Gun Control

[Brant Gaede]

There will come a time when the countries that have disarmed their citizens will come to regret it. Countries like England and Australia. Under America's protection for so many generations they have lost their mettle. If those 15 British Marines had been Americans those Iranians would have been dead meat. And can you believe how they collaborated with their captors?

--Brant

Mmmmm.....I see the "special relationship" is in safe hands

1996:

Thomas Hamilton, aged 43, a disgraced former Scout master whose behaviour had attracted the attention of the police, turned one of his four guns on himself after killing or injuring all but one of a class of 29 five- and six-year-olds at Dunblane primary school, near Stirling.

1987:

On Wednesday 19 August 1987, the historic market town of Hungerford, Berkshire, was turned into a bloodbath with sixteen people shot to death and another fourteen injured, eight of them seriously. The butchery ended only when the gunman, twenty-seven-year-old Michael Ryan, was cornered in a school and turned the gun on himself.

If losing our mettle has reduced the further risk of these horrors taking place in the UK, then I'm glad our (then) governments acted (or reacted) swiftly. The tightening of our gun laws following these two events may not have stopped gun crime per se, but it has taken the guns out of the hands of the psychopaths.

I have great respect for sovereignty and understand that a nation is inextricably linked to its constitution. Consequently I consider it is highly unlikely that there will be changes to the Second Amendment to the US Constitution even 200 years on. I admire the US in many, many respects and consider them our greatest (non Commonwealth) ally........but whatever your troops' roles are in policing the world, ours are just slightly different.

The direction of policies under the Blair government leave a lot to be desired I know - but I am saddened that you feel that the people of your Country's staunchest supporter and ally should be held up to ridicule in such a way.

Often one can see a bigger picture if one steps back from the centre of the universe.

Hi, Peter. I have tremendous admiration for Great Britain and her people, but they need to get back to their roots. In regard to the US, there are probably at least 200,000,000 firearms, many of them handguns, in the hands of civilians. For the US the achieve what GB has now in regards to "gun control" is impossible and if GB's current travails with guns are any indication it wouldn't make too much difference if we do. In Tasmania, Australia 35 people in a restaurant were killed by someone with a hunting rifle, I believe. Even worse than Virginia Tech. The reaction in that country was to take virtually all the citizens' weapons away.

Very well over 40,000 human beings were slaughtered by automobiles in the US last year. Ban the automobile!? If the gun control zealots had concentrated their energy on that (road safety) instead of guns they would surely have made a greater positive impact than they have. What they want is my balls.

Don't feel too badly about my criticisms of your fair isle. We are stumbling along right after you cutting off our own balls in slow motion. I would have no ridicule if the Royal Navy had blasted those Iranians into heaven so they could enjoy all those ugly virgins.

--Brant

Edited April 19, 2007 by Brant Gaede

[Michael Russell]

The students at Virginia Tech were grown women and — if you'll forgive the expression — men.

Nice, two days after the massacre at Virginia Tech and this asshole Steyn impugns the courage and manhood of its students. Why do I have the feeling that if Mark Steyn were ever in the same situation as these students, he'd be cowering under a desk somewhere in soiled panties?

Mick

[Judith]

The students at Virginia Tech were grown women and — if you'll forgive the expression — men.

Nice, two days after the massacre at Virginia Tech and this asshole Steyn impugns the courage and manhood of its students. Why do I have the feeling that if Mark Steyn were ever in the same situation as these students, he'd be cowering under a desk somewhere in soiled panties?

Maybe not. Some of us do take seriously the need to prepare ourselves for such situations.

Judith

[Martin Radwin]

The students at Virginia Tech were grown women and — if you'll forgive the expression — men.

Nice, two days after the massacre at Virginia Tech and this asshole Steyn impugns the courage and manhood of its students. Why do I have the feeling that if Mark Steyn were ever in the same situation as these students, he'd be cowering under a desk somewhere in soiled panties?

Mick

Excellent point Mick! This is probably a case of the "chickenhawk" mentality applied to a situation involving criminal mayhem rather than a war zone. Mark Steyn would probably hide under a desk or go fleeing out the window if he were in this situation, yet dares to inpugn the courage of these students. Noone is under any moral obligation to sacrifice their own life in order to try to stop a homicidal maniac. To suggest that these students were less than fully grown men and women for trying to save their own lives is a despicable insult, uttered by a man who probably would soil his panties in such a situation. But if Steyn were as brave as a Navy Seal, his suggestion would be no less despicable.

Martin

[Judith]

To suggest that these students were less than fully grown men and women for trying to save their own lives is a despicable insult

I believe that his exact point is that they DIDN'T try to save their own lives by fighting back, but instead cowered helplessly under desks waiting to be shot.

If you know someone is coming to shoot you, and you're trapped in the building and have no way to escape, don't you owe it to yourself to TRY, at least, to save yourself?

Todd Beamer, where are you?

Judith

Edited April 19, 2007 by Judith

[Danneskjold]

Elizabeth, it's been proven over and over again that more guns means less crime. That may not stop the occasional school shooting but it will save more lives. What would you rather stop? The hundreds if not thousands saved from murder if they could own a gun? Or the few dozen lost to school shootings and the like?

Criminals who approach their crime from a rational perspective far outweigh those who approach it irrationally. Even with the ones who approach it irrationally, the proliferation of guns will stop their crime before the fatality count hits three, let alone thirty. There has been at least one instance where during a school shooting a teacher stopped it using his own handgun causing the shooter to drop his gun at which point he was mauled be the students.

More guns, less crime. More guns, shorter crime sprees.

[Chris Grieb]

Elizabeth, it's been proven over and over again that more guns means less crime. That may not stop the occasional school shooting but it will save more lives. What would you rather stop? The hundreds if not thousands saved from murder if they could own a gun? Or the few dozen lost to school shootings and the like?

Criminals who approach their crime from a rational perspective far outweigh those who approach it irrationally. Even with the ones who approach it irrationally, the proliferation of guns will stop their crime before the fatality count hits three, let alone thirty. There has been at least one instance where during a school shooting a teacher stopped it using his own handgun causing the shooter to drop his gun at which point he was mauled be the students.

More guns, less crime. More guns, shorter crime sprees.

Jeff; With your last sentence we have a bumper sticker.

[Wrighty]

Thanks, Brant - I do see where you are coming from.

I think our problem here is that our society has disintegrated quite a bit more. Ergo, if gun laws were relaxed so that every chav carried a gun then I fear that their uncivilised and immature attitudes would cause untold mayhem for ordinary sections of society.

I live in a small provincial town ... but the streets on Friday/Saturday nights are more "dangerous" than London. Alcohol turns excitable youths who have little understanding of right and wrong into manic idiots. Here there is a knife culture instead, and going around in groups is the only safe way to enjoy a night on the town. If a weapon is carried by someone in this country it is not usually for defence....

Many laws here in the UK are not geared to protect the innocent - and defending yourself can often lead to prosecution.

I think everyone grows up in the US under the umbrella of different laws, a slightly different culture and a level of responsibility in that regard. Guns are part of your way of life and I'm fine with that.

I certainly agree with deaths caused via motor vehicles - it would be ludicrous to ban the car - but getting people to regularly retake tests, also have their eyes tested, and society really get to grips with drink driving would certainly improve things dramatically (over here that is).

As you can see, we have a bit of a problem with ethanol.

[Backlighting]

I wonder how many banks would be held up if the tellers

had hand guns and potential robbers knew it.

[John Dailey]

~ It's easy to innuend 'coward' re the legal adults 'cowering' under their desks at VT. Keep in mind there's little else to do in a 'gun-free' zone (meaning that guns are not permitted, and has nothing to do with their being prevented); campuses all have policies for 'no-carry', regardless state-permission. See my original link.

~ I'm in mind of some hearings a decade or so ago run by Shumer re the evilness of 'assault rifles' and the necessity of increasing laws a la 'Brady.' There was a McDonald's 'massacre' a year or so earlier (in Texas, I believe), and a woman spoke of her father being killed while they and her mother were there. She regretted to the day of the hearings that she abided by state law and didn't bring her gun with her; she left it in her car. 'Cowering' with her parents behind barriers was really all she could do. Let's not give short shrift to 'sheeple' at schools; keep in mind that this is where much indoctrination re fearing guns is intensified anyways.

LLAP

J:D

[Judith]

I think our problem here is that our society has disintegrated quite a bit more. Ergo, if gun laws were relaxed so that every chav carried a gun then I fear that their uncivilised and immature attitudes would cause untold mayhem for ordinary sections of society.

I live in a small provincial town ... but the streets on Friday/Saturday nights are more "dangerous" than London. Alcohol turns excitable youths who have little understanding of right and wrong into manic idiots. Here there is a knife culture instead, and going around in groups is the only safe way to enjoy a night on the town. If a weapon is carried by someone in this country it is not usually for defence....

Many laws here in the UK are not geared to protect the innocent - and defending yourself can often lead to prosecution.

I'm actually afraid to visit Europe because I've heard horror stories about the laws Over There. For instance, that the man living in a rural home who hit an armed intruder over the head with a brick and killed him was sent to prison -- and when he was up for parole, he was denied, because he was deemed a threat -- to burglars!

Any society that doesn't recognize the fundamental right to self-defense and worries more about protecting its burglars than its innocents frightens me deeply.

Judith

[Judith]

~ I'm in mind of some hearings a decade or so ago run by Shumer re the evilness of 'assault rifles' and the necessity of increasing laws a la 'Brady.' There was a McDonald's 'massacre' a year or so earlier (in Texas, I believe), and a woman spoke of her father being killed while they and her mother were there. She regretted to the day of the hearings that she abided by state law and didn't bring her gun with her; she left it in her car. 'Cowering' with her parents behind barriers was really all she could do. Let's not give short shrift to 'sheeple' at schools; keep in mind that this is where much indoctrination re fearing guns is intensified anyways.

Depending on what you're up against, there are options other than "cowering". If you're facing a rifle or shotgun, you've got a bigger problem and need to look for strategic cover and concealment, and the possibility of a surprise attack on the bad guy from the side or rear if you get a chance. You can also try to plan a group attack if possible in the commotion. If you're up against a handgun, however, remember that they're really quite ineffective weapons. It usually takes more than one shot with one for the victim to go down, even if hit in the chest. And something as simple as a down vest or jacket can defeat much of the power of a 9mm hollowpoint.

Here's food for thought: 24 percent of people shot in the heart or lungs die.

What does that tell you?

People have this horror of handguns. They think that if they're shot once with one, they're dead. Just like on TV. I've heard stories of tough gang members being shot once and calling pathetically for the priest, just to have the paramedics say, "Oh, get up, let me put a Band-Aid on it -- and then you're going to jail." I've heard stories of guys taking chest shots from a .45 that entered, went around the body, exited through the skin, and did little or no damage. They were up and out of the hospital in time for dinner. I've heard a story about a guy in Iraq who took a shot right up the nostril and didn't even realize it -- he wondered why he had a nosebleed -- until he went to the dentist the next day and the dentist found the bullet behind his top front teeth.

The fight isn't over until it's over. If there's a mad gunman after you, for god's sake, attack him! Accept that you're going to get shot. You'll probably have a great tale to tell your grandchildren.

In July I'm travelling from my home in New York to San Francisco for a week to take a course on defending against armed assailants when you yourself are unarmed. The first thing they will teach is to get over the fear of being shot. They shoot you with a gun with plastic bullets so you get used to the psychological shock of it. I've already done Simunitions training, so I'm probably ahead of the game in that aspect, but more never hurts.

So don't think that the only option is to cower and wait for death.

Judith

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

I'm actually afraid to visit Europe because I've heard horror stories about the laws Over There. For instance, that the man living in a rural home who hit an armed intruder over the head with a brick and killed him was sent to prison -- and when he was up for parole, he was denied, because he was deemed a threat -- to burglars!

Any society that doesn't recognize the fundamental right to self-defense and worries more about protecting its burglars than its innocents frightens me deeply.

Judith,

Our own liability laws in this respect are a joke. I don't know how things are since the time I left the USA, but right before I left (around 1973), there was an uproar about a guy out West somewhere who had suffered burglary a couple of times to his house (by the same burglar), so he set a trap with a shotgun. The burglar came in, the trap triggered, the shot gun went off, the burglar got shot, he got caught and he went to jail for burglary. He also sued the homeowner for a lot of money for damages and won.

Since I have been back, I have not paid that much attention (I tend to get upset), but recently we had all over the news the case of border patrols who are in jail for shooting at a drug smuggler. The guy was not only granted immunity to testify against the border patrols (and had his medical bills paid for by USA taxpayers), he is suing the U.S. Border Patrol for five millions dollars because he says his civil rights were violated.

If I started on abuses of USA justice, I wouldn't have time for anything else.

(And don't get me started on prosecutors with their plea bargaining and convicting innocent people of small crimes they didn't do to keep good conviction records.)

Michael

[Judith]

Our own liability laws in this respect are a joke. I don't know how things are since the time I left the USA, but right before I left (around 1973), there was an uproar about a guy out West somewhere who had suffered burglary a couple of times to his house (by the same burglar), so he set a trap with a shotgun. The burglar came in, the trap triggered, the shot gun went off, the burglar got shot, he got caught and he went to jail for burglary. He also sued the homeowner for a lot of money for damages and won.

Booby traps are legal trouble as a matter of policy because of their preponderance for harming the innocent -- paramedics, firemen, policemen, etc. -- so I'm not surprised at the outcome in that case. Recently, however, many states have been passing so-called "Castle Doctrine" laws, which hold that any time someone is in your home illegally it is presumed that the person intends to harm you, and you may shoot at will. There is no duty to retreat. In many states it applies to anywhere you may be legally, such as your car, on the street if someone threatens you (i.e., no duty to retreat), etc. These laws also protect you from civil liability if the mugger/burglar or his family think about trying to get at you that way. It's a wonderful idea whose time has come.

Judith

[Martin Radwin]

To suggest that these students were less than fully grown men and women for trying to save their own lives is a despicable insult

I believe that his exact point is that they DIDN'T try to save their own lives by fighting back, but instead cowered helplessly under desks waiting to be shot.

If you know someone is coming to shoot you, and you're trapped in the building and have no way to escape, don't you owe it to yourself to TRY, at least, to save yourself?

Todd Beamer, where are you?

Judith

These were young college students, not soldiers or police officers with military training. How many people without military or police training, unarmed and taken completely by surprise, would know how to defend themselves against a crazed gunman? Steyn is speaking from a perspective of hindsight, knowing that the situation ended in tragedy. These students had to make an instantaneous decision without benefit of hindsight, and presumably without any previous combat experience.

Mark Steyn also takes a gratuitous shot at the testosterone level of Canadians, based on one isolated incident. He of course would not extend such an assessment to Americans based on a single isolated incident occurring in the US. The man is a jerk.

Martin

[Judith]

Mark Steyn also takes a gratuitous shot at the testosterone level of Canadians, based on one isolated incident. He of course would not extend such an assessment to Americans based on a single isolated incident occurring in the US. The man is a jerk.

If Steyn weren't a Canadian himself, the comment might seem nastier; since he is Canadian, however, I'd say he has a right to say it.

Judith

[Brant Gaede]

Our own liability laws in this respect are a joke. I don't know how things are since the time I left the USA, but right before I left (around 1973), there was an uproar about a guy out West somewhere who had suffered burglary a couple of times to his house (by the same burglar), so he set a trap with a shotgun. The burglar came in, the trap triggered, the shot gun went off, the burglar got shot, he got caught and he went to jail for burglary. He also sued the homeowner for a lot of money for damages and won.

Booby traps are legal trouble as a matter of policy because of their preponderance for harming the innocent -- paramedics, firemen, policemen, etc. -- so I'm not surprised at the outcome in that case. Recently, however, many states have been passing so-called "Castle Doctrine" laws, which hold that any time someone is in your home illegally it is presumed that the person intends to harm you, and you may shoot at will. There is no duty to retreat. In many states it applies to anywhere you may be legally, such as your car, on the street if someone threatens you (i.e., no duty to retreat), etc. These laws also protect you from civil liability if the mugger/burglar or his family think about trying to get at you that way. It's a wonderful idea whose time has come.

Judith

In Colorado it used to be--I'm sure the law was changed--that you could shoot to death a trespasser even if he wasn't in your home. However, setting mantraps was not protected as a businessman who had been robbed several times found out. He set up a shotgun that killed an intruder after the shop was closed. He was indicted for murder.

--Brant

[Martin Radwin]

Mark Steyn also takes a gratuitous shot at the testosterone level of Canadians, based on one isolated incident. He of course would not extend such an assessment to Americans based on a single isolated incident occurring in the US. The man is a jerk.

If Steyn weren't a Canadian himself, the comment might seem nastier; since he is Canadian, however, I'd say he has a right to say it.

Judith

I apologize for assuming that Steyn is American without checking. It didn't occur to me that he might be Canadian, given the way he denigrated the masculinity of Canadians. I wonder if he was exempting himself from this assessment.

Martin

[John Dailey]

Judith:

~ I believe you really missed my point. When a gunman with automatic handguns is far enough away from you, and you're in the situation of trying to...weaponlessly...protect 'significant others' with you, (as Liviu did) sometimes 'cowering' (or, depending on perspective, finding strategic protective barriers) is all one can do unless and until the crazy gets unknowingly close enough to you; in the latter case, hopefully one is also trained in unarmed combat as well (unless one's suicidal)...he may just pull a knife and do you plus your valued others whilst still gunning with the other hand, and, if one's not trained-and-ready for that (nm out-shooting him/her), well, my suggestion is: don't bother trying; if you're not prioritized at finding more 'strategic cover' for others to say you're 'cowering' behind...with your valued ones you're trying to protect...you're just advertising a target-priority for the predator.

~ Context, context, context. Even Rambo knew when to 'hide.'

LLAP

J:D

[Judith]

~ I believe you really missed my point. When a gunman with automatic handguns is far enough away from you, and you're in the situation of trying to...weaponlessly...protect 'significant others' with you, (as Liviu did) sometimes 'cowering' (or, depending on perspective, finding strategic protective barriers) is all one can do unless and until the crazy gets unknowingly close enough to you; in the latter case, hopefully one is also trained in unarmed combat as well (unless one's suicidal)...he may just pull a knife and do you plus your valued others whilst still gunning with the other hand, and, if one's not trained-and-ready for that (nm out-shooting him/her), well, my suggestion is: don't bother trying; if you're not prioritized at finding more 'strategic cover' for others to say you're 'cowering' behind...with your valued ones you're trying to protect...you're just advertising a target-priority for the predator.

~ Context, context, context. Even Rambo knew when to 'hide.'

Oh, agreed. At one of my training courses, I was in the middle of a scenario with bad guys shooting at me from a distance when I suddenly ran out of ammo. I practically bowled over the instructor as I dove for cover running in the opposite direction while I reloaded. The guys in the class were too macho to do that. (The scenario was designed so that you ran out of ammo at that point.) The instructors never let me live it down, saying, "Run away! Run away!" every time they saw me after that, quoting some movie. But when the bad guys have ammo and you don't, it's the best strategy.

In the situation at Virginia Tech, running away wasn't an option. The kid had chained the doors shut. There were no long distance shooters and no high power rifles and no multiple bad guys. Cover and concealment were both limited or nonexistent. It was a question of sitting helplessly waiting to die or doing something -- ANYTHING. I'm the first to admit that if you have no training you probably don't have any idea what to do and will probably sit there helplessly. But I'm surprised that desperation, or testosterone in the men, or SOMETHING didn't drive SOMEONE to TRY, at least, an unarmed attack against the guy. The people on Flight 93 weren't trained commandos either, but they found SOMETHING to do, and they did it well.

Judith

Edited April 21, 2007 by Judith

[John Dailey]

~ THIS is the kind of person they needed 'patrolling' VT (not to mention ALL campuses [campusi?])...and maybe the Mid-East?

~ As The Beach Boys sang: "Little Ol' Lady From Pas-a-de-na-a-a-a-a" --- (If it doesn't come totally through; click on side-bar "Armed Miss America 1944...")

...I mean, a 'walker' even, and, especially a .38 snub-nose? Who'da thunk it?. They don't make THESE kinds of 'attitudes' in schools anymore!

~ Maybe the media (and schools) should stop thinking in terms of 'anti-Gun' and start thinking in terms of 'anti-Predator'...as the rest of us non-ostrich, non-bodyguarded ones do.

LLAP

J:D

Edited April 21, 2007 by John Dailey

[John Dailey]

Judith:

~ I notice that you've had nothing to say about Liviu...nor the students who had, and used, the option of using the windows to get away, whilst this experiencedly-knowledgeable testament to past horror gave them time.

~ As far as I'm concerned, he WAS 'Rambo'...in his own, quite FANGLESS 'sheepdog' (remember that post? The best I'VE ever read on this subject!) way.

~ And they were 'sheep'; that's how they've been school-trained. Don't blame someone for not identifying with a SEAL commando. Had Einstein, Archimedes, Mozart, Goddard, Hyapatia, DaVinci, Sullivan, Curie, Wright, Michaelangelo, Nightingale, Pasteur, Feynmann, etc done so, spending their lives' time precursoring Bruce Lee and Steven Siegal, we'd all be more civilized Spartans, but, with nothing but a 'Spartan' life-style. Not everyone's cut out to be a Valkyrie or Gladiator anymore than a Salesman or Architect.

LLAP

J:D

[Danneskjold]

The thing is that I've never seen an anti-knife or anti-weapon policy keep anything out of my school. In 8th grade some of my friends got in a knife fight at school, this year somebody was threatening to come at one of my football team's offensive linemen with brass knucks cause of a girl, once again at school, and I know of on school grounds sales of brass knucks as well as anything else.

[Judith]

~ I notice that you've had nothing to say about Liviu...nor the students who had, and used, the option of using the windows to get away, whilst this experiencedly-knowledgeable testament to past horror gave them time.

~ As far as I'm concerned, he WAS 'Rambo'...in his own, quite FANGLESS 'sheepdog' (remember that post? The best I'VE ever read on this subject!) way.

The Stein article and the Bowman article both spoke very highly of him. They speak for me. I haven't said anything further because no one has brought him up. *HE* acted. He had seen what happens when people stand by and do nothing. And those who escaped acted wisely and well.

~ And they were 'sheep'; that's how they've been school-trained. Don't blame someone for not identifying with a SEAL commando. Had Einstein, Archimedes, Mozart, Goddard, Hyapatia, DaVinci, Sullivan, Curie, Wright, Michaelangelo, Nightingale, Pasteur, Feynmann, etc done so, spending their lives' time precursoring Bruce Lee and Steven Siegal, we'd all be more civilized Spartans, but, with nothing but a 'Spartan' life-style. Not everyone's cut out to be a Valkyrie or Gladiator anymore than a Salesman or Architect.

Haven't we all been brought up as sheep? I'm certainly no commando (HUGE laugh!); I consider myself a beginner in training in firearms and tactical situations. The role model I'm holding up is not that of the trained warrior but that of the people on Flight 93. The bits of information about ballistics, etc. that I'm throwing out I'm doing not to suggest that these people should have known all that, but for your information, should you ever find yourself in a similar situation.

Judith

Edited April 22, 2007 by Judith

[BAMF]

The thing is that I've never seen an anti-knife or anti-weapon policy keep anything out of my school. In 8th grade some of my friends got in a knife fight at school, this year somebody was threatening to come at one of my football team's offensive linemen with brass knucks cause of a girl, once again at school, and I know of on school grounds sales of brass knucks as well as anything else.

I just have to jump in here to say: You're friends got in a fucking knife fight? First of all, why were they carrying knives? Second of all, why are you friends with people who would get into a knife fight? LOL. Damn, the suburbs be hard.