(Editorial) ...It's time to broach gun control topic...

[spin]

December 3, 2009

Recent gunfire in downtown Port Huron can't help but raise concerns.

Suddenly, it is not affecting just "those people." It is not just about drug dealers and hooligans from Detroit. It's not just happening "down there." It is gunfire right in the heart of downtown.

It is hard to escape our fears. And hard to escape some conversation about -- now hold on -- gun control.

***snip***

We know this is Michigan. And we know thousands of Michigan hunters are safe and conscientious supporters of the Second Amendment.

At the same time, we wonder why anyone needs a handgun, which exists simply to kill people. And, for the most part, handguns are in the possession of people bearing bad thoughts and bad attitudes. Almost three-quarters of gun homicides in our country are committed with handguns.

One common excuse is regular folks need handguns to protect themselves from the bad guys. Did being armed protect those four police officers in Tacoma?
http://www.thetimesherald.com/article/20091203/OPINION01/912030326/It-s-time-to-broach-gun-control-topic emphasis added

In your opinion are handgun owners "people bearing bad thoughts and bad attitudes"?

edited for HTML screwup.

[Deep13]

1. The 2nd Amend. little to do with hunting.

True, in feudal times, hunting was a royal prerogative. The people starved while deer abounded in the king's forests. So part of the rural gun culture exists because of that. Mostly, however, it is for protection against dangerous conditions that the law cannot remedy. That meant pest control, protection from criminals, from invasion and, sorry to say, from slaves and Indians.

The dangers are different now, of course. Still, I have to wonder what badly behaved people have to do with my right to own and shoot firearms.

[FredStembottom]

2. ...or your right to stockpile and set off explosives.

n/t

[spin]

3. A different topic entirely...

I know an individual from Michigan who grew up on a farm and remembered using explosives to clear stumps from a field.

Obviously companies often use explosives in mining operations and seismic operations.

****

The question I asked was if handgun owners are "people bearing bad thoughts and bad attitudes" The editorial claimed they were and therefore suggested that people who own only rifles and shotguns are morally superior.

I would be interested in your feelings on this statement.

[Name removed]

5. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[FredStembottom]

9. First off, I wish to de-personalize my earlier statement....

...it should not have a "you" in there. Just wishing to provoke thought.

For the record: I oppose attempts at gun confiscation - but for one reason only. It can't be done at this point and attempting to do so would bring a greater turmoil and harm.
Maybe just after the Civil War, all those loose guns might have been rounded up.....

However, I find the ridiculous prevalence of guns and the peculiar regard bordering on worship that too often goes with them to be a chronic American disease that must be lived with... at best. Like re-curring malaria.

I also see no real difference between stock-piling guns and ammo stock-piling poisons, disease germs, radioactive materials or explosives. In each case the rest of society must simply hope that the bearer is a "good person" and won't spray death from their position at some time in the future.

Some things are inherently powerful, destructive and intoxicating enough that we handle them as a society - in the open with all eyes upon them (ideally) - rather than let a million individuals decide anew, each day, whether to use the explosives in a construction project..... or go mad with the possibilities and start applying them to their own, quite possibly, insane list of "tasks".

Just wait till actual Star Trek phasers are developed - when one sweep of the beam might cut a hundred people in half!

We'll all be talking these things over again.

P.S. I grew up hunting and shooting with my Dad and the best group of muzzle-loading hobby-ists in the world. All good times.

[metalbot]

11. What's a stockpile?

Several comments on your post:

"Maybe just after the Civil War, all those loose guns might have been rounded up....."

At that point in America's history, most concern about gun control was about "How do we stop blacks from owning firearms?" and led to laws in the south that were racially neutral in the letter of the law, but not in the enforcement of that law.

"I also see no real difference between stock-piling guns and ammo stock-piling poisons, disease germs, radioactive materials or explosives. In each case the rest of society must simply hope that the bearer is a "good person" and won't spray death from their position at some time in the future."

What's a stockpile? 300 rounds of ammo? For anyone who shoots enough to be good with a pistol, that's a relatively low amount. However, you'll be hard pressed to find many instances of mass murder in the US where much more than 300 rounds were used. I'm a lot less concerned about someone who has a stockpile of 20k rounds in their garage for no good reason than someone who wants 1 gun and 10 bullets for a bad reason.

"Some things are inherently powerful, destructive and intoxicating enough that we handle them as a society - in the open with all eyes upon them (ideally) - rather than let a million individuals decide anew, each day, whether to use the explosives in a construction project..... or go mad with the possibilities and start applying them to their own, quite possibly, insane list of "tasks"."

I could make an argument that cars are just as deadly as guns - more so if you look at fatalities and injuries per car and per gun in the US. We let millions of people every day drive to work in spite of the fact that any of them could decide that's the day to roll into a crowd of children crossing the street. We let hundreds of thousands of people drive drunk with penalties that have almost no effect on their daily lives.

[spin]

14. I oppose gun confiscation because in history "slaves" often were those...

who were forbidden to own weapons.

Freedom means the government trusts its citizens enough to allow them to own weapons.

Obviously, freedom has drawbacks to the ruling elite. The government has to be far less dictatorial and far more responsive to the lower classes. On the plus side, freedom results in a better society for all.

Gun control has its roots in racism. It always has and always will. Those in power will push for draconian gun control or gun bans and confiscation to protect their interests and will always disguise it as a means to control violent crime, but to be fair it all comes down to keeping "those people" from owning weapons.

Our experiment in representative democracy and freedom has been an overall success. True, what works in our country may fail in other countries. Still, we have been able to use a document written in 1787 as a workable foundation for a lasting form of government that has survived and while reinterpreted and to an extent revised, still works today.

Probably, the most important amendments to this document were the First and the Second. The first provided for a free press and the second allowed the ownership of firearms.

If we lose either of these rights, we will become just another feudal society. We will depend on faith that the ruling class will consider us important enough to insure that we are not merely slaves or serfs that only work to serve the upper class elites.

We have gun control measures which have reduced firearm violence to a great extent. Some of these laws could be improved. Both pro-gun and anti-gun groups could dispense with the bullshit and propaganda both push, and we might make some real headway.

I seriously feel we can do this. We already have a good start. Some estimates show there are as many as 300 million firearms in our country. If the mere existence of firearms in civilian hands was all that serious, our violent crime rate would be astronomical.

Actually it has been deceasing at the same time that the private ownership of firearms and the right of citizens to legally carry weapons has been increasing. It defies logic and commonsense, but so does the fact that solid water is lighter than liquid water.

An unusual property of ice frozen at atmospheric pressure is that the solid is approximately 9% less dense than liquid water. Ice is the only known non-metallic substance to expand when it freezes.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ice

[GreenStormCloud]

16. There were LOTS and LOTS of guns around BEFORE the Civil War.

Almost every home had a gun, especially if the family lived in the country. At the time, the USA was an agricultural country and most people lived on farms. Gun ownership and hunting were almost universal. Perhaps you have been reading Michael A. Bellesiles, who claims that gun ownership and hunting were rare in pre-civil war America. His book, Arming America, has been debunk and his prestigious Bancroft Prize was withdrawn after it was discovered that he had repeated lied in his book. Emory University then fired him.

Remember, the Texas Revolution was fought with guns that the settlers brought with them from USA.

You do not distinguish between guns that are owned legally and those that are owned illegally. In almost every case of aggressive gun violence, the person with the gun had it illegally. People who own guns legally are only very rarely involved in gun crime.

[Euromutt]

20. I have different reasons for opposing more stringent controls

As a political science major, one of the first things I was taught is that authority is the legitimate exercise of power, and what grants it that legitimacy is that the power is coupled to responsibility. In various cases--Warren v. District of Columbia, DeShaney v. Winnebago County, Castle Rock v. Gonzales--the Supreme Court of the United States has ruled that the government has no responsibility to provide protection from criminal harm to individual citizens, or even to make a good faith (albeit unsuccessful) effort to do so. If the government then refuses to take responsibility for the safety of the individual citizen, it has no authority to deprive citizens of the means to protect themselves. And since firearms are the most reliably effective method of incapacitating an assailant, the government has no authority to hamper citizens from owning firearms.

I also see no real difference between stock-piling guns and ammo stock-piling poisons, disease germs, radioactive materials or explosives.

Then that is due solely to lack of imagination on your part. Germs, radiation and explosives are indiscriminate by nature; there is no way to use them on one person without harming another person standing close to the first. It's even rather uncertain with poison. Poison, germs and radiation, moreover, are ill-suited for self-defense, because they take too long to incapacitate an assailant. These objections do not apply to firearms.

Some things are inherently powerful, destructive and intoxicating enough <...>

"Intoxicating"? Are you asserting that firearms are capable of causing "overpowering exhilaration or excitement of the mind or emotions"? You're skating very close to the kind of magical thinking--seen not infrequently on this board--that firearms in effect have mind control powers, able to make the wielder psychologically capable and willing to commit actions that he would otherwise not be.

[Deep13]

12. You're changing the subject.

We're talking about handguns. Allowing one does not necessitate allowing the other.

[spin]

4. Should handguns be banned?

Obviously rifles and shotguns could be used to accomplish the goals of the Second Amendment.

[Deep13]

13. I find them heavy and unwieldy.

This is especially true inside a house, a car or in states requiring them to be concealed. A piano may be a far more versatile instrument than a harmonica, but there is a reason why people carry the latter and not the former. Also, one can essentially build a in-door pistol range anywhere while rifle ranges need acres and acres of space.

For some things, yes, long guns are better.

[JonQ]

18. Yep ban handguns

then "discover" that just about every rifle is capable of penetrating police armor, so ban "cop killer" rifles (which happens to be all of them).

And of course shotguns need to go, those spray shot indiscriminately and could hit a child, besides what good would they be defending yourself against the military (for that you'd need some sort of rifle or something)? So ban them.

What's left now?

[notesdev]

6. With the number of privately-held firearms in the US

if the guns themselves were the problem, there would be tens of thousands of murders on a daily basis, if not more.

The number of privately held guns is about 200 million last I checked, probably significantly more now with the recent industry boom.

The chance of any particular gun being used to kill someone is so small that you are far better served being concerned about the number of cars in private hands.

[metalbot]

7. Of course not

Handguns are used more by criminals than rifles for the simple fact that they are easier to conceal. So you could argue that if you own a handgun, you are more likely to be a criminal than if you own a rifle. However, you're still talking about small fractions of a percent. It's clearly not "for the most part".

[spin]

10. A handgun is primarily a close range self defense weapon...

if it was a good offensive weapon, our armed military would carry handguns rather than rifles.

Criminals often use handguns because they are easy to conceal and because they are intimidating to an unarmed person. Criminals also use knifes for the same reason.

Many people believe with good reason that the best weapon for home defense is a shotgun. If you hear a noise in the night and you suspect an intruder is breaking into your home, the best advise is to lock yourself in your bedroom with a 12 gauge and call the police on your cell phone. If the intruder decides to bust your bedroom door down and attack you, you have time to be sure of your target. If you shoot someone with a shotgun chances are you will kill him and stop the attack. If you shoot someone with a handgun, you may stop him if you're are lucky, but chances are he will survive. If so, he may injure or kill you.

Still, handguns can be used as home defense weapons. If you leave the bedroom to investigate the situation, you are operating at a disadvantage. You have no idea if someone is in your home or who he is. The intruder may hear your approach and take cover which gives him the advantage. He does know who he is and what his intentions are.

Basically, playing Wyatt Earp can get you killed. But most often the noise in the night is harmless and crouching behind your bed leads to only a loss of sleep. The police you called will not be happy and will probably consider you paranoid and may not rush to respond to your next call.

Of course, you may have other people in the house who depend on you for their defense. Hiding in your bedroom might not be a realistic option. A shotgun is an awkward weapon to use while clearing a house. It's far too easy for a bad guy to grab a shotgun with its long barrel at close range. A snub nosed handgun is a better choice in this situation.

On the street, it is difficult if not impossible to conceal and use a rifle or shotgun for self defense. A concealed firearm or even one carried openly (if legal) is a far better choice. Obviously it's wise not to go places where you put yourself in danger and you should always practice situational awareness when out in public (don't have your head up your ass with a cell phone to your ear while walking alone).

{i] edited for spelling

[benEzra]

19. The gun control lobby wants to ban the most popular rifles, too. (n/t)

[Euromutt]

8. So Port Huron *used* to be just fine, if I understand correctly

That's the impression I get from the editorial, anyway; there apparently didn't use to be gunfights on Quay Street. So what changed?

Not living in Port Huron, I can't answer that with any certainty, but I know what didn't change, and that something is Michigan's gun laws. Okay, they got rid of the "safety inspection" at the beginning of this year, but Michigan still has a system of handgun registration, requiring a License To Purchase and a Pistol Sales Record. Theoretically, the Michigan State Police know where every legally purchased handgun in the state is supposed to be.

If whatever problems Port Huron has weren't caused by a change in the gun laws, what logicval reaosn is there to think they can be solved by a change in the gun laws? The Times-Herald's editorial position is a perfect example of the maxim that "gun control is what you do instead of something useful."

[aikoaiko]

15. Stunning and insulting fearmongering about those who legally own a handgun

I wonder what increased gun control laws they are speakingt of that still honor the 2nd Amendment. Of course they offer nothing.

:shrug:

[JonQ]

17. I love that assumption

most handgun owners are evil, based on a study that we just made up.

This same study found that the 2nd amendment was also about hunting, not defense, despite their refusal to use the actual word "hunting" in it.

[Euromutt]

21. Well, according to a study *I* just made up...

...members of newspaper editorial boards are for the most part ignorant jackasses, who may have a decent idea of how to operate a newspaper, but don't have the first clue about the things that the stories and opinion pieces that they put in their newspapers are about.

[Howzit]

22. "Did being armed protect those four police officers in Tacoma?"

Those cops were not being robbed, they were targeted for murder. If an armed crook threatens to shoot you if you don't give up your valuables or tell them where the safe is, you may have the opportunity to resist. If they shoot first before searching you for valuables (or to execute you), then nothing is going to help you.

[beevul]

23. Didn't you know?

Getting the drop on 4 armed people eating and doing paperwork in close proximity to each other, is EXACTLY the same thing as getting the drop on an entire college full of people. :sarcasm:

Well, ok, I will concede that disarming the people in the college at least makes the outcome alot more similar - in that little to nothing can be done about it.

[AtheistCrusader]

24. I 'bore' a pistol all day in good humor, so I must be doing it wrong, I guess.

Of all the people I know, the guy that wrote that article probably should be banned from firearm posession.

[slackmaster]

25. I've managed to keep thinking good thoughts and maintain a good attitude inspite of stupid shit

Like that idiotic piece of tripe.