Bowling for Virginia Tech

[mike777]

Yes the Myths of guns are very strong in the USA and yes we seem to do little about it decade after decade.

 

There may indeed be no scientific studies that say 250 million guns, rifles and automatic weapons stop the USA from being occupied but the belief in that and the high homicide rates do seem to be accepted.

 

Seeing half of Europe behind barbed wire in the 80's, concentration camps in europe in the 90's, Russia and China looked upon as the land of Big Brother 1984, mass killings in India and Africa contribute to this belief despite no real science.

 

Seeing Norway, France, Holland, Belgium etc being run over in a matter of weeks in war after war again contribute to the myth. Telling us Norway has 2 murders by guns in twenty years does not stop the myths in American culture of being overrun.

 

Please note I make no claims there is any proof having 250 million guns would stop this in your country but that is all part of the myth here in the USA and why we seem to aim so low in reducing the homicide rates.

[the saint]

Anyone who wants a gun, isn't the type of person to have one. Simple.

[pbleighton]

"Please note I make no claims there is any proof having 250 million guns would stop this in your country but that is all part of the myth here in the USA and why we seem to aim so low in reducing the homicide rates."

 

Do you believe the myth, Mike?

 

Peter

[mike777]

"Please note I make no claims there is any proof having 250 million guns would stop this in your country but that is all part of the myth here in the USA and why we seem to aim so low in reducing the homicide rates."

 

Do you believe the myth, Mike?

 

Peter

No I have never owned a gun nor did my parents. My grandparents did but then one was a lifelong Marine(Major) and a lawyer in the Marines who fought in the Pacific. I do have a Brother and sister in the Army who have guns and numerous Marine relatives. I have another distant relative who lived under and fought Japan when their country was occupied, I guess they used guns.

 

I think the myth is strong in this country why else do we own 250 million guns?

[mike777]

Anyone who wants a gun, isn't the type of person to have one. Simple.

Well just look at how many of our past Presidents owned guns.

 

Just look how many running for President today own guns or are members of the NRA including the Democrats. :)

 

Is this true of your leaders in your home country? Is gunownership a huge issue in your national elections? :)

 

Just watch ours the next 12 months and see what these guys and gals say about guns and taking away the 250 million guns. :)

[hotShot]

Well just look at how many  of our past Presidents owned guns.

Just look how many Presidents got shot.....

 

 

The longer it takes you to get a gun, the bigger the chance that you get your mind right again.

[kenberg]

Anyone who wants a gun, isn't the type of person to have one. Simple.

I guess I believe that somewhere between this view on one end and the NRA's "from my cold dead hands" on the other, there must be something better.

 

I grew up fishing and later hunting. I was carrying a loaded shotgun, borrowed, at somewhere around age 11, and I had my own a few years later. I was well taught by me father about the responsibility of this. I gave up hunting in my twenties because I went so infrequently that I began to lose confidence in my judgment. Mostly I went pheasant hunting and these birds are smart. They take off and fly low so that when you shoot you are shooting at only a small upward angle. You have to judge if this is safe (ask Dick Cheny). I decided not to risk it. I haven't the slightest interest in stopping others from hunting however.

 

And the matter of self-protection is real. Teaching on a college campus, despite the recent tragedy, is a very safe way to make a living. Going armed to class is close to being the craziest thing I can think of. But. Some people drive a hack. Some own a convenience store, or a laundry, or some such, in neighborhoods I don't visit or even think about. Some are in abusive relationships, and protective orders from the court are largely a bad joke. And so on.

 

Of course owning a gun can get you killed. But it is not right to look at this statistically. For me, there is little reason to believe I will need a gun for protection. Not much for me to do with one except make a mistake. But a careful person living in a dangerous environment? Hard to believe that his safety is not enhanced by the purchase of a gun.

 

The NRA makes rational solutions essentially impossible. Too bad. Really too bad.

[mike777]

Speaking of over 500,000 home invasions per year in the USA I just got this email:

 

 

 

Bump Keys

 

 

Claim: Some residence locks are vulnerable to unauthorized entry through the use of "bump keys."

 

Status: True.

 

Example: [Collected via e-mail, January 2007]

 

I received this note and the film being referenced is scary. I find nothing about this ability for "master keys to be bumped/used on MOST house locks".

 

Is this a scam, or is principle similar to Kryptonite locks and BIC pens; or is a locksmith just trying to sell new and more expensive house locks?

 

Watch this — it is to protect your home!

 

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-5177213949300140850

 

Origins: The

concept of "bump keys" (or "999 keys") gained currency on the Internet in 2006 after an April 2005 Dutch television program demonstrating the technique (and similar videos, such as the one referenced in the example quoted above) were posted on various web sites. The issue has naturally concerned a good many people who have learned about it, since it seemingly shows that many of the kinds of locks typically used on residences are seemingly vulnerable to being bypassed through a fairly simple, effective technique.

 

A 2006 analysis of "key bumping" published on security.org describes the technique:

A "999" or bump key can be any key that fits a particular pin tumbler lock and that has been modified so that all of its cuts (or grooves) are made to the deepest allowable position as defined by each manufacturer. The term "fit" means that the key will enter the keyway (the front of the lock) but will not unlock it. For example, assume all of the locks in a particular apartment complex are produced by the same manufacturer and have the same keyway. The key for apartment 101 can enter the lock of apartment 207 (or any other apartment) but will only unlock the apartment for which it was cut (i.e., apartment 101). Any key cut for any apartment in this example could be modified to act as a bump key and then could be used to open any other apartment within the complex (or potentially any other complexes where the same manufacturer's locks were installed).

 

The term "bumping" refers to the process of forcing the key to interact with the pin tumblers by "bumping" or rapping it with a plastic mallet while it is inserted into the lock. This process entails hitting the head of the key, causing it to rapidly move forward. When the key is struck correctly, each of the bottom pins is "bumped" upward for a brief instant, thus allowing the lock to be opened.

How prevalent is "key bumping," and how concerned should one be about it?

Despite the apparent ease and effectiveness of key bumping, whether criminals are making widespread use of the technique to burglarize homes is questionable. Some critics, such as the Associated Locksmiths of America (ALOA), have maintained that publicizing bump keys on the Internet may soon increase the incidence of their use in burglaries and other crimes.

 

Many standard pin tumbler locks are vulnerable to key bumping. Higher security-grade locks are less vulnerable (although not necessarily impervious), and non-pin tumbler locks (e.g., rotating disk locks, electronic locks, magnetic locks) are not vulnerable at all.

 

A potential "bumper" needs to obtain a key that fits the keyway of the type of lock he seeks to enter. Some types of keys are protected by patent or other restrictions and are more difficult to obtain through normal commercial channels.

 

Key bumping can involve a good deal of noisy banging, so it isn't necessarily an optimal method for covertly entering an occupied residence (or one where adjacent residents might be within earshot).

Debate continues over how easily the key bumping technique can be learned and used, how effective it is for effecting illegal entry into homes and businesses, and to what extent it may be facilitating criminal activity. For those worried about the potential that their home locks could be vulnerable, the best advice for now is to consult a professional locksmith and obtain a security assessment of your current locks and/or suggestions for more secure replacements.

 

Additional information:

Opening Locks by Bumping in Five Seconds or Less

(security.org)

Bumping Locks

(The Open Organization of Lockpickers)

Last updated: 7 February 2007

 

 

The URL for this page is http://www.snopes.com/crime/warnings/bumpkeys.asp

 

Urban Legends Reference Pages © 1995-2007

by Barbara and David P. Mikkelson

-----------------------------------------------------------------

Your browser does not support the IFRAME tag

[Winstonm]

The question I would like answered in this tragedy is how did a non-citizen, found by the courts to be a threat to himself, end up possessing guns?

 

Perhaps the answer is not in the abolishing of the right to bear arms, but eliminating the private sales of arms, although that would cripple an industry and create a black market for arms.

 

I am more in agreement with Helene that unless I directly have an effect on someone else, what I do or own should not be the government's business.

 

Madmen do mad things, including killing. The Manson family used knives. The Branch Dividians used fire. Jim Jones used poison koolaid. Ted Bundy used a tire iron and his bare hands.

 

The concept of weaponry is no different between individuals as between countries: two men pointing guns at one another is no different that the U.S.S.R. and the U.S.A. pointing ICBMs at each other. It is only when imbalance occurs that one side becomes supreme.

 

If you eliminate all guns, from both good and bad intended people, you will most certainly eliminate the deaths from guns - but you will also have created an imbalance where the physically superior have the advantage.

 

Perhaps all that would happen is that deaths from knives and machetes would increase dramatically.

[cherdano]

The concept of weaponry is no different between individuals as between countries: two men pointing guns at one another is no different that the U.S.S.R. and the U.S.A. pointing ICBMs at each other. It is only when imbalance occurs that one side becomes supreme.

You see, this is just wrong.

1. Nations behave pretty rational.

2. Usage of nuclear weapons against another nation with nuclear weapons more or less guarantees a disaster for your own nation.

 

Humans are pretty irrational, compared to nations, especially in stress situations. And in a handgun fight, if you shoot first, you probably win, it's definitely less risky than shooting second.

 

I would bet you are more likely to survive an armed robbery if you don't have a gun...

[Winstonm]

The concept of weaponry is no different between individuals as between countries: two men pointing guns at one another is no different that the U.S.S.R. and the U.S.A. pointing ICBMs at each other.  It is only when imbalance occurs that one side becomes supreme.

You see, this is just wrong.

1. Nations behave pretty rational.

2. Usage of nuclear weapons against another nation with nuclear weapons more or less guarantees a disaster for your own nation.

 

Humans are pretty irrational, compared to nations, especially in stress situations. And in a handgun fight, if you shoot first, you probably win, it's definitely less risky than shooting second.

 

I would bet you are more likely to survive an armed robbery if you don't have a gun...

Yes, in practical application it is wrong. I agree with you. But I am not speaking of a practical application, but theoretical, and I am not trying to measure what you are trying to measure. You seem to be speaking of potential for injury - and I am not disputing that risk; I simply am not addressing it.

 

Therefore, based on my comparison standards, the conceptual comparison is valid. I am not measuring the risk of potential injury. Nor am I trying to measure the risk of conflict with weaponry compared to without weaponry. What I am showing is how the comparative strengths of antagonists alters risk in case of conflict. The U.S.A. had little military risk invading Iraq; but the U.S.A. would have faced serious risk invading U.S.S.R. It is the disparity or eqalization of arms that defines the amount of risk.

A man without a gun may still attack and kill and man who holds a gun, but his risk of failure is higher; when both are armed, the risk is equalized. (conceptually only, assuming equal skill, nerve, etc.) The reason I use conceptualization is that I am showing not a practical point but a theoretical reasoning for current U.S. law. Regardless, just as with countries, it is the disparity or eqalization of arms that defines the amount of risk.

 

I am trying to show a theoretical model of one reason of how weaponry alters confrontations and potential confrontations. The point being that equlization of weaponry puts both parties at (theorectically) equal risk, and inequality of weaponry inbalances the risk.

 

The model does not address the potential for injury absent weaponry versus with weaponry. The model is designed to show one reason the right to bear arms was included as a constitutional right in the U.S. The Bill of Rights does not address the risk of injury; however, it does address the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Rightly or wrongly, the founders of the consitution decided that equality of weaponry helped protect those other rights.

 

If the issue is whether or not the rights of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness should not also include a debatable method of protecting those rights via weapons, that is another question entirely.

 

So, my answer to you is I have sympathy for your side and have myself no great love of guns; but at the same time I understand the fear of tyranny (and that can be one-on-one tyrany such as an abused spouse) and the attempt to level the relative strengths of each side that propelled the language into the constitution.

 

On a related theme of tyranny: a number of years ago a housewife was subjected to the tyranny of her abusive husband, who beat her visciously many times over a period of many years. Eventualy, this woman waited until her husband was asleep, poured gasoline over him and set his bed on fire, killing him.

 

In her trial, her claim was self-defense - the original "battered wife" defense.

 

In your opinion, was this a justified act based upon the tyranny to which she was subjected?

[cherdano]

In your opinion, was this a justified act based upon the tyranny to which she was subjected?

No, this wasn't justified, this is what we have the police, justices and jails for.

It was understandable, and maybe she shouldn't get punished, but it was still the wrong thing to do (at least in a decent legal system where she can get him thrown out of the house more or less immediately and expect he will get punished for what he did).

 

In the understanding of democracy and legal system I grew up with, one of its bases is what is called the "Staatliches Gewaltmonopol" in German. This word doesn't even exist in English as such, and it denotes the states' monopoly on the (legitimate) use of force. (Of course we do have an exception for the defense against an imminent threat.)

 

Anyway, I find it doubtful if you base your reasoning just on leveling comparative strengths, when 1. this does not happen in practice (85% of gun owners are male), and 2. it doesn't help the weaker one to become safer. I would argue that the weak ones in fact become less safe, because the police in the US seems a lot more scared of doing ANYTHING than the police in any European state I know.

 

Of course, this perspective may not have existed in 1791...

[mike777]

In the understanding of democracy and legal system I grew up with, one of its bases is what is called the "Staatliches Gewaltmonopol" in German. This word doesn't even exist in English as such, and it denotes the states' monopoly on the (legitimate) use of force. (Of course we do have an exception for the defense against an imminent threat.)

 

..... because the police in the US seems a lot more scared of doing ANYTHING than the police in any European state I know....

1) Yes, the USA has the tradition of trusting almost anything more than trusting the government with a "monopoly on the use of legitimate force". Europe and Asia are quite different. This definitely includes living with a much higher gun homicide rate.

 

2) I have never heard this view of Usa police vs Europe police. I am very surprised. Hope you write more on this subject.

[helene_t]

Is this true of your leaders in your home country? Is gunownership a huge issue in your national elections? :D

I remember a debate when I was young (some 30 years ago) about whether police officers should carry guns on their daily routine. Not sure if the debate reached the election campaigns. Could be. It was in the 70s when the left was strongly against an armed police and I'm sure some right-wing politicians would favor armed police because they were against the left (just like I became pro-nuclear power myself just beacuse the left was against nuclear power).

 

Another debate was about whether members of the homeguard should have firearms in peacetime. It was said that a substantial part of gun killings in Denmark were commited with homeguard weapons. Presumably, it's easier to steal a gun from an homeguard volunteer without weapon training who brings his weapon to a get-together weekend twice a year and otherwise doesn't think about the fact that he has a weapon in his house, than to steal it from a professional soldier or police officer who is constantly aware of the fact that he has a weapon he needs to protect against thieves. As I understand it, the current state of affaire is that homeguard weapons are stored as assembly parts in different deposits so that a thief would have to break into two deposits and screw the parts together himself. I don't think the debate reached the politics.

 

An immigrant politician in Germany applied for a weapon license some twenty years ago after he received threat letters from neonazis. AFAIK, no other politicians bothered to comment on whether they thought his applications should be honoured. Rightly so. This is for a judge to decide, not for politicians. Especially when the applicant is a politician himself so that other politicians could easily be biased.

[helene_t]

Yes, in practical application it is wrong.  I agree with you. But I am not speaking of a practical application, but theoretical, and I am not trying to measure what you are trying to measure.  You seem to be speaking of potential for injury - and I am not disputing that risk; I simply am not addressing it.

 

Therefore, based on my comparison standards, the conceptual comparison is valid.  I am not measuring the risk of potential injury.  Nor am I trying to measure the risk of conflict with weaponry compared to without weaponry. What I am showing is how the comparative strengths of antagonists alters risk in case of conflict.

I don't get it. The only sense I can make of this is that you focus on the comparative strength in isolation, i.e. other variables kept constant, in particular the value of a preemptive strike being kept constant, and the destructiveness of the weapons possessed being kept constant. As others have noted, free access to guns probably means less balance for a number of reasons, such as males being more likely to own guns than females.

 

Then your point seems to be that a balance of power reduces risk. I'll have to disagree with this. If violence was an aim in itself, you'd be right. In case of non-balance, the strong would use his power to destroy the weak. In case of balance, one might hope that both parties would stay peaceful out of fear of loosing.

 

But violence is not an aim in itself. In case of non-balance, the strong will prefer to get his will just by threat of using violence. This is why most of us believe in strong police versus weak citizens. Pax Romana. Of course, whether Pax Romana is a good thing depends whether one thinks that the police will use its power for a just course. But that's a justice issue or a justice-versus-security issue, it's not a security issue. Iraq, South Africa, Afganistan and Russia were safer during the Baat-, Apartheid-, Taliban- and Communist rule than those countries are today. Whether you'd rather live in either of those countries today than before is a different issue. If I lived in a Columbian village that was frequently raided by paramilitaries or rebels who could just take all our money, lifestock, children without fireing a single shot, I would have sympathy for those villageres who argued in favor of getting us armed to protect usselves, even if the likely cost would be more people getting killed in the conflicts with the raiders. Maybe the raiders would prefer to raid some other village if we had a reputation of killing strangers.

 

Balance of power is dangerous. Both parties will constantly be asking themselves the question: could we win the conflict by a preemptive strike? Of course, if the costs of a preemptive strike (even if successful) is high, both parties might prefer not to engage in armed conflict, even if that means that they have to live with an, in their eyes, slightly unjust peace. But if the alternative to committing a preemptive strike yourself might be to suffer a preemptive strike from the enemy ....... I'd argue that we avoided a WW III in spite of the balance of power, not because of the balance of power.

 

Anyway, I think the issue of gun control should be addressed as a practical one. I don't care if legislation is "right" according to some abstract philosophy, especially if I don't personally subscribe to that philosophy, even at the abstract level. What I care about is

1: Real security (what's the probability that I get shot)

2: Economical efficiency (how much money does it cost to maintain security)

3: Justice (does the armed police use its power to prevent crime, or to secure their own economic privileges)

 

I'd be prepared to accept practical arguments for a liberal weapon ownership legislation under certain conditions. In the U.S., there was a ban on alcohol in the fifties. Many people say that while there would be no alcohol in a perfect World, the costs of the alcohol ban in terms of creating a black market with all its associated violence and corruption was not worth paying. I don't know if I agree in that particular case, but I'm open to the argument. Just like I'm open to arguments from people who favor a liberal legislation with respect to heroine, prostitution and abortion even if they would prefer those things not to exist. It's possible that similar arguments could be given in favor of a liberal firearm legislation.

[jvage]

Seeing half of Europe behind barbed wire in the 80's, concentration camps in europe in the 90's, Russia and China looked upon as the land of Big Brother 1984, mass killings in India and Africa contribute to this belief despite no real science.

 

Seeing Norway, France, Holland, Belgium etc being run over in a matter of weeks in war after war again contribute to the myth. Telling us Norway has 2 murders by guns in twenty years does not stop the myths in American culture of being overrun.

Mike, you have written this twice in this thread, and as a European I am not sure what you are talking about.

 

When you write "half of Europe behind barbed wire in the 80's" my guess is you equal the classical pictures from the divided Berlin with the entire Eastern Europe, in which case it is a great simplification to say the least.

 

You have mentioned the concentration camps in Europe in the 90's also before. I have no idea what you are talking about. If it is the Soviet "Gulag-camps" they were as far as I know earlier and in Siberia (not a part of Europe). Which European camps in the 90's were even comparable to todays Guantanamo?

 

Norway, France, Holland and Belgium are with the exception of France small countries. Still they were only "run over" once, in WW2. Not "war after war", but once almost 70 years ago. At the time Norway had almost no army. After that we built up a reasonable defence and NATO was created. From a European perspective the main idea behind NATO was to create an alliance to protect smaller countries like Norway from being overrun (at the time the Soviet Union was considered the main threat).

 

There have been more than 2 murders by gun in Norway (I have no stastistics, my guess would be about 5 per year, almost all of these either internal criminal disputes, suicedes or "domestic tragedies"). I mentioned these 2 since they were the only times police were killed, and I believed neither would be avoided with an armed police, while I am sure many have been avoided because they are unarmed.

 

John

[mike777]

I think Helene's and Jvage posts really point out how different the world is viewed from Europe and the USA. I should add that some in the Usa would share these viewpoints, we do have 300million people, but no politician would be elected President or come close with these viewpoints.

 

1) Having the homeguard have their weapons broken up and sent to two seperate government depots. Keep in mind here in the usa we have 250 million guns. Now add in private, yes private citizens owning Figher/bomber airplanes, working tanks, artillery pieces, landmines, grenades, submarines. In europe the homeguard have their weapons broken up and stored and in the USA we have our own private bombers, tanks, etc. :D This leads many (me) to wonder just how much pacifism has taken over Western not Eastern Europe.

2) Yes Jvage in the 1980's half of Europe was behind barbed wire and greatly controlled in their movements. Yes Hungary and other countries began to have a bit more freedom compared to the 50's, 60's and 70's but Russia still dominated and controlled those countries and Russia(Europe) itself was not free. Heck I visited eastern europe and russia and saw the oppression myself with my own eyes.

3) Yes Jvage Europe had Concentration camps in the 1990's. No wonder Western Europe seemed to do little or nothing about them, you did not know? See the Old Yugoslavia as it broke up. Yes these were real concentration camps in the very worst sense of the word.

4) To compare the Concentration Camps in the 1990's in Europe to Gitmo I think explains the vast difference in viewpoints here.

[Al_U_Card]

If the memory of man does not exceed his vision then he is truly blind.

[Al_U_Card]

Thank goodness for history lessons and past-life regressions.... :lol:

[hrothgar]

I should add that fighting Indians well into the 1800's created a gun culture in our country. Call it genocide, wrong or whatever but expanding the country from ocean to ocean was seen as a divine right by arriving Europeans and their children.

For the record:

 

There have been some good extensive studies tracking gun ownership over time in the United States. During much of the early history of the US guns were extremely expensive. A gun was an incredibly valuable piece of property. Not many people could afford to own them. Those who could had good records. For example, many wills in the late 18th and 19th century described the disposition of people's gun after their death.

 

Here's the simple version of the results:

 

1. American gun culture didn't have all that much to protection against Indians or hunting.

 

2. American gun culture has lots to do with the American Civil War. More specifically, when the Civil ended, the US had a bunch of big factories designed to produce lots of weapons. The price of weapons dropped enormously. Equally significantly, the owners of said factories started looking for ways to encourage folks to buy lots of guns.

[bid_em_up]

On a related theme of tyranny: a number of years ago a housewife was subjected to the tyranny of her abusive husband, who beat her visciously many times over a period of many years. Eventualy, this woman waited until her husband was asleep, poured gasoline over him and set his bed on fire, killing him.

 

In her trial, her claim was self-defense - the original "battered wife" defense.

 

In your opinion, was this a justified act based upon the tyranny to which she was subjected?

I think I would have rather died by gunshot.

[bid_em_up]

I should add that fighting Indians well into the 1800's created a gun culture in our country. Call it genocide, wrong or whatever but expanding the country from ocean to ocean was seen as a divine right by arriving Europeans and their children.

For the record:

 

There have been some good extensive studies tracking gun ownership over time in the United States.

 

1) During much of the early history of the US guns were extremely expensive.

2) A gun was an incredibly valuable piece of property.

3) Not many people could afford to own them.

4) Those who could had good records.

5) For example, many wills in the late 18th and 19th century described the disposition of people's gun after their death.

 

Here's the simple version of the results:

 

6. American gun culture didn't have all that much to protection against Indians or hunting.

 

7. American gun culture has lots to do with the American Civil War. More specifically, when the Civil ended, the US had a bunch of big factories designed to produce lots of weapons. The price of weapons dropped enormously. Equally significantly, the owners of said factories started looking for ways to encourage folks to buy lots of guns.

Funny, that's not the same U.S. History that I learned.

 

1) True, but there were other methods of payment besides cash.

2) True, but not necessarily in a monetary sense. They were essential to survival and the protection of personal property vs. both man and beast. You do remember, bears, wolves, coyotes, and other animals that used to wander the U.S. unchecked. don't ya?

3) Absolutely false. Where the heck do you think the Revolutionaries got their weapons from? The govenment? No. They fought using their own personal weapons. Those that could not pay in cash, would use some other form of payment. Grains, sugar, furs, meat (and many other things) were all exchanged for guns, bullets, gunpoweder. It was not strictly cash and carry then. There was a lot of barter and trade.

4) Yea, sure. In most cases, at that point in time, a "good" person was thought to be someone who owned property. If they could afford to own property, they also had a gun to protect such property. But what about stage coach robbers? (Before the civil war). Remember the Alamo? Before the Civil War. Defended by regular people who certainly weren't wealthy and yet took their own weapons. The French-Indian war? Trail of Tears? Little Big Horn? and many others.

5) True.

6) Bullcrap. If you were to say "modern gun culture" doesn't have all that much to do with Indians or hunting, I would agree. But from the 1600's to the late 1800's, it had a LOT to do with it. They were almost essential to survival if you were not living in a city or if you were travelling anywhere.

7) Somewhat true. They had to have a market or their product would have no use other than to sell to the government, and the government wasn't buying as much after the end of the Civil War.

 

The founding fathers originally wrote the Right to Bear Arms into the U.S. Constitution to assure that the USA would be able to protect itself from further invasion. So that at any point in time, a militia (or army) could be called together to protect and defend the USA from England, France, Spain or whatever other EUROPEAN nation (with their own guns) from attempting to resieze the land that the founding fathers had just fought for and won.

 

Now, there is no way in hell they could have anticipated things like semi-automatic 9MM handguns, or AK47's, or M-16's being available for use by the average citizen 230 years later. They used single shot muskets that took a good 30 seconds to a minute (or longer) to reload for each shot. Machine guns were unheard of.

 

I have no problem with banning the sale of AK-47's, or M-16s. No civilian needs that kind of firepower at their disposal. I don't think anyone outside of possibly the police force really has a need for a semi-automatic pistol, either. I could tolerate a ban or restriction of sales on those, as well.

 

But plain shot pistols, where you have to pull the trigger each time in order for it to fire? No. Do I own one? Not currently. Will I own one again? Only if one of two things should occur, either 1) my current living situation were to change in such a manner that I believe that I need one to protect myself, or 2) the government, along with the gun-control nutcases were to attempt to totally ban legal sales of such weapons.

 

Now since I don't currently feel I need one to protect myself, I don't own one currently. However, I also recognize that there are people living in situations where they may need one, and I would not tell them that they couldn't.

 

It is neither my business, nor my place to do so.

[jdonn]

Gunman opened fire at NASA building, police say

POSTED: 4:42 p.m. EDT, April 20, 2007

 

....

 

Space Center Intermediate School, less than a mile south of building 44, has been locked down, said Karen Permetti, spokeswoman for Clear Creek Independent School District.

 

The school has about 1,200 students, according to the school district.

 

....

 

 

I'm sure the 2400 parents aren't bothered, they must be more worried that a madman will drop a nuke on the school.

[pbleighton]

'm sure the 2400 parents aren't bothered, they must be more worried that a madman will drop a nuke on the school.

 

You're clearly off your rocker.

 

In fact, this guy is making me feel a LOT safer. It's heroes like him who keep this country safe from the U.N.'s black helicopters, which otherwise would come in and let the Trilateral Commission fluoridate our drinking water, which would drain our young men of their precious bodily fluids....

 

Peter

[helene_t]

In europe the homeguard have their weapons broken up and stored and in the USA we have our own private bombers, tanks, etc. B) This leads many (me) to wonder just how much pacifism has taken over Western not Eastern Europe.

Not much pacifism over here. Our soldiers carry arms when going on missions abroad, even if it's only peace-guarding missions where they hope not to have to shoot at the enemy even if they encounter him. Our police carry weapons most of the time. The homeguard will assemble their weapons in case they get called to fight.

 

It's just that the homeguard has nothing to use their weapons for in peacetime (other than practicing). The case for giving them ready-to-use firearms was

1) The Russians may arrive overnight. The home-guardians might not have the time the collect spare parts from different deposits (and download an assembly manual from an American website, just in case they don't remember in which kitchen shelf they hid the hard-copy). But this is old-fashioned philosophy. Even in the worst possible scenario for Russian politics, it will take years before they get to electing a government that would start a war on us.

2) The logistic related to their yearly shooting exercise would be smoother if they had ready-to-use weapons permanently. This concern was deemed less important than a handful of people per year getting killed with home-guard weapons.

 

It's possible that the home-guard has ready-to-use weapons again. This story is some fifteen years old.