I'm OK with this particular use of firearms! (1 Viewer)

The_Doc_Man

Immoderate Moderator
Staff member
Local time
Today, 13:06
Joined
Feb 28, 2001
Messages
26,999
According to the article, there were TWO uses of firearms. Surely you don't condone BOTH of the uses, Uncle G.
 

Uncle Gizmo

Nifty Access Guy
Staff member
Local time
Today, 18:06
Joined
Jul 9, 2003
Messages
16,244
Surely you don't condone BOTH of the uses, Uncle G.


It's a terrible tragedy Richard, but I also feel there was some strange form of Justice in it.

Imagine the scene taking place in Europe. You would end up with two grown men rolling around in the dirt, both ending up with a few bruises, maybe the odd broken bone and Hurt feelings. And possibly a bit of remorse at being so stupid.

In America you have two men carrying concealed weapons, then using the concealed weapons to kill each other. There just seems to be a bit of irony here, a bit of rough Justice for the crime, not of who is right or wrong, but for carrying weapons.

Sent from my Pixel 3a using Tapatalk
 

deletedT

Guest
Local time
Today, 18:06
Joined
Feb 2, 2019
Messages
1,218
It's a terrible tragedy Richard, but I also feel there was some strange form of Justice in it.

Imagine the scene taking place in Europe. You would end up with two grown men rolling around in the dirt, both ending up with a few bruises, maybe the odd broken bone and Hurt feelings. And possibly a bit of remorse at being so stupid.

In America you have two men carrying concealed weapons, then using the concealed weapons to kill each other. There just seems to be a bit of irony here, a bit of rough Justice for the crime, not of who is right or wrong, but for carrying weapons.

Sent from my Pixel 3a using Tapatalk

I will never understand how is it possible at all. How your people carry guns and how your government allows it.
 

The_Doc_Man

Immoderate Moderator
Staff member
Local time
Today, 13:06
Joined
Feb 28, 2001
Messages
26,999
Tera, not all of us carry guns. I own a gun but it is always in the house. The government allows it because our history in the USA is based on the image of the hardy pioneer going out into the wilderness, living off the land and protecting his property because where the pioneers went, there was no law enforcement.

We had one other reason (with no disrespect to our British friends). We had a really bad time with a tyrannical system during the early days of colonial America and found it was necessary to question King George's methods of rule. When he violently suppressed the UK citizens of the colony, we violently returned the favor. When we formed a government, that terrible need for violence was still fresh in our minds and the only way we could form any government at all was to include the right of the people to bear arms. With the tacit understanding that if the government got out of hand, we would take them down just as we had taken down the British colonial system in North America.

I see your line of thought, Uncle G, but have to say that only one of those persons was wrong in my way of understanding the events.
 

kevlray

Registered User.
Local time
Today, 11:06
Joined
Apr 5, 2010
Messages
1,046
There are a lot of US citizens who do not own guns (or want to). A large number of them either have them for target practice (to shot what, I am not sure) and/or hunting animals. There also a lot of people to have them for personal protection (do they know how to use a firearm correctly?). Then there the other people that want to use their firearms for criminal activities. I have never personally owned a firearm. My dad had a 22-rifle that when we were on the farm, I attempted to see if I could find some small game for food (no luck there). My ex-wife had a 22 revolver that she claimed she used to kill snakes when she was in the back country (before I knew her). We only had snake shot for ammo. I have no real desire to own a gun.
 

ColinEssex

Old registered user
Local time
Today, 18:06
Joined
Feb 22, 2002
Messages
9,110
Two things:-

a) There was a thing in the paper a while back that said in the USA, cars are becoming harder to break into and steal. Therefore as a result, more cars are being 'carjacked' whilst stopped with the driver in it - for example at lights. So to combat this, more drivers are carrying guns in the car - presumably to satisfy their road rage feelings and their lust to kill, to the extreme.

b) When Americans refer to the Constitution, they usually mention a number and amendment.
For example 13th amendment or 5th amendment - is that the 5th rule amended (what did the original say?) or is it the 5th time the whole constitution was amended. why were the original rules amended?
Do these rules or amendments mean anything in law? Or are they just an old archive document. Is it still relevant? Or totally in need of a modernisation?

Col
 

Mark_

Longboard on the internet
Local time
Today, 11:06
Joined
Sep 12, 2017
Messages
2,111
Colin,

I believe the answers you are looking for are
a) Americans don't want to get blood all over themselves so they would prefer to shoot you over spending the time and effort stabbing you to death. Hence the higher gun violence but lower knife violence than the UK.

b) Amendments are just that. As situations change (such as no longer being able to buy slaves from British companies) the constitution is amended to show the underlying social changes. The 1st amendment was to prevent the government from dictating what may be written (Freedom of the press, something extended to posts on line so American's can't be arrested simply because they hurt your feelings on facebook) among other items.
 

The_Doc_Man

Immoderate Moderator
Staff member
Local time
Today, 13:06
Joined
Feb 28, 2001
Messages
26,999
Colin: Historically, the first 10 amendments are called "the Bill of Rights." This explanation comes from MANY years ago in school, but here goes my best shot at how they came about.

The original constitution included a method for amendments, but it started with none. The furor that erupted during the constitutional convention threatened to destroy the fragile alliance of the states. Various British actions had left people really unhappy. They wanted to assure that such actions would not be repeated in the new country they were creating. The convention devised several amendments as "patches" to plug up the "holes" that were seen by various representatives.

In briefest summary, and I had to look them up to match up the numbers to the content, the first 10 amendments are:

1. Freedom of speech; freedom of the press, freedom of assembly (including protests); freedom of religion; denying ANY religion the right to become an officially sanctioned religion. Consider, for example, the Anglican religion and its place in England. That can't happen in the USA.

2. The right to keep and bear arms.

3. Prevent government from using private homes to house soldiers without the consent of the homeowner. (The British troops did this.)

4. Bar government from unreasonable search and seizure. Again, inspired by British action.

5. Rights of people accused of crimes. The right against self-incrimination and the right of due process are the biggies but there are other parts as well.

6. More rights of people accused of crimes. This one requires speedy trials, the right to face your accuser in court, the right to be represented by a lawyer, and a couple of others.

7. More rights for people accused of crimes. The biggie here is the right to a jury trial for any federal cases.

8. More rights for people accused of crimes. This one prohibits excessive bail and forbids "cruel and unusual punishment."

You may correctly guess that the 4th through 8th amendments were triggered by people remembering the excesses of the occupying British troops. The people were nearly paranoid that the new government could perpetrate such atrocities so put in extreme and specific safeguards.

9. Expressly states that the people may have rights not enumerated in the Constitution.

10. Goes with #9 by stating that the government ONLY has the powers enumerated in the constitution and that any other powers belong either to the states or to the people.

Two more amendments were proposed but failed. One of them discussed the number of representatives to be had for a given number of people. If it had passed, our Congress would have about 6000 representatives in it now, but that didn't happen. The other failed amendment was about Congressional pay. This bill failed in the original deliberations of the continental congress in 1791 but eventually was re-filed and became the 27th amendment, which forbids the currently seated Congress from raising its own pay. Any pay raise takes effect ONLY after each congress person's current term expires. If they get re-elected, they can take the raise. If not, their successor gets the raise.

The Bill of Rights addressed the concerns of the representatives enough to allow the final vote to occur in which 11 of the 13 colonies ratified the constitution. (The other two colonies eventually passed it as well.)
 

deletedT

Guest
Local time
Today, 18:06
Joined
Feb 2, 2019
Messages
1,218
Tera, not all of us carry guns. I own a gun but it is always in the house. The government allows it because our history in the USA is based on the image of the hardy pioneer going out into the wilderness, living off the land and protecting his property because where the pioneers went, there was no law enforcement.

We had one other reason (with no disrespect to our British friends). We had a really bad time with a tyrannical system during the early days of colonial America and found it was necessary to question King George's methods of rule. When he violently suppressed the UK citizens of the colony, we violently returned the favor. When we formed a government, that terrible need for violence was still fresh in our minds and the only way we could form any government at all was to include the right of the people to bear arms. With the tacit understanding that if the government got out of hand, we would take them down just as we had taken down the British colonial system in North America.

I see your line of thought, Uncle G, but have to say that only one of those persons was wrong in my way of understanding the events.

I think every country comes from a dark past. And a lot of troubles through its history. But we are civilized and try to step forward and build a brighter future. Look at other countries. Australia or New Zealand. No matter which events brought them to this point, They see what is the problem and try to solve it. You may still remember New Zealand's recent mosque mass shooting and how their government reacted.
But your law is putting guns in teacher's hand to prevent mass shooting in school? seriously?
 
Last edited:

Mark_

Longboard on the internet
Local time
Today, 11:06
Joined
Sep 12, 2017
Messages
2,111
Tera,

I will defer to the people of Venezuela when it comes to WHY the populace should be armed.
 

Frothingslosh

Premier Pale Stale Ale
Local time
Today, 14:06
Joined
Oct 17, 2012
Messages
3,276
Tera, actually, right now the laws in most, if not all, states forbid firearms on public school property or at school events, along with many, many other locations (like anywhere alcohol is sold). Most states even have very restrictive laws on how guns can be transported in cars; in Michigan guns in cars must be in a locked gun case in the trunk, with neither the keys nor any ammunition in the trunk. Any other way of transporting a firearm in your car in this state is a felony, I believe punishable by 2 years of prison and a fairly hefty fine.

The big push for guns in schools would require rewriting those laws, and politically, the pro-gun crowd (with the NRA as its standard bearer) still has far more power than the gun control crowd, even with our near-daily mass shootings and monthly school shootings.
 

deletedT

Guest
Local time
Today, 18:06
Joined
Feb 2, 2019
Messages
1,218
Tera, actually, right now the laws in most, if not all, states forbid firearms on public school property or at school events, along with many, many other locations (like anywhere alcohol is sold). Most states even have very restrictive laws on how guns can be transported in cars; in Michigan guns in cars must be in a locked gun case in the trunk, with neither the keys nor any ammunition in the trunk. Any other way of transporting a firearm in your car in this state is a felony, I believe punishable by 2 years of prison and a fairly hefty fine.

The big push for guns in schools would require rewriting those laws, and politically, the pro-gun crowd (with the NRA as its standard bearer) still has far more power than the gun control crowd, even with our near-daily mass shootings and monthly school shootings.

I'm happy to see some steps have been taken to control gun (even if not enough). We had a news several month ago after a school shooting that schools will have a trained teacher who will carry a firearm in school to protect the kids. I don't know if this law has been passed in your country or not, but for us it was a bit strange.
Even the news caster couldn't stop smiling while reading the lines. Maybe she was thinking "more guns?"

Last week a not mentally healthy young man attacked a policeman with a knife here in Japan and stole his pistol. Almost all TV channels and Radio stations were talking about this incident over and over and discussing how it can be prevented. The Pistol had only 4 bullets. Now they are talking about it in the senate how to change the law to prevent similar incidents in future.
And all of it is only for a gun with 4 bullets in it. I can't believe how is it possible to have machine guns in states and nobody cares.

Just as a side note, not even policemen/women carry a loaded pistol here. Most of them carry it without bullets in it. Just a few of them are allowed to carry loaded guns.
Police has used their weapon only 4 times during the last 3 years with only one person injured.
 

The_Doc_Man

Immoderate Moderator
Staff member
Local time
Today, 13:06
Joined
Feb 28, 2001
Messages
26,999
It is perhaps a digression towards momentary humor, but if you have ever seen the old TV series The Andy Griffith Show, sheriff's deputy Barney Fife carried a gun and a bullet (one of each) but the bullet was in his pocket.

Tera, some of us don't see gun control as the correct answer because (a) people who don't have guns can use knives or make bombs and (b) if they want them badly enough, they can get guns. We have a saying here, "When guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns." But that isn't an attempt to be cute or witty. Law-abiding citizens will not carry guns most of the time anyway, but criminals already don't care about obeying laws. So if you pass gun laws, you just added to the list of laws they will ignore. Piling on penalty after penalty does no good, or hasn't done any good in the past.

The thing that works, and I am actually sad to say that it seems to be the ONLY thing that works, is the presence of someone else who is armed, because the thugs ignore laws but they aren't totally stupid. At least, not most of them.

We have a thing very common in the USA, but I don't know how common it is elsewhere. We mention that some criminals and fools can earn a Darwin award by taking themselves out of the gene pool. People who use guns too freely often become candidates for the award, which is only conferred posthumously.

The same principle of "mutually assured destruction" that works to hold back nuclear war between nations ALSO works to deter criminals at a local level. But that deterrence requires that a few law-abiding citizens have guns in their homes for those break-in cases. You and many others outside of the USA don't like it. We actually don't like it either. But it is a sad reality that the ultimate deterrent is sometimes needed.

In the final analysis, given the choice between being unprotected strictly on the basis of principle or having a chance to protect my family, it isn't an even choice.
 

Mark_

Longboard on the internet
Local time
Today, 11:06
Joined
Sep 12, 2017
Messages
2,111
Tera,

Across history one of the first steps any oppressor will take is disarming the populace (or oppressed portion of the populace). U.S. towns often had laws prohibiting the open carry of weapons, but the primary laws to prevent ownership were aimed squarely at oppressed minorities. After the American civil war many former Confederate states passed laws prohibiting former slaves from owning weapons. This was to prevent former slaves from being able to oppose the violence aimed at them to maintain control over them.

If you've studied Japanese history you will know that lower social classes were forbidden from owning weapons. This allowed their rulers to maintain control without as much fear of open revolt if they were excessive or oppressive.

In recent history, many major powers have confiscated firearms from their citizens prior to using some very inhumane methods of control. Examples would be the Soviet Union, Nazi Germany, and Communist China. Each prevented their citizens from effectively resisting prior to using force to achieve goals.

As Doc as alluded to, just because a weapon is "Illegal" doesn't mean those who wish to break the law and use it won't be able to gain access. As far as I know, Sarin gas is highly restricted, yet it has been used by those who wish to kill.
 

deletedT

Guest
Local time
Today, 18:06
Joined
Feb 2, 2019
Messages
1,218
@The_Doc_Man & @Mark_

fortunately or unfortunately I've always been weak in history and most of what you are talking about (both US and our history) is strange to me.

I just can't believe how you compare knife to firearms. Yes, both can be used to kill others, but you can carry a firearm and kill 20 or more in a school, but you can't do it with a knife. You stab the first or if you're lucky the second, but others can stop you or having time to scape. Was it Los vegas where someone killed more than 50 persons from a hotel room window? Can you do it with a knife?

I also can't believe you're insisting gun control is meaningless 'cause outlaws will have their firearms anyway.
Dear friends, you can find outlaws, gangs, evil person in any country. But they are not armed. Have you ever thought how it works for us, Europe and other Asian countries?

As Doc as alluded to, just because a weapon is "Illegal" doesn't mean those who wish to break the law and use it won't be able to gain access. As far as I know.
I've never been in States and all I know about your country is through news or movies. So it may be because I don't know the situation, but can you explain why? How is it possible in other countries? The last time I heard someone was murdered with a gun in Japan, I can't even remember when it was, a Yakuza shot another one. Was it 5 years ago? or 10? Yes, they may have it, but it's not used daily.

Sarin gas is highly restricted, yet it has been used by those who wish to kill.
If you're talking about Sarin used in Japan 20 years ago, again yes. A lot of restricted things may be used. But being restricted makes it being used less. Sarin was used only once in the whole Japan's criminal history. Are you comparing it to your mass shooting? List of Mass shooting in 2019. I even couldn't count it.

In recent history, many major powers have confiscated firearms from their citizens prior to using some very inhumane methods of control. Examples would be the Soviet Union, Nazi Germany, and Communist China. Each prevented their citizens from effectively resisting prior to using force to achieve goals.
To be true, I can't even understand what you're trying to tell me. Are you trying to tell me that firearm control is a way to control a nation? And we or other European countries' nation are being controlled in an inhumane methods under the name of law?

Tera, some of us don't see gun control as the correct answer because (a) people who don't have guns can use knives or make bombs and (b) if they want them badly enough, they can get guns.
First, no they can not get guns. It's not that simple.
Secondly, Well, if gun control is not the answer, would you please explain what would be? Spreading more weapons to have a balance between the count of firearms at both sides? Between those who try to protect their families and the Outlaws?

And as my last point, Most of your crimes are because someone gets mad, Draws his weapon and kills the other one. Just like a Western movie.
He's not an outlaw, he's not a criminal. He just gets mad. And because he has a firearm, he uses it. Just like the driver mentioned in the first post above. Have you ever think about what if he had no firearms with himself? And the other man WAS NOT murdered? Just because of a road rouge? He wouldn't go make a bomb to kill a driver who did something not correct.
 
Last edited:

Frothingslosh

Premier Pale Stale Ale
Local time
Today, 14:06
Joined
Oct 17, 2012
Messages
3,276
I always love how the same people who argue that 'disarming the people leads to fascism' always ignore the existence of the many nations with strict gun control that are also functioning democracies.

But I digress.

I can't believe how is it possible to have machine guns in states and nobody cares.

Actually, machine guns are MASSIVELY illegal here. There's a federal law on the books and has been for decades that bars the ownership of and sales to private citizens of any firearm that fires more than one bullet per trigger press. There IS a loophole for people who owned such a weapon before the law was passed, but it only applies to a tiny handful of weapons, virtually all of which are in the hands of collectors. It does mean, however, that even taking a semi-auto AR-15 and converting it back into an M-16 is hugely illegal. There are items called bump stocks that get around that ban (they use a mechanism that uses recoil to press the trigger again, simulating automatic fire), but they were criminalized last December, and the courts threw out the various legal challenges to the ban a few months ago.
 

Frothingslosh

Premier Pale Stale Ale
Local time
Today, 14:06
Joined
Oct 17, 2012
Messages
3,276
Just saw your post on page 2. I'll have to look at it later, as I'm heading off to work now.
 

Galaxiom

Super Moderator
Staff member
Local time
Tomorrow, 05:06
Joined
Jan 20, 2009
Messages
12,849
Wide spread gun ownership means everyone assumes their opponent is armed. Shooting first becomes the the best chance for survival.

A lot more people end up needlessly dead over misunderstandings like the one in the first post.
 

deletedT

Guest
Local time
Today, 18:06
Joined
Feb 2, 2019
Messages
1,218
Re: I'm OK with thisrticular use of firearms!

Wide spread gun ownership means everyone assumes their opponent is armed. Shooting first becomes the the best chance for survival.

A lot more people end up needlessly dead over misunderstandings like the one in the first post.
At last someone's speaking my language
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Top Bottom