Question about American gun laws.

[Big Mac]

My dad stole to feed us (my sister and I) when we were young a few times.  He was a drug addict and a Vietnam vet with PTSD.  I think it's pretty offensive to paint someone who was fucked up because he fought for this country and used drugs to help deal with his experiences as a 'weak willed sissy'.  I find this post to be disheartening and indicative of an aspect of America I greatly dislike.

I'm sorry to hear about the troubles your father had after serving in that conflict. That was not who I was referring to. I'm referring to people who just give up and think that because they had a hard life that they are entitled to be drug fueled assholes to the rest of society. It sickens me when vets are ignored by the people they fought and died for like they are now second class citizens. I hope the current crop of troops do not experience the same thing that Vietnam vets do when coming home. That was a senseless war that people took a lot of their anger out on the troops.

That was never the intent of that and I'm sorry if it came off as that.

[Big Mac]

McQ's request being honored. Gulags will no longer be touched on. See other posts please.

[Big Mac]

On the subject of welfare programs. I actually agree with the original intent behind them. No one should suffer the pain of hunger. No one should worry about having a roof over their head. It sickening to think we as a society have trouble providing housing to others. It's a sign of a society that focuses on some of the stupidest shit. It's frustrating and at times can be overwhelming to imagine how the world can be so harsh.

I do not lack empathy for people despite my harsh posturing. I want that to be clear. My contempt is toward violent criminals for the most part. I do support charitable organizations that help people. I feel that we need to attack the source of grinding poverty and not just temporarily alleviate the symptoms. I am fully behind helping others out in society. Who in their right mind wants to live in a world where NO ONE will help you when you desperately need it? Would we really want a society where there is no charitable organizations out there? It'd be like Hobbes view on certain societies. Life would be short, violent, and brutish.

As PC brought up, there are plenty of people who turned to drugs who are mentally ill (in the case of her father serving in wartime and being cast aside by society once he returned to the states). I would love to see a focus on providing quality mental health care to them. I'm not opposed to helping people seek professional help.

My point is I see no issue killing someone in self-defense if it comes to that. You will not see me bat an eye at destroying whoever/whatever aims at destroying me and my loved ones.

[Tank]

In fairness, remember, Tank, that you, a Brit, started this by asking about an American Constitutional right. So you may not agree with the American view of this, no matter how much it is discussed. You asked if America, not the UK, should re-look at the Second Amendment.

Quite right, I did ask the question and the responses have been very interesting to read. The 'sub-plot' of individual/national attitudes to gun control is also of interest. I don't think this thread is going to change any minds one way or the other in either country as each person is a product of their culture, and there are tribal overtones bubbling under the surface as well. I thing the best one could hope for is that the various parties agree to differ as the actual circumstances each finds themselves in is unique. One of the nice things about forums is that one can discuss things at a grass root level with individuals in the situation being discussed. We're not looking at each other with the media or agenda laden politicians in the way, we're just imperfect people getting on in the world.

There is absolutly no need to get personal about this and start sniping at each other. It's just an interesting exchange of ideas and there really is no need to fall out over this at all.

[Big Mac]

Not at all Tank, I'm enjoying this discussion. I didn't think some of my thoughts out and may have come off a little more heartless than I should want to be. I just find it foreign to view guns as bad instead of the bad person behind the gun doing bad things with it. Guns to me are tools (not toys) that cannot be evil. Just like a car, a butcher knife, a large wrench, etc. They do whatever the person wielding them does.

I'm a big advocate of being responsible for your own actions. I'm not saying you guys aren't either.

This is a very charged issue and I admit in the heat of the discussion I got a little carried away with some of the more hyperbolic stuff.

[pinkocommie]

My dad stole to feed us (my sister and I) when we were young a few times.  He was a drug addict and a Vietnam vet with PTSD.  I think it's pretty offensive to paint someone who was fucked up because he fought for this country and used drugs to help deal with his experiences as a 'weak willed sissy'.  I find this post to be disheartening and indicative of an aspect of America I greatly dislike.

I'm sorry to hear about the troubles your father had after serving in that conflict. That was not who I was referring to. I'm referring to people who just give up and think that because they had a hard life that they are entitled to be drug fueled assholes to the rest of society. It sickens me when vets are ignored by the people they fought and died for like they are now second class citizens. I hope the current crop of troops do not experience the same thing that Vietnam vets do when coming home. That was a senseless war that people took a lot of their anger out on the troops.

That was never the intent of that and I'm sorry if it came off as that.

It's ok, it's an emotional subject for me and I'm sorry I let my emotions take the lead by posting something like that.  I can completely understand and I share in your frustration with people who take advantage of the system.  It's in part those kind of people creating issues with the social security and welfare system that made it even more difficult for my dad to receive help.

I don't think empathy is a bad thing at all and I felt like your previous post made it seem like empathy was somehow a weakness.  I don't think that's what you actually meant though, having read the rest of your replies, so I'm sorry for reacting so harshly instead of asking for clarification before reacting.

Internet hugs, etc.  

[Tank]

Not at all Tank, I'm enjoying this discussion. I didn't think some of my thoughts out and may have come off a little more heartless than I should want to be. I just find it foreign to view guns as bad instead of the bad person behind the gun doing bad things with it. Guns to me are tools (not toys) that cannot be evil. Just like a car, a butcher knife, a large wrench, etc. They do whatever the person wielding them does.

I agree with you 100% and cars kill way more people than guns and almost all due to improper use or maintenance, the exception being the unmissable pedestrian.  

I'm a big advocate of being responsible for your own actions. I'm not saying you guys aren't either.

Again I agree 100%.

This is a very charged issue and I admit in the heat of the discussion I got a little carried away with some of the more hyperbolic stuff.

And who hasn't at some time or another, I know I've cringed at some things I have written as I wouldn't have even dreamt of saying the same thing in real life.  

For me the 'tool' description of guns is 100% accurate but not necessarily the whole story. While cars cause most violent deaths they are not supposed to, for a gun to be anything other than a toy (in the context of target shooting) it must cause violent death. To fulfil its function as a tool a gun must kill. The counter to this is MAD (Mutually Assured Destruction) on the personal scale. If everybody carried guns nobody would have a significant advantage in their ability to threaten and thus dominate anybody else.

However, I do follow the point regarding the OP that the nature of the weapons owned is of secondary importance to the Idea behind the second amendment. But I do think the FF did leave the population of the USA with a rather poisoned challis in this case.

[Big Mac]

I disagree, the Founding Fathers knew that when people are armed it is harder to oppress them. The modus operandi of any invading army to is take away any arms from the civilian population. We see it in Iraq right now. An armed resistance from civilians who are packing military grade weaponry (granted it's beat up and old soviet tech but it still functions). Imagine them being armed and trained as well as a good number of Americans (a lot of gun owners are former military/LE or can get training from someone who is). It'd be hard to maintain morale when you have a group of folks sniping, ambushing, etc. your men so much more effectively. Kind of like a Red Dawn situation but not as cheesy (though I'd hold up an AK and scream WOLVERINES!!!! like Patrick Swayze RIP).

I think the Founding Fathers put the 2nd Amendment for what I call the three T's: Thugs, Tyrants, and Trespassers. Thugs were the highwaymen of the day who feared the coachman's blunderbuss. Tyrants are well....tyrants. Trespassers refers to an invading military that the people needed to help push back. There is some debate as to whether the oft-quote Japanese admiral said, "I'd never invade America, there would be a rifle behind every blade of grass." I'm not sure if that was actually said but I imagine that they were keenly aware of how heavily armed US civilians are.

I admit, guns are scary in that they are designed solely to fire lead down range in a lethal manner. Even the target pistol you refer to is still a deadly weapon. It can kill just the same as the Sig Sauer P226 X-Five Tactical sitting on my computer desk right now. The problem I think lies in the fact a lot of kids hear these rappers talk about weapons like that somehow makes you a man to own a deadly weapon and use it on people. They think "That's cool!" and go out and buy something illegal. In my opinion that's the big reason we have a lot of gun deaths in this country.

A lot of those kids lack a father figure (or at least a positive one) so they look up to these men who glorify violence and other anti-social behavior and make it seem like a requisite for being a man. I've seen it too many times and it's disheartening. They come from a world that tells them to just give up and sadly a lot of them listen to this mantra and do just that. I think that breaking that cycle like Karadan mentioned would probably go a long way to reduce crime. Every kid I dealt with in that tutoring work responded to me quite well. I wasn't completely harsh.  I just made it clear that while we can have fun while we learn that I was the tutor and the student listens to me. And if they didn't agree to that to hit the bricks because I didn't have time to play pity party with them. I don't think these kids got that kind of attention at home. Perhaps their parents were neglectful or just couldn't because they are working and such. It is a very harsh cycle.

However, my sympathy has no place in self-defense when someone is breaking into my home. They have made a choice to do something violent and I will respond with lethal force. It's a harsh duality but I feel a necessary one.

It's just like any other tool. You don't respect it, it will bite you bad. Just like a butcher knife, you don't watch how you're cutting, you're gonna get cut.

I'm not sure if you are familiar with the countryside in the US but it's a necessity to have a gun in the home because it will take police forever to respond. You can literally be miles away from anything remotely called a home. Not to mention wildlife can be quite aggressive at times. Killing things like cougars, coyotes, rattlesnakes, etc. requires a gun. And there are plenty of two-legged predators out there.

So yes, in the wrong hands a gun is a liability. I fully agree with background checks and certain restrictions on WHO can own a gun. If you have a history of violence, no gun. If you have a restraining order against you, no gun. If you are mentally ill, no gun.

These are already in place. It's not like you can walk into a gun store and walk out with a gun without doing some paper work. After you finish said paperwork the dealer takes your license and calls the NCIS (Background checking people, before they existed it was a waiting period while they did a background check for a few days).

Dealers follow the law to the t. There are some out there that violate the law but the vast majority would not risk the severe penalties that come with breaking the law. The problem with the Cho (the V-Tech Shooter) was that he showed different warning signs to different people. Seemed like most of them didn't report his disturbing behavior (or maybe they didn't know how). That boy did not need a single deadly object. Just reading his plays it's obvious he was deranged.

[Tank]

Thought provoking post. In the UK more people die from bee stings than snake bites. We have only one poisonous snake and no other lethal creatures to worry about. So in the UK a gun is only really employed to eliminate vermin and for hunting. The hunting establishment is mostly an expensive clique in the UK not a weekend hobby, as I believe it to be in some areas of the USA, and is pretty self regulating. Vermin control is usually rabbits and rats in rural locations with shot guns, or .22 cal rifles and in many cases high powered air rifles.

On the home land defence front I can't see any country starting on the USA, or the UK for that matter, so while that argument may have held water at some point in the past, possibly up until 1945, but with the advent of the A-bomb an invasion of the USA has become unthinkable.

I still find this dichotomy between the government and the population an interesting subject. I don't trust politicians but I'm getting the impression, possible incorrectly, that the US citizenship positively loathes its politicians. Is this impression anywhere near the truth?

[The Black Jester]

I still find this dichotomy between the government and the population an interesting subject. I don't trust politicians but I'm getting the impression, possible incorrectly, that the US citizenship positively loathes its politicians. Is this impression anywhere near the truth?

That is certainly a fair characterization of my perspective on politicians.  I'm shooting in the dark here, but it may be why Obama's rhetoric was so effective with some people during the election.  He successfully marketed himself as an antidote to the overpowering cynicism many feel about politics.

[Thumpalumpacus]

This article seems pertinent:

On Monday, the Supreme Court ruled that states and localities â€" not just the federal government â€" are prohibited from infringing on the right to bear arms. That ruling followed a 2008 decision in which the court ruled the right is an individual one, not just part of a right to form a state militia.

[Tank]

This article seems pertinent:

On Monday, the Supreme Court ruled that states and localities â€" not just the federal government â€" are prohibited from infringing on the right to bear arms. That ruling followed a 2008 decision in which the court ruled the right is an individual one, not just part of a right to form a state militia.

That could hardly be more relevant or timely  

[Big Mac]

I still find this dichotomy between the government and the population an interesting subject. I don't trust politicians but I'm getting the impression, possible incorrectly, that the US citizenship positively loathes its politicians. Is this impression anywhere near the truth?

You don't even know the half of it. I hate most politicians because they only say what they think people want to hear. It's frustrating because if you live in an area where people are dense you get slick talking asshole who will manipulate the dumber populations into jingoistic bullshit.

[Big Mac]

That is certainly a fair characterization of my perspective on politicians.  I'm shooting in the dark here, but it may be why Obama's rhetoric was so effective with some people during the election.  He successfully marketed himself as an antidote to the overpowering cynicism many feel about politics.

Which seems to bite him in the ass now that he really hasn't done anything different than Bush. Some of the controversies he is involved in are taking a toll on his poll numbers. I think 2012 will be an interesting election year if the Republicans can actually must a moderate candidate instead of a "maverick"  

Obama is like any other politician. He says what you want to hear and he seems to do a decent job compared to the previous one. But he's in it for himself, not the people. They all are.

[The Black Jester]

But he's in it for himself, not the people. They all are.

Yeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeep.  That's about my take.