them don't pack them around, they only keep them for protection (so they say, personally I think they keep them to avoid having to buy blue pills). So far, if you see a person in public with an assault rifle it's because he's up to no good. So just make those people an approved target. Like raccoons.
ReplyDelete“I doubt that we are more law abiding over here, but we have fewer mass shootings.”
ReplyDeleteIt’s self-evident that people who murder other people have no respect for the law, so I have no idea why our dear friend and colleague found it worth mentioning unless he thinks the answer to gun violence can be found in civics classes. Another common argument is that if you limit the number of guns, people will just find other ways to commit mass murder. Then there’s “guns don’t kill people, people kill people.” I was serious when I said that the opinion of millions—most importantly the extremely powerful lobbying group, the National Rife Association—is that the answer to gun violence is more guns. Arm teachers, put armed guards in schools (many of which can barely afford teachers), relax concealed weapons laws so that if a shooter comes into a school, theatre or whatever, he would be shot by all of the other people who were armed for such an event. No matter what, the gun lobby flatly refuses to consider any law whatsoever that would in any way limit easy access to guns, “cop killer” body armor piercing bullets, extended clips to allow one gun to shot scores of bullets, and so on.
All, I have never advocated solving problems (real or imagined) with guns or knives or even fisticuffs, but I live in the midst of a people who do. My dad owned a 12-gauge shotgun (for hunting rabbits and squirrels, which he did maybe twice in his life) and a .38 caliber revolver (for self-defense against burglars who might make it as far as his bedroom, which my mother was petrified of -- the pistol, not the bedroom). It is difficult to be nuanced on the internet and I almost. put "< sarcasm off >" at the bottom of the post. I thought it unnecessary. I thought it would be self-evident. Apparently it is not. I am pretty much in agreement with Snowbrush. However, the Second Amendment to our U.S. Constitution (part of the Bill of Rights urged by Jefferson) acknowledges that citizens have the right to keep and bear arms for a very good reason -- not that they might be able to harm one another indiscriminately and loot and burn their own neighborhoods but that they might be able to defend themselves and their families against all enemies foreign and domestic, including the possible rise of a tyrannical government on our own shores. No, the answer to gun violence is not more gun violence, but neither is it the confiscation of guns by the government (Adolf Hitler did that and look where it got him. I'm just saying). I suppose we could try mass imprisonments or frontal lobotomies or re-education camps or any number of things but what people really need to have is changed hearts. Something along the lines of doing unto others as you would have them do unto you.
ReplyDeleteYour dear friend and colleague,
rhymeswithplague
“defend themselves and their families against all enemies foreign and domestic, including the possible rise of a tyrannical government on our own shores.”
ReplyDeleteThat’s what it comes down to, so when liberals ask why anyone would need so much firepower, the answer is Civil War. Compared to conservatives’ fear of their government, the murder of vast numbers of people by lunatics and ideologues becomes a small matter to the gun lobby, as can be seen in their suggestion that the answer to gun violence is more guns so that the “good guys” can all whip out their guns and blast away at would-be mass murderers. It frankly scares me that this is a serious proposal, and that our country should, if it is carried out, be unique in that we’re all armed to the teeth at all hours and in all places to protect ourselves against one another. It seems to me a proposal that is only suitable in a country that is disintegrating by the hour and that instead of relying on our police and military, we have not choice but to put on body armor and walk around with machineguns. The paranoia, the lack of interest in the welfare of society as a whole is tragic. Instead of working together to solve our problems, the gun lobby would have us set ourselves against one another. It’s individualism gone wild.
As for the “right to bear arms,” this part of the Constitution came from an era in which it was thought that a standing army wouldn’t be necessary, but that such army as we had would be composed of militias made of people who stayed home until called, at which point they all grabbed their guns and went out to fight an invading power. We now have a standing army, so the reason for this law not longer exists. But in any event, to use it as an excuse to justify anyone being able to buy anything and even walk around carrying machine-guns is just too sad for words. It’s a case of saying to hell with everyone but me and mine, and where this sentiment is at its strongest, Christianity is also at its strongest. I can’t begin to understand this view of Jesus as an NRA supporter. I think it verges on mental illness. In any case, it’s mean and aggressive and the furthest thing from love of one neighbor or ones country. It's like claiming that the best way to put out a fire is with gasoline.
“NOBODY I know possesses a gun.”
ReplyDeleteI’ve got quite a few of them. Some came down through my family, and I wouldn’t think of putting a modern shotgun shell in them (them being mostly shotguns) for fear they would blow up, but I also have a couple of modern high-caliber revolvers that I take when I go camping to remote areas. When I was a teenager, I drove around with a revolver in my glove compartment for no other reason than that it make me feel mature and manly. Still, I never even once felt tempted to use it when I got into a fight at school (something I did fairly often). So, I would agree that the problem is really not guns per se, but a societal climate that has somehow made murder into a serious option for so many mean people. So it it is that I’m very much for gun control because it’s clear that you can’t shoot people unless you have a gun to do it with. The question comes down to how many mass shootings are we willing to put up with. If you define mass shooting as one in which four or more are killed, America has more than one per day, so many that we only hear about the worst of them.