The danger of crazy men with guns versus the need for self protection…

June 18, 2017

At the news of the shooting at the Republican congressional baseball practice I began a post one way and then another incident happened and it seemed to reinforce in me an understanding of why so many people support the right to keep and bear arms (and that  sometimes reluctantly includes me).

But first, my initial reaction:

Automatic assault rifle gun fire at a Republican baseball practice, several injured, including the majority whip. And yet the Republicans (and many Democrats) still feel they must be absolutists against sensible gun control. I mean they are locked into that position because they depend upon the support of the gun lobby and citizens who are in no mood to compromise on the Second Amendment and their belief that it guarantees every man woman and child the right to pack automatic weapons. Never mind that the Founding Fathers could not have foreseen the advance in weapons technology centuries later and that the Second Amendment speaks more to a citizen’s army than simple citizen gun ownership.

But still, I support the Second Amendment. And for now I will go along with the notion that the consensus seems to be that it does indeed give citizens a right to tote their own guns. However, the courts have allowed some forms of gun control nonetheless.

I don’t have an answer as to how we on the one hand preserve our right to keep and bear arms and on the other how we protect ourselves from mad men with weapons that spray hundreds of rounds per minute.

Some suggest that if we all packed weapons like on those old TV westerns the nut cases would not be so emboldened. First, I doubt that. They are nuts, remember? Secondly if we all packed guns, given the temper of the nation now — you have been out on the interstates? it would be mayhem, more than it already is,

(At the congressional ball practice the congressmen and others at least had some Capital Police on hand who bravely faced the gunman and shot him dead, even though they were outgunned in firepower. And isn’t that horrendous that bad guys often have more fire power than our police?)

No I don’t have an answer. But I do know the free flow of automatic weapons primarily benefits the arms industry and is a detriment to our personal safety.


And then there were those two animals out of a Georgia prison who murdered two guards on a prison bus and escaped, going on a rampage of carjacking and one incident where they terrorized an elderly couple. Finally with the help of two citizens — two civilians as it were — with their own firearms, they were apprehended. As I read it (and the reports seemed to be somewhat vague) the two were lying face down held at gunpoint by the good citizens when the police arrived.

If you saw the photos of those two desperadoes you might agree with me that there was something chilling about them.

The police cannot be everywhere and see everything all the time and we would not want it that way. But with animals like that on the loose it could be a comfort to be armed thanks to your Second Amendment rights.

Still, there is a likelihood for it to backfire, so to speak. You cannot be wide awake all the time and it might not be legal nor practical to have a firearm on your person at all times. Often the bad guy, the intruder, is likely to get the drop on you.

And we often have incidents in which innocent people, often young people or lost foreigners, are shot when a homeowner misperceives a threat.

So this uniquely American notion of every citizen’s right to keep and bear arms often presents a conundrum.

I can only say: preserve the Second Amendment, support reasonable gun control, and stem the flow of automatic weapons.

p.s.

I did not go into gun safety. There are so many tragic incidents of children getting their hands on firearms and accidentally shooting themselves and others, often siblings. And far too many of these incidents happen in households of policemen. But there are a lot of deadly dangers we all face every day. But yes, gun safety courses for all ought to be a requirement of gun ownership.

One more note: I think in the incident where the citizens apprehended the escaped convicts the bad guys had lost their stolen weapons at that point.

 

 

 

Advertisements

Why do we ‘love’ our guns so much? Protection is one reason…

April 29, 2017

Just read an article on CNN in which a correspondent who is now a U.S. citizen but who is originally from India, the land of non-violent resistance Gandhi style, wanted to determine what those in other parts of the world consider is the reason behind America’s “love affair” with guns.

 

So she went to an NRA confab.

 

She claims although she did not completely get her head around it all, she did come away with “much to consider”.

 

To boil it down, I think she found that some of the reasons law-abiding citizens want to own their own guns include: self-protection (the police may not always be available in time), the feeling of freedom from an overpowering government that would run every aspect of one’s life, and sport shooting.

 

(And not to make a sick, sick joke, but by “sport shooting” I was not referring to drive by shootings.)

 

 

One person indicated to her that it is black people who of all people should support the right to keep and bear arms, claiming that the notion of gun control was really a device to keep control of ex slaves after the Civil War (I’m not clear on the history of that, but the correspondent herself noted that when the former British colonial masters took over India they instituted strict gun control).

 

I know the NRA and others often proclaim that if you outlaw guns then only the outlaws will have guns. There is some logic there alright. If you drive toward the Mexican border you will see signs that warn you that firearms are illegal in Mexico. Doesn’t seem to stem the tide of narco gun violence down there does it?

 

The writer said that people in her native India often ask: what is this obsession Americans have with owning guns?

 

I myself was asked that question on one of my trips to Spain by some Spanish people. Spain as I understand it has fairly strict gun control.

 

 

But I listened to the local news in Spain and I’ll be darned, they have armed robberies there too.

 

 

Whatever, I will concede that gun violence seems to be out of hand in our American society.

Guns have been part of our culture. We broke away from Great Britain via gun-toting colonists who fought the revolution.

 

 

Also it was the way we settled the continent. Law and order did not come to the territories until after they were settled and local governments were set up. In the meantime it was like every man for himself, whereas in Canada, the King or the Queen’s law came first (at least that is what I was taught in a comparative government class in college).

 

 Canada has much less gun violence than we do here in the U.S. (but they have had some incidents in relatively recent times).

 

 

And of course we have that Second Amendment in our Constitution that is read by most as ensuring that we all have a right to carry our own heat. I’ve written so much, well at least so many times, about the ambiguity of that one-sentence amendment that I won’t bother repeating it here. I still support the Second Amendment, although that incident in Connecticut in which a whole classroom of school children were murdered just about did it for me.

 

 

There has to be sensible gun control and it needs to be relatively difficult — not impossible — to obtain guns and people should have to prove they can handle them safely and there should be no gun-show or mail order loopholes. President Kennedy was assassinated with a mail-order rifle. And I don’t know how many mass shooting perpetrators or other murderers have gotten their weapons via a gun show (have not tied to look that up).

 

 

Oh, and back to India: maybe those “non-violent” people can’t understand our obsession with guns but you know if women there were armed maybe they could go about without fearing gang rapes so prevalent in India’s “non-violent” culture.

 

 

p.s.

 

The CNN article that inspired my post: http://www.cnn.com/2017/04/28/world/indian-immigrant-nra-convention/index.html

 

 

I would not have been able to have guns in the house when my children were growing up. I would not have been able to sleep or be anywhere else knowing that somehow one of them might accidentally shoot themselves — so many tragic reports of children of police officers having deadly mishaps.

 

 

But I know years ago an in-law of mine said he always carried a gun under the seat of his car when travelling out on the open road, particularly in places like the wide-open desert. Today as I drive a big truck through wide-open deserts and questionable neighborhoods in inner cities, I sometimes wonder….

 

 

 

 


Sometimes the right to keep and bear arms is hard to argue with…

January 14, 2017

I have written many times that something should be done to stop the free flow of guns in this country and especially to keep them out of the hands of unstable people.

On the other hand I have been consistent in not outright opposing the right of the public to keep and bear arms; I just think we have to have some reasonable control — we do have some, depending upon where one lives.

And I won’t go into what the Second Amendment actually says or how it should be interpreted because it is not pertinent to the point this time and I don’t think it is crystal clear, when one considers its history.

But sometimes something happens and you have to say, thank god a citizen was armed.

If he survives, at least one Arizona trooper must be thinking this (if he is conscious) about now. I don’t have many details but I just read that a citizen came upon an Arizona Highway Patrol officer who had been shot by someone and who was being beat with a gun as well from his assailant. A good Samaritan happened upon the scene and told the assailant to stop. He did not. The good Samaritan shot the bad guy dead.

And while it might be dangerous if everyone took the law into his or her own hands, in this case justice and humanity was served.

This was reportedly on Interstate 10 in the Tonopah, Az. area about 50 miles west of Phoenix. Been there many times. It’s pretty lonely out there. Anyone might be well off to have his or her own weapon for protection.

And what would you do if you came up upon that? I have to ask myself that. Without a gun how do you face someone with one?

In a perfect world being armed would not be necessary.

This ain’t a perfect world.

P.s.

Still the free flow of weapons is a problem. I don’t know the story of who the bad, and now thankfully dead guy was, but seems like he should not have had a gun.


Note:

Reading a subsequent story I see there was more than one citizen who came to the trooper’s aid. One used the trooper’s own radio to call for help, and I don’t know who did what, but one also retrieved the officer’s first aid kit and gave aid till more help arrived. This all has to be a good morale booster for law enforcement in general. Most citizens support the cops (except the cops who go bad of course).


Going for the gun control compromise; no matter what, no one is ever out of danger…

June 17, 2016

Personally, I see no reason why ordinary citizens should be able to possess military style assault weapons, the only purpose of which is to spray bullets at rapid fire to kill as many people as possible in the shortest amount of time possible (and I say people — not much good for deer hunting, that is if you want to eat your prey).

I mean maybe the only reason would be to be prepared for that one day that you joined the local militia to defy the government. Some people read that necessity into the Second Amendment. I think it is a little more complicated than that — has more to do with concerns of a far different time when the nation was not even sure it needed to have a standing army and if so who would it be composed of — the king’s men (or the president’s men) or just common everyday people.

But now I understand that even Democrats in congress pushing for stricter gun control in the wake of the Orlando massacre are not choosing to go the route of an all-out assault rifle ban, rather they want to push for a more politically palatable stricter control, such as making sure folks on watch lists and no-fly lists or those with known mental problems can’t get them.

It is reported that the attacker in Orlando was on the FBI watch list but inexplicably bought an assault rifle legally.

(It gets worse. A gun store salesman said he reported suspicions of the attacker to the FBI days before the shooting. Obviously nothing was done.)

The thinking of the Democrats, and even a parent of the Sandy Hook massacre of school children who is a gun control advocate, is that it is better to go for something that has a chance with the NRA and gun enthusiasts in general. This way something might actually get done, otherwise you just have a polarizing debate and get nowhere.

Even that crazy Republican presumptive nominee said he was going to speak to the NRA about exceptions. But then again, he says anything that comes to mind at the moment.

Of course gun control does not solve the problem, it just helps deal with it.

In Britain a 41-year-old woman who was a rising star in that nation’s parliament was stabbed and shot to death on the street after meeting with constituents in the last few days. It is not known what the motive of the assassin was — he was crazy for sure. The victim was a proponent of Britain staying in the European Union while the polls there show the so-called Brexit movement (getting out of the EU) with an advantage ahead of a vote of the public on the matter. Also the assassin had neo-Nazi ties.

Britain has strict gun controls.

There is always potential danger for lawmakers even in civilized and essentially peaceful democracies. Our own Gabby Giffords, from Arizona, was shot and seriously and permanently wounded a few years ago while meeting with her constituents.

Maybe the careful strategy on gun control, that is trying to win over the gun enthusiasts, is the best one.

But as far as I am concerned, I see no reason to allow the free flow of military weapons in society.

p.s.

I do understand the idea of keeping or carrying, say, a handgun, for personal protection, but that is problematic. I won’t go into all the ins and outs on that one, you can see them yourself.

Or maybe we all must have our own arsenal, including automatic hand guns and rifles, ready to engage in a firefight at a moment’s notice, whether in the home, on the street, in the library, at a back-to-school nights, or wherever. And if you do not see the absurdity in all that, then what is the use of me even writing anything? It would be like trying to talk sense to a Trump supporter.

 

 

 

 

 


We seem powerless in the face of evil all because of one ambiguous sentence…

June 13, 2016

I awoke Sunday morning and checked the news. I was surprised, only surprised, not shocked, to see that there had been another mass shooting, this time in Orlando, Florida. The first report I read was a breaking news story that put the death toll at 20. But I was shocked or stunned later when I read it had climbed to 50, with at least that many more injured, making it the worst mass shooting event in U.S. history.

(I’m reading both 49 and 50 as the immediate death toll; I guess the 50 would include the gunman who was killed after police stormed the site of the shooting.)

But I’m not writing this to report on the details, I want to ask the question: why do we keep reading that the FBI (and others maybe) have these mass murderers on their watch lists and yet they go ahead and do their dirty deeds? I realize the authorities can’t follow around every demented person and catch them just before the act, and they can’t simply jail someone because they think he (or she, but seems it’s always a he, so far) might do something bad. But in this case we are told that the gunman had made comments at work that he had connections with ISIS terrorists and had talked about committing some type of act (maybe vague references or direct, I don’t know). But, you know? you can be arrested for threatening the president. But maybe not people in general.

However, the real frustrating thing in here to me is the fact that of course this was carried out with an automatic assault rifle. After all of these mass shootings, we still have not stopped the free flow of these terrible weapons in this country, and all because we have something called the Second Amendment which a powerful political lobby interprets to mean anyone and everyone can have guns. I’m not at all sure a majority of the American public thinks that. But politicians respond to lobbies and their ability to fund political races and their ability to fund campaigns against those who defy them. Of course the Second Amendment still stands and cannot be altered simply by legislation because it is part of the Constitution and therefore would require the difficult amendment process.

In  reality, however, it would be possible to put much tighter controls on assault rifles without touching the Second Amendment. It has been done previously and then the regulations lapsed and were not re-instated due to pressure from the gun lobby (which of course really represents the commercial fire arms industry).

So the shooter in this case, even though he was on the FBI radar because of comments his co-workers had heard him give and because of connections to terrorists he was believed to have had, was able to legally purchase weapons, to include the assault rifle he used along with a handgun to kill 50 people in this mass shooting. Again, what is this FBI watch list for? (and I may not be using the term “watch list” accurately, but he was on their radar so to speak.)

At my last reading it had not been determined whether this gunman was actually connected to the terrorist group ISIS, which he claimed to be, or whether he was a lone wolf, which ISIS encourages.

And I have to note that reports indicate that the gunman had it out for homosexuals. The event occurred at a “gay” night spot. So we had a twofer for a motive: ISIS terror and hatred of homosexuals (and maybe those go together because of the demented religious or faux religious component of ISIS).

So while there is an international terrorism connection to all of this, the primary problem for all of our safety is the fact that we have a free flow of automatic assault weapons.

I have addressed the Second Amendment, the so-called right to keep and bear arms provision in the Constitution, before. As a general thing, I have always accepted the general notion that citizens have this right, but not without qualifications. And I have done some reading on the history of the amendment and have only gathered that it is ambiguous as to its clear meaning because it is only one sentence long and seems to have a dependent clause which ties the right to keep and bear arms to a citizen militia. And one has to realize this was enacted before we had a regular standing army and before the advent of assault rifles.

The text of the Second Amendment follows (and there is more than one version of it I think, something about commas, but I don’t have the original in front of me, so this is off the web):

————-

A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

————-

So you see the dependency of the militia thing there. And lord help me that we might have home-grown militias running around vigilante style. That would be terrorism too.

But I don’t want to get into a Second Amendment discussion here. I don’t care what it says or what it does not say. It is absurd that we let this situation continue.

In a previous incident a whole classroom of school children was mowed down. Nothing was done.

What does it take?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 


The Second Amendment should not stand in the way of public safety…

October 2, 2015

The Second Amendment should not stand in the way of taking measures to protect society from nut cases who seem wont to shoot up school campuses (as well as other places).

The latest mass shooting, at a community college in Oregon, a least 10 dead and several wounded, begs the question, just what does it take? Why as a society are we so afraid to act? Is it we don’t know how to balance individual liberty with public safety — especially safety for our young?

——————–

The actual number of dead and wounded count has changed with conflicting first-hours/day reports

———————-

I saw President Obama give some angry remarks about it, how every time someone calls for sensible gun controls, and pardon me for the metaphor I use, not Obama, they get shot down for it, and in fact people say there ought to be more guns more easily available.

The whole thing is absurd. Why does this nation have so many of these types of mass killings?

And I’ll bet some nutsos are calling right now for guns on campus so the kids can shoot back.

We don’t need free fire-zones on campus. We already have them.

But like I have written before, when those little kids were mowed down at that school in Connecticut — I mean a nut case shot a whole class — nothing was done.

I’m almost too tired right now to write more, but what does it take to make people realize something needs to be done? Of course we can never protect ourselves 100 percent, but we need to do something more than is being done now.

Oh but this is the election season. Candidates wanting all the money they can don’t want to upset the commercial gun interests or voters who care more for their unfettered rights to pack iron than the safety of young people at school or society as a whole.

And I  personally do not oppose the Second Amendment, although I think it is a bit ambiguous in its wording and does not speak in 21st Century language or to modern understanding. But the Second Amendment right of citizens to keep and bear arms does hold sway. However, reasonable  people can come up with a reasonable accommodation for public safety. The all-to-easy access to firearms by the mentally unstable threatens the fabric of our society. Let’s see some leadership in this election season, rather than pandering for votes.

P.s.

I couldn’t keep off this thing for long. I still may have to anyway because I am temporarily sin computer. I’m using my sister’s. I thought being off the screen would be a rest for me and I had something else more pressing. And as I watched all those people staring at their smart phones (I don’t have one/still have the old flip phone and feel like I should ask Sarah the operator for the number) I thought, ha, they are so addicted.

But I found out I am addicted to my laptop. And if I had one of those newfangled phones I’d be glued to it no doubt.


No way to stop gun violence, our guns and our Second Amendment are as sacred as the Bible…

August 27, 2015

What could be more horrific than to see two TV news people murdered on air?

Well noting except maybe a class full of school children mowed down or a movie theater crowd sprayed with deadly gun fire.

Nothing but all of the other senseless shootings that are a result of our wild-west attitude toward guns and the availability of firearms to deranged people, not to mention the criminal element.

I saw that video out of Roanoke, Va. Wednesday, showing the woman reporter interviewing a woman out in the field and then the shocked face of the news anchor back at the studio who could not yet fully grasp the horror before her eyes. I don’t know how much that original footage showed on live TV. But if that was not enough, the gunman posted a video of himself on social media shooting the reporter, and I think it showed as well the shooting of the woman being interviewed and the TV cameraman. The reporter and the cameraman died. The woman was rushed to the hospital (I don’t know her fate as of this writing). The gunman apparently committed suicide as the police closed in.

The assassin was a black man who had been a reporter at the television station in question and who had been let go and who had filed a discrimination suit. He reportedly complained he was discriminated against both for being black and homosexual — his former employer and co-workers saying he was always looking for things that he could label as discrimination but that in reality he was a troublemaker. We don’t know about all of that. But of course even if he was correct, the actions he took show he was crazy.

And I just read that he expressed admiration for recent mass murderers.

Unfortunately, in this country upset and crazy people have easy access to firearms.

But we are all powerless to stop it.

So we just shrug, or say, “how awful!” and move on, but somewhere the thought moves briefly through our minds, we could be next. We could all be in the wrong place at the wrong time.

But the right to keep and bear arms (which really had more to do with the concept of an army of the people in place of one representing the ruler, rather than everyone having an inalienable right to tote a gun, always ready to react to anything that makes them unhappy) guaranteed in the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution makes it impossible to control the alarmingly easy access to firearms in this nation.

To politicians looking for votes or not to lose votes, the Second Amendment is as sacred as the Holy Bible.

And maybe it’s just a trade-off between freedom and making sure we have guns to protect ourselves from bad folks and bad government (we can all rebel at an instant like the Minute Men) or to hunt deer on the one hand as opposed to suffering the tragedy of wild gunmen mowing people down.

Like I always say, I thought for sure the Connecticut school massacre, Sandy Hook, would be the last straw for the American public.

I was wrong.

P.s.

I personally am not in favor of repealing the Second Amendment, even though I feel it is so ambiguous, as to make it almost indecipherable in today’s world. But it’s just a unique part of the American experience. So far the high court has pretty much gone along with the notion that although there can be some amount of control, there is a basic right for virtually every individual in the country, with few exceptions, to own firearms.

There just must be a better method, not a foolproof one I suppose, of keeping them out of hands of the deranged and the criminal element.

For now, the gun lobby rules and a public jaded from violence being so commonplace moves on to something more positive to think about.