Bowling for Virginia Tech

[luke warm]

I seem to have underestimated the difference between old Europe and the USA once more. I don't think I would want to live in the USA, the mentality is just way too different for me.

this is actually the whole thing in a nutshell... but to be fair gerben, living in europe isn't a prerequisite for not understanding the 2nd ammendment

 

all posts i've read so far have focused on gun ownership as it pertains to us as individuals, but that wasn't the reason the founders thought of it as the 2nd in a list of 10 rights not ot be infringed upon... the founders, rightly in my view, feared the tyranny of domestic government more than foreign, or more than individual citizens of the country... the purpose of the ammendment was to insure freedom from the potential tyranny of the very gov't they had established... the entire constitution, with emphasis on the bill of rights, was framed for that very reason

 

it isn't remarkable that europeans don't follow that particular logic... it isn't even remarkable that some americans don't...

[luke warm]

"Mike, the gun homicide rate in the US is at least 3-4 times as high than in other industrialized nations. What is so hard to understand about that?

 

If you are proud that the US has less gun mass killings than Brazil or Ruanda - don't you think as an industrialized democracy this country could aim for a little more? "

 

 

Excellent question, so far the answer for decades seems to be no.

 

Perhaps technology will reduce/improve this issue the next 50 years.

 

We have reduced lynchings and scalpings which we had much more of than the other industrialized countries. I do have faith we can reduce homicides by guns perhaps with the help of immigrants such as yourself.

you're an amazing guy, mike (compliment, not sarcasm)

[helene_t]

the founders, rightly in my view, feared the tyranny of domestic government more than foreign, or more than individual citizens of the country... the purpose of the ammendment was to insure freedom from the potential tyranny of the very gov't they had established... the entire constitution, with emphasis on the bill of rights, was framed for that very reason

I've heard that argument before. Not sure if my problem is that I don't understand it, or if I just disagree, or if it's because times have changed since the constitution was written.

 

It seems to me that each citizens' right to writing his own blog without fear of government censorship is essential to avoiding governement tyrany. OTOH, I don't see how gun ownership could contribute. At least the present government meets more resistance from blogs than from guns. So will the next government, no matter if it's democrat, republican or whatever.

 

How are citizens supposed to use their guns to control government tyranny? By shooting policemen, tax collectors, judges and politicians? By shooting those criminals that don't get punished hard enough by the government? Suppose (well, "suppose") the government commits election fraud and illegal wiretapping, apoints AGs on the basis of political qualifications, and bans peace-marche participants from boarding flights. How would guns help citizens to fight back in that case?

[Winstonm]

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,

 

Arend:

 

This is a different debate. More than likely there are hundreds of reasons that a gun would be a problem - being stolen, imbalance of skills, willingness to use, etc., etc. There is no doubt than guns are dangerous. The ultimate debate is about rights, are which group's rights should be preeminent.

 

First, to debate gun ownership versus banning guns, one must first ask: what is the nature of a gun - what does it do?

 

One thing a gun does is give the 96-pound weakling, through use of force, the option of preventing the 200-pound bully from kicking sand in his face. The only thing that changes the power structure between the two is the gun. Guns alter the holder's comparative strength. That is a gun's nature.

 

Please, do not get sidetracked by moral choices of the 96-pound weakling and his other options of running, not going to the beach, or bringing a Soviet women's team weight lifter as his date. I am simply trying to show the ultimate power of a firearm - it's nature - and why some would want the choice to own one.

 

The debate is not simply about risk of injury by gun, number of deaths by gun, or accidental shootings - the heart of the debate is whether or not a person should have the right if he so wishes to increase his personal strength by using the power inherent in a gun.

 

In my pyramid of rights, I believe personal rights should sit at the apex, the rights of society are of next importance, and government rights should only be those that are granted to them by the governed. Therefore, I believe an individual should have to right to own a gun, but society has the right to restrict types of guns that are available, how many guns can be owned, an age limit on gun ownership, and the type mental capablity proof required, and government may be given the right to enforce these choices and has the further responsibility to made sure that the rights of first two groups are not infringed.

[cherdano]

Winston, I understand your point, what we disagree about is which is the relevant debate.

 

Anyway, I am not so far away from your conclusions. I suppose we agree that someone who has been determined by court to be suicidal should not be able to buy a handgun. :(

[Winstonm]

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.

Helene:

 

I always enjoy reading your posts - your intelligence is obvious yet you show a levelheadedness and lack of arrogance that is sometimes the bane of the highly scholared.

 

You are right in that what I have been trying to estabish (as in the post above to Arend) is a definition of the nature of a gun. What does it do? In a sense, I have been talking this through outloud and think now I stated incorrectly what I believed to be a gun's nature - I would now alter that to say that a gun's nature is to cause harm beyond personal means, and is thus an increase in personal strength.

 

Where you and I personally disagree in on the heirarchy of rights; I place individual rights uppermost while you seem to place societal/governmental rights above the individual.

 

One thing you seem to misunderstand about my personal position though, is that I do not advocate nor do I believe in a totally free market for guns. As I said above, I believe society has the right to establish rules of ownership, but as long as soceity agrees that an individual can be a responsible gun owner, government should have no right to supercede that decision, while society does not have the right to suppress all gun ownership as that violates the individual rights of the responsible owner, whose individual rights should supercede societal rights.

[Winstonm]

Winston, I understand your point, what we disagree about is which is the relevant debate.

 

Anyway, I am not so far away from your conclusions. I suppose we agree that someone who has been determined by court to be suicidal should not be able to buy a handgun. :(

Arend:

 

I 100% agree. I do not advocate a totally free access to guns - after all, even here in the U.S. it is a right and not a privalege. I believe societies have a right to establish restrictions on ownership, but neither society nor government has the right to trump individual rights without legitimate cause. I don't have a problem with fairly strict restrictions, either - I have a problem with blanket rules, laws, and restrictions.

 

I extend this past gun ownerhip, too, as I find current management trends, probably caused by judicial rulings, to have the same inherent problem of using blanket, one-size-fits-all rules to solve complex problems.

[helene_t]

Where you and I personally disagree in on the heirarchy of rights; I place individual rights uppermost while you seem to place societal/governmental rights above the individual.

[.....]

One thing you seem to misunderstand about my personal position though, is that I do not advocate nor do I believe in a totally free market for guns. As I said above, I believe society has the right to establish rules of ownership, but as long as soceity agrees that an individual can be a responsible gun owner, government should have no right to supercede that decision, while society does not have the right to suppress all gun ownership as that violates the individual rights of the responsible owner, whose individual rights should supercede societal rights.

Actually, I think of myself as a libertarian. I would not go so far as Todd but I would generally go a long way in order to protect individual freedom.

 

The dilemma arises when individuals, when allowed to exercise their freedom, cause harm or risk to others. For example:

- By building a house with a straw roof, I expose the neighborhood to the risk of a fire that might spread to neighboring houses.

- By playing loud music I expose the neighbors to it.

- By bringing my sick pet into the country I expose other animals to a risk of infection.

 

How such dilemmas should be resolved depends on risk assessment versus the value one attributes to each individual freedom. The fact that I happen to like pets and dislike loud music may cause me to be liberal with respect to some dilemmas and restrictive with respect to others. I don't think a reasonable person could take the extreme restrictive point of view ("everything that might cause perceived risk or inconvenience to others should be illegal"), nor the extreme liberal point of view (total anarchy).

 

My view on the particular issue of gun ownership is due to my assessment of the risk as severe, while at the same time I cannot understand why anyone would like to own a gun. I can put some value on perceived safety (even if I think it's an irrational perception of safety), so if guns were completely harmless I would be all for them. It's just that the lives of thousands of people getting killed with legally owned guns (or guns stolen or traded from legal owners) are more valuable to me than some perceived safety which I believe to be marginal at the level of perception and non-existent (even negative) at the level of real safety (on average, that is. I'm sure some gun-owners living in particular circumstances have rational reasons).

[Winstonm]

the founders, rightly in my view, feared the tyranny of domestic government more than foreign, or more than individual citizens of the country... the purpose of the ammendment was to insure freedom from the potential tyranny of the very gov't they had established... the entire constitution, with emphasis on the bill of rights, was framed for that very reason

I've heard that argument before. Not sure if my problem is that I don't understand it, or if I just disagree, or if it's because times have changed since the constitution was written.

 

It seems to me that each citizens' right to writing his own blog without fear of government censorship is essential to avoiding governement tyrany. OTOH, I don't see how gun ownership could contribute. At least the present government meets more resistance from blogs than from guns. So will the next government, no matter if it's democrat, republican or whatever.

 

How are citizens supposed to use their guns to control government tyranny? By shooting policemen, tax collectors, judges and politicians? By shooting those criminals that don't get punished hard enough by the government? Suppose (well, "suppose") the government commits election fraud and illegal wiretapping, apoints AGs on the basis of political qualifications, and bans peace-marche participants from boarding flights. How would guns help citizens to fight back in that case?

Amazing insight, Helene. Of all the rights created - and Jimmy is corrrect that they were created for protection from tyranny, both domestic and foreign - the least important in today's world with regards to protection from domestic tyranny is the right to bear arms; however, I think it imperative to maintain the right because even if its practical usefulness has declined, its honorary value as a conceptualization that individual rights supercede the powers of government is still as valid.

[helene_t]

however, I think it imperative to maintain the right because even if its practical usefulness has declined, its honorary value as a conceptualization that individual rights supercede the powers of government is still as valid.

I'm glad that we agree on this (the priority of individual rights vis-a-vis government power), since it's important.

[hrothgar]

For what its worth, I don't have a problem with gun ownership. My father spent the Korean war working a a repair depot fixing sighting rifles. He still owns a few guns. I used to hunt with rifles and shotguns before I moved over to bow/spear hunting. I do have a major problem with fact that so many people in the US seem to have a fetish for guns. Furthermore, I think that its ridiculous that people are permitted to own what are (essentially) military grade weapons. I've always felt that something like the following was a reasonable compromise

 

1.Home defense:

 

People are permitted to own just about anything they want in the way of shot guns and bolt action rifles. (no fully automatic shotguns). Licenses and waiting periods are required

 

2. Hunting

 

People are permitted to own just about anything they want in the way of shotguns and bolt action rifles. Licenses and waiting periods are required

 

3. Target shooting:

 

The owners of a licensed shooting range can (pretty much) purchase whatever they damn well please. Anyone who wants to play around with a pistol, an automatic rifle, a machine gun, what have you is welcome to go and rent time at a shooting range. If anyone feels an “extreme” need to own their own pistol, they're welcome to buy one and store it at a shooting range.

 

I am pretty much trying to restrict ownership across two different dimensions

 

First: The ability of individuals to “conceal carry”. I think that conceal carry laws are a big mistake. I'd go a lot further and restrict people from being able to have easy access to pistols and other such weapons that can be easy concealed

 

Second: The ability to spew large number of rounds in a short period of time.

[Winstonm]

My view on the particular issue of gun ownership is due to my assessment of the risk as severe, while at the same time I cannot understand why anyone would like to own a gun. I can put some value on perceived safety (even if I think it's an irrational perception of safety), so if guns were completely harmless I would be all for them. It's just that the lives of thousands of people getting killed with legally owned guns (or guns stolen or traded from legal owners) are more valuable to me than some perceived safety which I believe to be marginal at the level of perception and non-existent (even negative) at the level of real safety (on average, that is. I'm sure some gun-owners living in particular circumstances have rational reasons).

 

Helene: First, I agree with you that guns are dangerous. Second, I also concur that there are too many guns in private hands, contributing to the problem of non-regulated exchange of ownership through gun shows and pawn shops as well as the problem of theft.

 

Third is a more personal issue. I have had the unfortunate fate to be involved in violent confrontations twice in my life. I talked previously about the first episode of being robbed at knifepoint. The second was more severe.

 

A few years back I was dating a woman who had filed for divorce. While waiting for trial, her estranged husband decided she should not have access to her 2-year-old son and would not let her see him. (Her attorney said there was nothing we could legally do to force him to share custody until after court appearance, another two months away.) After three weeks of this nonsense, we decided enough was enough and one day went to the daycare center that kept the child, and his mother signed him out - all perfectly legal. Somehow the estranged husband found out, and as we were driving out of town, he accosted us in his pickup truck, blocking the 2-lane road, jumped out with a pistol in his hand, and - from 20 feet away - took aim and fired. The passenger side window of our car exploded in a shower of glass. I managed to get our car around his, but he jumped into his truck and gave chase. The move "Bullit" had nothing on our chase - for twelve miles within the city at speeds of 90-95 miles an hour, running traffic lights and stop signs with him on our tail the whole way until we managed to get within sight of the sherriff's office, at which point he broke off and disappeared. He was arrrested later but was released on bail.

 

The next day I went and purchased a shotgun with ammunition that is only used for large game. I did this for only one reason - the feeling of total vulnerability, of total helplessness in being unarmed when facing an armed aggressor is so chillingly horrific as to be impossible to describe - it took years to get over - that I simply could not allow myself to be in that situation again if there was an alternative. The shotgun was for defense, kept in the home in case, while out on bail, he decided to invade the house and continue his rampage. If that were to occur, I was not going to allow myself to be helpless again.

 

It is one thing to theorize about gun ownership - to personally have a legitimate desire for self-preservation through self-defense with a gun puts the argument on a completely different level. :(

[Winstonm]

For what its worth, I don't have a problem with gun ownership.  My father spent the Korean war working a a repair depot fixing sighting rifles.  He still owns a few guns.  I used to hunt with rifles and shotguns before I moved over to bow/spear hunting.  I do have a major problem with fact that so many people in the US seem to have a fetish for guns.  Furthermore, I think that its ridiculous that people are permitted to own what are (essentially) military grade weapons.  I've always felt that something like the following was a reasonable compromise

 

1.Home defense:

 

People are permitted to own just about anything they want in the way of shot guns and bolt action rifles.  (no fully automatic shotguns).  Licenses and waiting periods are required

 

2. Hunting

 

People are permitted to own just about anything they want in the way of shotguns and bolt action rifles.  Licenses and waiting periods are required

 

3. Target shooting:

 

The owners of a licensed shooting range can (pretty much) purchase whatever they damn well please.  Anyone who wants to play around with a pistol, an automatic rifle, a machine gun, what have you is welcome to go and rent time at a shooting range. If anyone feels an “extreme” need to own their own pistol, they're welcome to buy one and store it at a shooting range.

 

I am pretty much trying to restrict ownership across two different dimensions

 

First:  The ability of individuals to “conceal carry”.  I think that conceal carry laws are a big mistake.  I'd go a lot further and restrict people from being able to have easy access to pistols and other such weapons that can be easy concealed

 

Second:  The ability to spew large number of rounds in a short period of time.

This really sucks in that I can't find any point with which to disagree. :(

 

I might add that in my view the number of guns in circulation, as well as the ease of purchase through gun shows, private sales, and pawn shops, are the main problems in the current overdistribution and underregulation of ownership.

[pbleighton]

I'm in agreement with Richard's suggestions. Using handguns at a range and storing them there is OK with me. As I've said earlier, I have no objection to most shotguns and rifles.

 

Peter

[helene_t]

The next day I went and purchased a shotgun with ammunition that is only used for large game. I did this for only one reason - the feeling of total vulnerability, of total helplessness in being unarmed when facing an armed aggressor is so chillingly horrific as to be impossible to describe - it took years to get over - that I simply could not allow myself to be in that situation again if there was an alternative.

Thanks for sharing, Winston. I'll have to take back my phrasing that I cannot understand why anyone would want to own a gun.

 

Strange that this guy was released on bail. But OK, I'm not going to post jokes about the American justice system here. It could probably have hapened in Europe as well.

[luke warm]

the founders, rightly in my view, feared the tyranny of domestic government more than foreign, or more than individual citizens of the country... the purpose of the ammendment was to insure freedom from the potential tyranny of the very gov't they had established... the entire constitution, with emphasis on the bill of rights, was framed for that very reason

I've heard that argument before. Not sure if my problem is that I don't understand it, or if I just disagree, or if it's because times have changed since the constitution was written.

like i said, it isn't remarkable to me that europeans find the logic hard to understand, or even that they disagree with it... it's a matter of history and philosophy... and you and i disagree on the degree of change "times" have wrought.. governments are the same as they've always been, they all tend to usurp power until it's as centrally located as possible... the constitution as written is brilliant, it's the interpretation and application of that interpretation that has changed over the years

It seems to me that each citizens' right to writing his own blog without fear of government censorship is essential to avoiding governement tyrany. OTOH, I don't see how gun ownership could contribute. At least the present government meets more resistance from blogs than from guns. So will the next government, no matter if it's democrat, republican or whatever.

i agree that tyranny can be shown in different ways... you don't see how gun ownership enters into it, but tell me how the governed in a free country can impose their will on those governing when the governed is disarmed... elections? dictatorships have occurred in democracies before... our founders thought that only an armed populace could prevent that from happening here

How are citizens supposed to use their guns to control government tyranny? By shooting policemen, tax collectors, judges and politicians?

if the ones you mention are part of the constitution-destroying gov't, yes ... because of our history, as opposed to that of most european countries, it's my view that americans would fight if threatened with tyranny, unless disarmed to the point that "resistence is futile"

By shooting those criminals that don't get punished hard enough by the government? Suppose (well, "suppose") the government commits election fraud and illegal wiretapping, apoints AGs on the basis of political qualifications, and bans peace-marche participants from boarding flights. How would guns help citizens to fight back in that case?

no, the gov't has the right to punish criminals, not individual citizens (self-defense an exception)... the things you mention should be handled from within the framework of constitutional law, and it's my view that so far that is happening (congressional hearings, judicial procedings, etc)...

[Winstonm]

you don't see how gun ownership enters into it, but tell me how the governed in a free country can impose their will on those governing when the governed is disarmed...

 

A somewhat opposite but confiming approach was proposed by Thomas Jefferson:

The idea was, instead of a standing army, for every able-bodied man in the nation to be a member of a local militia, under local control, with a gun in his house. If the nation was invaded, word would come down to the local level and every man in the country would be the army

 

With no standing army, the government holds no threat against an armed governed.

 

However, Helene is right about today's America - there is simply no way the governed could defeat the standing army's military superiority. Today in America, the only thing that stands between the governed and a dictator is the side taken by the standing army if the President attempted to declare himself king.

 

A rather chilling group is Blackwater, a private paramilitary organization that has over 20,000 "contractors" - many call them mercenaries. These contractors are used extensively in Iraq and were used on patrol in New Orlean after hurrican Katrina. Being a private army, this group is not subject to any oversight to which this country's standard military is subject. Founded in 1996 by an rich ex-navy seal, a conservative christian, is it any wonder this group's government contracts have expanded exponentially with the increased presence of like-minded conservatives in high-level political jobs.

 

There is a story from The Nation about Blackwater here: http://www.thenation.com/doc/20070402/scahill_vid

[helene_t]

i agree that tyranny can be shown in different ways... you don't see how gun ownership enters into it, but tell me how the governed in a free country can impose their will on those governing when the governed is disarmed... elections? dictatorships have occurred in democracies before... our founders thought that only an armed populace could prevent that from happening here

Most of Europe was governed by heavily armed dictators until recently. Byelorus still is. In Slovenia, the homeguard played an important role in overthrowing the dictators and in Romenia, the army sided with the rebels. For the rest, unarmed citizens defeated the dictators. The free flow of information paved the way for democracy. In Bosnia, Western Macedonia and Chechnya, hords of armed civilians contributed to political changes as well .......

 

This is not meant to deny the role U.S.A. played by its contribution to our liberation from the Nazis and more recently to the liberation of Kosova, and by protecting Western Europe during the cold war. And some historians think that it was the American victory in the cold war under Reagan that ultimatively defeated communism. This may be true, I don't know.

governments are the same as they've always been, they all tend to usurp power until it's as centrally located as possible... the constitution as written is brilliant, it's the interpretation and application of that interpretation that has changed over the years

I agree.

[Winstonm]

The next day I went and purchased a shotgun with ammunition that is only used for large game.  I did this for only one reason - the feeling of total vulnerability, of total helplessness in being unarmed when facing an armed aggressor is so chillingly horrific as to be impossible to describe - it took years to get over - that I simply could not allow myself to be in that situation again if there was an alternative.

Thanks for sharing, Winston. I'll have to take back my phrasing that I cannot understand why anyone would want to own a gun.

 

Strange that this guy was released on bail. But OK, I'm not going to post jokes about the American justice system here. It could probably have hapened in Europe as well.

Actually, I messed up the story a bit - he was in jail for about 6 days before he was released on bail - however, our mindset over those 6 days did not change, we had been so truamatized (I know personally now what post-traumatic stress syndrome entails.) I did not buy the gun until we heard he had been released.

 

To say Jackie had ineffective legal counsel might be the greatest understatement in the history of the world. First, her lawyer originally had told us that we had no legal recourse to stop the estranged husband from holding the child and preventing visits. We later found out this was wrong. Had we known, the whole sordid tale would not have transpired.

 

The shooting incident occured in Pahrump, Nevada. In a recorded phone call to his mother from Nye county jail the night of the incident he said, "I tried to kill my wife but I think I missed." He made a plea-bargain agreement and pled guilty to "assault with a deadly weapon with intent to kill."

 

The prosecution attorney and sentencing judge were dandies, as well, as the shooter was sentenced to no prison time and all of 3 years probation. Later, in Clark county, (with the original counsel) she lost the custody battle for her son (who had been in the back seat in the direct path of the bullet) although Nevada had recently passed a new statute that said perpetrators of domestic violence are automatically presumed to be unfit custodial parents (which we found out later on our own, and the attorney never brought up in court), and she was required to pay child support to the man who had tried to kill her, and could herself go to jail for missing a payment.

 

Ain't justice grand?

 

At least now as an ex-felon he can't legally own a gun.

[mike777]

Well reading these posts including mine you might thing the USA is the most deadly awful place of violence in the world. With private tanks, landmines, machine guns, home invasion and armed robbers it does sound frightful. Add in wiretaps, Gitmo, loss of prvacy and a few other subjects the last couple of years I could understand immigrants giving us a pass.

 

Please do not. We need you guys and gals to make us better, please come and visit and perhaps make us your new home. Heck even more Canadians are welcome. :)

[helene_t]

No worry, Mike. You know that we're just mocking out of envy. :)

 

And you already offered me a job as HRM at the justice department, so you can count on me.

[mike777]

No worry, Mike. You know that we're just mocking out of envy. :)

 

And you already offered me a job as HRM at the justice department, so you can count on me.

Welcome but note Washington DC may not be that safe. Congressmen get mugged there.

[pbleighton]

"And some historians think that it was the American victory in the cold war under Reagan that ultimatively defeated communism."

 

I differ strongly with these folks. They ignore the history they purport to study.

 

Communism fell victim to its "internal contradictions", to coin a phrase. It was an unsustainable economic system, whose major practitioner reformed itself peacefully. The big U.S. contributors to this reform were Nixon and Kissinger, whose detente policy opened up the Soviet empire to the political freedoms and superior economic performance of the West. These were so apparent that even a KGB trained dictator recognized what had to be done.

 

Contrast this productive approach with the hostility shown by Reagan, under the "intellectual guidance" of Jeanne Kirkpatrick, whose "doctrine" was that a Communist state could NEVER, NEVER, NEVER reform from within. It was theoretically impossible, and that was that. The Reagan administration also intentionally lied about the economic and military strength of the USSR, and thus the threat level (sound familiar?). The existing estimates by the career professional at the CIA and the State Department didn't fit their needs, so they brought in new people to create new estimates, which turned out to be totally wrong.

 

Bottom line: the Reaganauts try to claim credit for something they said was impossible. What a hat! What a rabbit!

 

This may be the only thread I'll ever have anything nice to say about Nixon or Kissinger, so for those of you who are inclined to enjoy it, I suggest you do so :)

 

Peter

[pclayton]

I've been away from this for a few days.

 

For those that are in favor of handgun control, are you just against handguns in general, or are you OK with handguns, as long as they can't be concealed?

[luke warm]

And some historians think that it was the American victory in the cold war under Reagan that ultimatively defeated communism. This may be true, I don't know.

yes, reagan's insistence on a 'star wars' program pushed the ussr into spending more and more on their military in an attempt to preempt any technological advantage (still unrealized) the usa might have had