Oh the Irony

[hrothgar]

posters willnever do this..

 

Have done so in the past. My work group at Akamai is doing a team building exercise at a firing range next month.

Not my thing, but I'm willing to go.

 

As I mentioned several times in the past, I have absolutely no issue with folks being able to use/fire most anything provided they are at a licensed range.

[kenberg]

I won't be going to a rifle range. I won't be going to a rap concert either. I did go to a firing range once or twice as a teenager. And to carry on the analogy I also went to a Little Richard concert back when concerts were small scale affairs with dancing. I was one of maybe hald a dozen white kids there. A memorable experience, much better than a phonograph. We make our choices.

 

OK, what do I actually know? That's sort of the point of suggesting a trip to a firing range, right? Actually I don't know much. A few years back when one of the Black Labs got loose, my neighbor made pointed remarks about leash laws. It was the most exciting thing to happen in this neighborhood since I moved here. I'm 74, I am working on my cholesterol ( LDL is only slightly above 100 but modern theory suggests it should be lower), the biggest danger in this neighborhood is dying of boredom, I won't be bleeding out from gunshot wounds regardless of how this turns out.

 

But I was young once and I can at least try to remember. There are a lot of young males out there who need some good guidance much more than they need a gun. How are conflicts resolved as adults? Just last Friday I hat a very heated very substantial run-in with a doctor on a medical issue. No one talked of hitting anyone, shooting anyone, or even suing anyone. But it was substantial. And I believe I prevailed. We shall see if this is so, but I certainly intend to prevail over the long haul. This is the sort of conflict approach that young people need to learn how to handle properly. This learning can be done, but the very first thing is to create the context where violence is simply off the table.

 

In my teenage years the culture very strongly supported the idea that a boy must physically confront and physically prevail or physically give way. I was neither the biggest nor the smallest, the strongest nor the weakest, but this was a lot of pressure. This is simply not the way it is in modern adult life. I cannot recall the last time that my physical strength, or lack of it, played any roll at all in any conflict I had.Maybe fifty years ago. And I have never carried a weapon. Not a gun, not a knife. In my high school metal shop class we had to do a project. Several of the boys made knives. I have no idea why this was allowed.

 

It's a fantasy to think that gun laws, with nothing else done, will solve the problem of violence. True enough, I give the gun rights advocates that. But I am convinced it will help. It will help by reducing the availability of guns, the pervasive existence of guns in some neighborhoods, and, perhaps, it will also help by finally starting us to move away as a society from this self-destructive idea that conflicts are best resolved through physical intimidation. Helping young males move away from this would be a really good idea, for those around them and for themselves as well. I suspect we can all agree on that. Maybe not. Well, if someone disagrees, we can have a duel over it.

 

This just came to mind. Almost fifty years ago I read "A Choice of Weapons" by Gordon Parks. A long time back, but I remember liking it a lot. People make choices, and some choices are better than others.

[ArtK78]

Even fully automatic weapons rarely fire more than 10 rounds a second.

 

In order to fire 50 rounds a second, you'd need an electric driven gatling guns or some such

I believe that you misread this post and its predecessors.

 

One round per second (50 rounds in 50 seconds), not 50 rounds per second.

 

There is a reference in an earlier post to a gun that could take out 50 people in 50 seconds, which would, no doubt, require more rounds than 50 rounds in 50 seconds. But no one made reference to any gun that could fire 50 rounds per second.

[hrothgar]

I believe that you misread this post and its predecessors.

 

One round per second (50 rounds in 50 seconds), not 50 rounds per second.

 

There is a reference in an earlier post to a gun that could take out 50 people in 50 seconds, which would, no doubt, require more rounds than 50 rounds in 50 seconds. But no one made reference to any gun that could fire 50 rounds per second.

 

Thanks for the corrections all.

 

Somehow, my weary un-caffeinated brain miss interpreted basic english

[Trinidad]

Thanks for the corrections all.

 

Somehow, my weary un-caffeinated brain miss interpreted basic english

   ~~

c\_/

 

Rik

[blackshoe]

In my teenage years the culture very strongly supported the idea that a boy must physically confront and physically prevail or physically give way. I was neither the biggest nor the smallest, the strongest nor the weakest, but this was a lot of pressure. This is simply not the way it is in modern adult life. I cannot recall the last time that my physical strength, or lack of it, played any roll at all in any conflict I had.Maybe fifty years ago. And I have never carried a weapon. Not a gun, not a knife. In my high school metal shop class we had to do a project. Several of the boys made knives. I have no idea why this was allowed.

 

It's a fantasy to think that gun laws, with nothing else done, will solve the problem of violence. True enough, I give the gun rights advocates that. But I am convinced it will help. It will help by reducing the availability of guns, the pervasive existence of guns in some neighborhoods, and, perhaps, it will also help by finally starting us to move away as a society from this self-destructive idea that conflicts are best resolved through physical intimidation. Helping young males move away from this would be a really good idea, for those around them and for themselves as well. I suspect we can all agree on that. Maybe not. Well, if someone disagrees, we can have a duel over it.

 

This just came to mind. Almost fifty years ago I read "A Choice of Weapons" by Gordon Parks. A long time back, but I remember liking it a lot. People make choices, and some choices are better than others.

Never read that autobiography. Maybe I should.

 

My teenage years postdated yours by a decade, but I don't imagine things were much different. I do remember being shocked, a couple years after I graduated from high school (1965) to hear that one of my sister's classmates had cold-cocked the vice principal. We didn't have violence like that when I was in school! :P

 

I had a friend, a year older than I, who grew up in rural New York. He said that he and his friends used to go hunting after school - and they would bring their guns to school and stack them in the coat closet. Nobody was concerned about that back then, and nobody shot up the school. Times have indeed changed. I imagine it's the same with making knives in shop class.

 

I note that there's a group here that teaches the dying art of blacksmithing. They also have a class in knife making. It's an interesting (to me, anyway) subject. I might take the course some time.

 

Two things: I am learning that in Chinese martial arts, the ultimate goal is to not fight. In fact, one of the translations of one of the Chinese words for "martial arts" is "fight-no fight". The other thing is from Vegetius: "Si vis pacem, para bellum" — if you want peace, prepare for war. Personally, I think that being prepared - knowing how, and having the means - to fight is a good thing, even though you hope never to have to use it. There's also an element of "a man's gotta know his limitations" to it - the more you learn, the more you learn how much you don't know, and also how horribly wrong a fight can go.

[BunnyGo]

Suggestion: find a local firing range, and go fire a couple of different semi-automatic rifles and pistols. See if experience corroborates your impression.

 

Indeed. I've been to a firing range with M16s, Kalashnikovs, and Golanis. The M16 was able to strike a target dead center 5 times in about 2 seconds (single-shot mode) at 100 meters no scope. This was of course an expert firing, but still quite doable. Even the beginners were able to hit at 100 meters no scope firing 29 shots in about 1 minute--hitting target every time.

 

The Kalashnikov was MUCH easier for a novice. It was hard to miss the inner ring.

 

I'd've thought as a military man you'd've had more practice.

 

Edit: The Golani (an Israeli made Uzi) was hard to aim at all as its purpose is to spray and pray.

[y66]

Nope. First, there are no such guns on the "banned" list. Second, such guns exist, but they are 1) very expensive, 2) require extensive training to maintain, and 3) not sold to civilians (or cops, for that matter). IOW, it's already damn near impossible for "crazy people" to get such guns.

It took me about 20 minutes to find a private seller in Texas who wants to sell a Glock 17 with 2 17 round magazines. Can meet at any North Houston gun store or range.

 

In fully automatic mode, the rate of fire is 1,100 to 1,200 rounds per minute. The rate of fire for semi-automatics is limited by how fast you can pull the trigger -- 2 to 3 times per second for a pro.

[blackshoe]

AFAIK, no Glock 17 is an automatic weapon. The Glock 18 is a selective fire weapon, but is not available to the general public. I doubt very much what your guy in Texas is selling is a Glock 18.

[blackshoe]

Indeed. I've been to a firing range with M16s, Kalashnikovs, and Golanis. The M16 was able to strike a target dead center 5 times in about 2 seconds (single-shot mode) at 100 meters no scope. This was of course an expert firing, but still quite doable. Even the beginners were able to hit at 100 meters no scope firing 29 shots in about 1 minute--hitting target every time.

 

The Kalashnikov was MUCH easier for a novice. It was hard to miss the inner ring.

 

I'd've thought as a military man you'd've had more practice.

 

Edit: The Golani (an Israeli made Uzi) was hard to aim at all as its purpose is to spray and pray.

Last time I saw a Kalashniikov, some VC was shooting at me with it. He missed.

 

As far as practice, I had plenty of practice with the M-14, the M-79 Grenade Launcher, the M1911A1 .45 caliber pistol, the M2A .50 caliber machine gun, the M16A1 (which had a tendency to jam), and several different shotguns— 45 years ago when I was In Vietnam. I used to go and shoot my 9 mm Beretta M92F every couple of weeks while I owned it. That was about 25 years ago. When I retired from the Navy to New York twenty years ago, I gave up that gun - first off, they wouldn't let me (or anyone else) have a permit until I'd been here a year, and secondly, they "lost" the paperwork four times, so I gave up.

[kenberg]

No doubt our views are at least somewhat influenced by our early lives. Let me give my (non-) military experience. I think it was repeated many times across the country.

 

As my 1956 high school graduation approached, I wanted to go to college but I was considering joining the Navy. Partly this was a matter of finances, partly it was the general view at the time that boys would be serving in the military for a couple of years sooner or later, and there was something to be said for sooner. When I was thirteen or so I thought I might be a Marine, but I also thought then that I might become a professional race car driver. When I was 17 the Navy sounded like the right choice. My mother had once observed that you don't hear all that often about ships going down, and also you eat better.

 

But I got a scholarship. Probably I would have headed off to college anyway, one way or the other, but that settled it.

 

In 1956, few people had philosophical discussions about the military. A couple of years service was common, some people made a career of it, there was no war. It was a non-issue.

 

I think I would have been a bad fit for the military, but then the military was used to that. In college I had an older friend who had been in the Army. It was a serious non-alignment of lifestyles. He told me of the time he and a buddy requested a pass to go into the nearby town to attend an opera. The sergeant gave them the passes but suggested it would be better if they just went into town and got laid like everybody else. I wasn't the opera type (and I really am still not), but I spent a lot of time with mathematics and physics books.

 

Anyway, I have gone through life without anyone ever pointing a gun at me. If we look at history, or look at the world today, I realize that this makes me very fortunate. I would like other people's lives to be equally fortunate.

[billw55]

Meanwhile, there's this.

[kenberg]

From the cited article:

 

With officers laid-off and furloughed, simply calling 911 and waiting is no longer your best option. You can beg for mercy from a violent criminal, hide under the bed, or you can fight back; but are you prepared? Consider taking a certified safety course in handling a firearm so you can defend yourself until we get there. You have a duty to protect yourself and your family. We’re partners now.

[/Quote]

 

Well, it's an opinion. Let me say a word about certified courses. A couple of years back there was a certified course in CPR. Becky and I figured sure, why not, so we signed up. We learned very, very, little. Certainly not enough to actually be trusted with the procedure. The deal was this. Various jobs require certification in CPR, and this certification has to be updated from time to time. You do this by attending a certification course. We have all seen the Wizard of Oz, right? You pay, you attend, you have your certification updated.

 

This happened to be CPR. The general practice is widespread. How many times have you been at the bridge table and heard an opponent announce exactly what the rules are, finishing with the authoritative pronouncement "I am a certified director". Occasionally the claim is correct, quite often it is not.

 

 

When the Sheriff says that his office is no longer capable of giving adequate protection, I believe people should take this seriously. I am far less confident that they should all arm themselves and take some half-baked certification class.

[blackshoe]

I would suggest that perhaps a director who does that is more certifiable than certified. B-)

 

Half-baked classes in anything are a waste of time and money. Good classes are worth the time and money. The trick is to avoid the former and find the latter.

 

Re: CPR: My father was a cardiologist. Not only that, but when he and my stepmother moved to Woodstock, NY (yeah, that Woodstock) CPR was a new thing. They spent many weekends voluntarily going around to train firefighters, EMTs, police, and sheriff's deputies in the techniques. So I expect he knew what he was doing. The trick today would be to find an instructor who knows what he's doing. How difficult that would be I don't know.

[PassedOut]

When the Sheriff says that his office is no longer capable of giving adequate protection, I believe people should take this seriously. I am far less confident that they should all arm themselves and take some half-baked certification class.

Although I'm willing, if necessary, to try to defend my home, a favorable outcome could never be guaranteed.

 

Perhaps the sheriff is trying indirectly to alert folks to the dangers of cutting government expenditures to the bone. He might do well to provide his constituents a link to the NY Times article mentioned earlier in this thread.

[kenberg]

Although I'm willing, if necessary, to try to defend my home, a favorable outcome could never be guaranteed.

 

Perhaps the sheriff is trying indirectly to alert folks to the dangers of cutting government expenditures to the bone. He might do well to provide his constituents a link to the NY Times article mentioned earlier in this thread.

 

I also was thinking that the Sheriff may have an unstated agenda with his remarks. That ball doesn't always bounce as planned.

[mike777]

Just to repeat the Bill of Rights is not a list of rights. No right to bear arms was created by it.

 

 

 

The purpose of the Bill of rights is to place limits on the federal govt, limits on the power of states and most importantly limits on the power of the Majority.

 

 

Over our history the Bill of Rights has been voted down in Polls.

 

----

 

 

 

 

I understand outright banning handguns or rifles is against the Constitution, we can debate on how best to reduce gun violence. If this is only demographics..ok.....if others have a solution.....great.

 

 

 

As our President has said again and again we live in a complicated and dangerous world.

 

 

Can we all agree that we live in a dangerous world and move forward from that point: even those that strongly believe that to own a gun is not a convex move?

 

--

 

 

/side note I think it is a fair debate to have to ask does owning a gun, any gun, increase the chances or reduce the chances you or a loved one will die as a result of gun violence but that may not be the best way of framing the issue.??

Example the well known bumper sticker...GIVE ME LIBERTY OR GIVE ME DEATH.

 

 

BTW2 NOT THAT i encourage anyone to live a life of bumper stickers.

[ArtK78]

Just to repeat the Bill of Rights is not a list of rights. No right to bear arms was created by it.

 

The purpose of the Bill of rights is to place limits on the federal govt, limits on the power of states and most importantly limits on the power of the Majority.

 

That is an interesting point of view. I doubt that you will have much support for it in reported caselaw, however.

[antonylee]

Arriving late in the debate and mostly with an European POV but... do those who claim that owning guns is a way to limit the government's power really think that if the government wanted to go after YOU (of course Obama wants to go after you and force you to convert to Islam... or not but let's not get into that debate), owning a gun (or 50, or even a tank (I won't say anything about atomic bombs though)) will prevent that?

[Trinidad]

Arriving late in the debate and mostly with an European POV but... do those who claim that owning guns is a way to limit the government's power really think that if the government wanted to go after YOU (of course Obama wants to go after you and force you to convert to Islam... or not but let's not get into that debate), owning a gun (or 50, or even a tank (I won't say anything about atomic bombs though)) will prevent that?

No.

 

But these wackoes are not alone. There are a lot of them. In some small remote areas they are even in the majority. And when these guys get a "freedom or death" attitude the .... hits the fan. It has happened before, it probably will happen again.

 

Rik

[kenberg]

Arriving late in the debate and mostly with an European POV but... do those who claim that owning guns is a way to limit the government's power really think that if the government wanted to go after YOU (of course Obama wants to go after you and force you to convert to Islam... or not but let's not get into that debate), owning a gun (or 50, or even a tank (I won't say anything about atomic bombs though)) will prevent that?

 

I think the answer is yes, there is some such thought. They would have to explain it, I don't get it. It is one of those arguments where, if I wanted to pursue it, I would set the person down and ask that they explain just how they envision this taking place.Somehow the U.S. government will be taken over by tyrants, and then the people will realize the government must be overthrown by force, and they will all get their guns out and attack, well, attack someone. And democracy will be restored. Far fetched doesn't come close to describing this. Far more likely, if anything at all like this is to happen, is that a group of ardent true believers will come to think that a democratically elected government is tyrannical and they must get out their guns and act. The assassination of McKinley in 1901 was along these lines, I think, and the assassination of Lincoln at least had some of these aspects. In Europe, there were attempted assassinations of DeGaulle. I am not sure what is now known with certainty of the murder of Olaf Palme.

 

At any rate, the assassinations of Lincoln and McKinley are historical fact and they seem to me to be the far most likely outcome of this philosophy that we have to bear arms to protect ourselves from tyranny.

 

The arguments vary. One day we must protect ourselves from tyrannical government, the next day from armed thugs trying to rape our wives and daughters, the next day from armed madmen shooting up a school or a movie theater. I don't think I am indifferent to the dangers, I just don't think that holstering a pistol when I go out for a walk is the right way to go about addressing such problems. I think quite a few people see things as I do, but maybe we need some political muscle.

[PassedOut]

Our discussion on the use of force came to mind when I read this piece about the Chuck Hagel nomination for US Secretary of Defense: Sharp Exchanges Expected in Hearing on Hagel Nomination

 

Mr. Hagel, who would be the first former enlisted soldier to become secretary of defense, has, like Mr. Obama, been wary of American military involvement overseas. Last year, recalling his service in Vietnam, where he and his brother Tom were serving in the same infantry squad when both were severely wounded, he said: Im not a pacifist I believe in using force, but only after following a very careful decision-making process. The night Tom and I were medevaced out of that village in April 1968, I told myself: If I ever get out of this and Im ever in a position to influence policy, I will do everything I can to avoid needless, senseless war.

Chuck Hagel's attitude toward using force -- albeit on a much larger scale than we've been discussing -- seems eminently sensible to me. The use of deadly force, while sometimes unavoidable, has to be a last resort.

[Fluffy]

If people who had been wounded on a war took the war decisions, and people who had suffered from poverty run economic decisions, we would live in a happier world.

[y66]

The arguments vary. One day we must protect ourselves from tyrannical government, the next day from armed thugs trying to rape our wives and daughters, the next day from armed madmen shooting up a school or a movie theater. I don't think I am indifferent to the dangers, I just don't think that holstering a pistol when I go out for a walk is the right way to go about addressing such problems. I think quite a few people see things as I do, but maybe we need some political muscle.

Are you using maybe in that last sentence in the same way D. H. Lawrence used it in Lady Chatterley's Lover

 

She took another sip of brandy, which maybe was her form of repentance.

or the way Ring Lardner used it in You know me Al?

 

Looks like I got a regular girl now Al. We go up there the twenty-ninth and maybe I won't be glad to see her.

[y66]

That Hagel quote in PassedOut's post is amazing. How cool would it be if he gets the opportunity to influence policy? What a contrast with professional military guys like McCain and Powell.