Here’s a letter from a Clover named Rene, who sends me rants nearly every day bemoaning the absence of what he considers to be “sensible gun control laws.” I’ll leave it to you guy to chew him a new one:
The guy who did the shooting of the cops in Moncton was described by his roommate as “non-violent” and while he loved his guns, he treated them responsibly and carefully. Never stored them loaded, only taken out for cleaning and target practice, etc…
In other words…literally up to the moment he shot the cops, he was 100% a model gun owner almost to the LETTER of the NRA’s idea of a good gun owner!
Toxocology came back clean, so no SSRI’s to blame Mike, just some tobacco and pot.
On other words…he WAS the good guy with the gun! He was 100% within his rights to own the guns, was responsible and respected, and nobody would have said anything against him as he was following the rules well and beyond, in attitudes and behaviours. Then he shot some cops. Not exactly a bad thing to ME, but society seems to hate it. So no longer a good gun owner anymore? Up to the moment the trigger was pulled, how was he any different than your typical American gun advocate?
Interesting. His story must be driving gun lovers nuts, as there’s nobody else to blame, and no other excuses to use. (unless you count his dad saying “he got away from church”, but I sure don’t count that.) Sure he could have killed the cops in any other way, but the gun sure made it easier to kill and run!
So the choice is easy…either accept that “REGULAR GUN OWNERS SOMETIMES JUST KILL FOR NO REASON TOO” (and deal with that fact with checks and balances to protect people before bullets start flying ) or “PRETEND THE GUN WAS IRRELEVANT” (and accept the fact that since you can’t tell who’d going to decide to kill, better keep people unarmed).
The third option currently in use “PRETEND THE GUN IS IRRELEVANT AND EMBRACE THE FACT PEOPLE KILL WITH ANYTHING SO ARM EVERYONE TO THE TEETH” just doesn’t seem to be feasible in its current state.
-Rene
Which guy is Rene talking about? If she’s talking about Justin Bourque I think Justin was justified. He was just carrying a gun and some cops decided to try to assault him for it. That it was “legal” is irrelevant.
By contrast, if he’s talking about the Millers, that wasn’t justified. But, stuff happnes. People do bad things. That has no effect on the right to own weapons. Or at least, it shouldn’t. Sometimes people will do horrible things. Way too often those people are wearing blue costumes…
Mamba / Rene – Strict gun control laws, mandatory training, background checks, licensing and even having to check in with the police annually won’t deter a person bent on mayhem from obtaining and misusing a firearm. Norway has very strict gun laws. But that didn’t stop Anders Behring Breivik from shooting 69 people, mostly unarmed teens, on Utoya Island in 2011. Furthermore, Mr. Breivik wasn’t bothered at all about the prohibition of making bombs or detonating them in government buildings killing 8 other people in Oslo. But I want to point one key thing out to you; there was not another soul there with a gun. No adult guardian, no cop, no one but the shooter was armed. Had only one other good person been armed, there is a high probability that the death toll would have been considerably lower. Rest assured, Mr. Breivik picked the spot for that very reason. By the way, it only took 90 minutes for the police to arrive…
As Garysco pointed out, you are cherry picking data. Overall, murders of RCMP officers are rare. There were 136 homicides of RCMP members between 1961 and 2009. But as the RCMP itself points out, that number is due to the sheer size of the organization: 27,000 officers. And contrary to popular perception, that trend is actually declining. The shooter is this case apparently even posted his “disdain” for police officers on his Facebook page ahead of time, so he wasn’t what the NRA would classify as a model gun owner; you made that up. As bad as three RCMP officers getting killed and two wounded is, you avoided mentioning the mass stabbing in Calgary committed by a police officer’s son which left all five victims dead. Do you suppose knife control, licensing and registration would have prevented that too? Now if one of the victims had been armed with a gun…
If you live in the United States you live in a gun culture protected by the Supreme Law of the Land. So get used to it, it’s not likely to change. If you don’t live in the United States, then mind your own business. You are of course free to move to a gun free zone, such as New York City, Chicagor or D.C. I hear those places are really safe and free of violent crime…
Rene, you can’t cherry pick one event in 30 or 40 years and penalize millions of non involved owners. By that logic every knife owner, box of matches possessor and hardware store bought screwdriver weilder should have those things baned just in case.
The real problem, Rene, is that you and so many others are not willing to accept the fact that it is not possible to manufacture a risk free world. The “safe” utopia you seek, in addition, is ultimately the peace of the grave, the quiet of the starless wasteland of space, the absolute absence of human interactions and choices. Oh, you don’t advocate that in so many words, of course, but that is the end product of your terribly imperfect plan.
Human beings die in large numbers, all over the world, from a vast assortment of causes, and it is impossible to predict, let alone prevent many of them – none in the long run. Every person dies eventually. Much more important is how we live.
The greatest number of people who have died in the last two centuries, however – innocent people who just want to live in peace – have been killed by their own governments. And the greatest cause of those deaths was hunger… starvation manufactured by their own governments. Sounds to me as if the most “reasonable” thing to do is ban all involuntary governments.
Do you think that slavery is “good,” in any way? Is it good to enslave/control people “for their own good” – as defined by those who wish to be the slave holders, of course. Slavery is merely one word for control of a human being, against his will, by another person… inevitably under threat of great harm or death.
Why would you think it was wrong for someone to use his gun to harm an innocent person, but advocate trying to preventing that by harming everyone around them – at gun point? We won’t even go into the large numbers of people who are murdered by those supposedly entrusted to prevent that harming.
Yes, once in a great while a person who has formerly not indicated any desire to initiate force… will do so. That is a risk of simply being human, of being alive. There is no way to predict or prevent it in any meaningful way. The only rational thing to do is be prepared to avoid confrontation where possible, and to defend yourself from such a person when necessary.
Each human being is ultimately responsible for their own safety, and that of their freely accepted dependents. You have no responsibility to see to the safety of anyone else, nor to interfere with what others do to guard their own safety.
I don’t belong to you… I own my self. Give it a rest.
Very interesting point. I pay attention to nuclear energy, as I believe it is going to be the best solution for electricity generation going forward. Time and time again proponents of nuclear energy point out that the number of deaths caused by nuclear power is far, far less than any other form of energy, including renewables (more people die falling off roofs installing solar than have ever died from nuclear power, including uranium mining). Yet the anti-nuclear forces continue to point out the potential for what might happen, no matter how far fetched the idea, and no matter the true likelihood of that event ever happening. They point out Chernobyl’s disaster while ignoring the fact that it was a reactor designed to produce weapons-grade uranium and plutonium that happened to generate electricity, without any sort of containment systems, and run by inexperienced operators and at the time of the accident was running in a configuration that basically assured disaster. They point out TMI, even though there was no breech of the containment dome, the small amount of vented radioactive gas was helium and hydrogen (which, being lighter than the majority of the atmosphere, rose up and dispersed), and that there’s been no incidence of increased cancers or other radiation-induced disease recorded in the area. Then they point out Fukushima, even though, once again, there’s been no increase in cancer or other diseases, the evacuation zone is mostly empty because the tsunami wiped out all the cities and towns in the area and that despite how the story is being presented, the cleanup is going about as well as can be expected, considering the Earthquake and tsunami. Of course, that’s all they can point out, because that’s been about it for disasters at nuclear power plants.
But they never seem to notice the gigawatts of clean energy produced day in and day out by these power plants. They fail to point out the expense of building a nuclear power plant is the licensing and payoff of lawyers to get through the red tape. They forget that the last 10 years or so of fuel was provided by warheads that were once pointed at our cities.
They would rather see you go back to candlelight and freeze (and die at 40), pretending that renewables will be able to supply our energy needs (while ignoring all the natural gas turbine plants being built to provide backup power), so that they can feel good about themselves. Meanwhile the same old players, oil and gas, make out like bandits, we spend money on foolish endeavors, and in the end look like a 3rd world country.
Rene,
What is wrong with holding individuals responsible for their own actions and not the actions of another. (instead of treating everyone as irresponsible children that need to be watched 24/7)
If I applied your logic to vehicles crashes where deaths occur:
The drivers were model drivers up until the point where/when the crash occurred and one or more people died (or were injured).
If you look at the years from 1990 to 2009 there have been between approximately 35-46 thousand deaths each year.
Would you suggest that vehicle use be severely restricted or banned outright?
Sure he could have killed the cops in any other way, but the gun sure made it easier to kill and run!
I can exceed the speed limit in a 1960 Citroën 2CV, but it would be much easier to exceed it with a Porsche 911.
Shall we mandate that the only cars permitted to be driven are those that can not travel above 70 mph (or some other number at random)?
Shall we mandate that the only cars permitted to be driven are those cars with 0-60mph times slower than 15 seconds?
Are you more concerned by how someone is killed rather than the fact that someone is killed?
Again if I follow your logic, people must accept the fact that regular drivers sometimes just kill for no reason.
In order of your points:
-Did I once say that the gun couldn’t be sold? You did the same thing Eric did when I e-mailed him this message, ignored the point of it. I right from day one agreed that it’s a tool and that the owner determines it’s use. But it’s a tool designed for one purpose: punch holes in things at a distance, preferably a living target. I was just pointing out that this “good gun owner” was a model gun owner and then killed people and how he’s responsible for his actions, so it’s time to stop talking about “good and bad” gun owners. Recognize it’s a weapon and not a toy, and recognize that BAD people with weapons are completely indistinguishable from GOOD people with them until it’s too late. But the militant gun owners want 0 checks on weapons and 0 accountability, yet they swear they are the good ones so we can trust them, 2nd amendment and all that jazz.
But it boils down to this: if you’re not willing to do even a basic check on the person who has the power to kill you with a tool designed to do exact that, then that’s also not taking person responsibility. If you saw someone walking down the street with grenades strapped across their chest, 2 assault rifles on their back, and a claymore sword, it’s irresponsible to ignore that person!!! Yet gun owners will shout threats while carrying loaded assault weapons in the streets in a march for rights and wonder why people are edgy. When even the NRA thinks this is stupid, you know you’ve gone too far!
As for the car comparison, I trust you have a driver’s license? Why? To prove that you are capable of handling the car! According to YOUR logic, we should just let people drive freely, and arrest those who cause accidents with their bad driving. But we don’t,. do we? No, we take some precautions to ensure that we’re at least TRYING to remove the bad drivers. with guns, not even a token attempt to remove bad gun owners. Big difference.
Besides, false comparison as usual from gun owners: Cars have multiple uses, guns have ONE. It is designed to punch holes in things at a distance…period. The things it usually punches holes in is either a target, or a human. It’s designed to kill, and that fact doesn’t change because it’s inconvenient.
You tried to compare a hit-and-run accident to a guy taking aim and shooting someone and called them the same thing. Do I really have to explain why this is wrong? We DO have rules on cars…one is that people are not allowed to walk on the road unless at a crosswalk. Because people WERE getting killed regularly before jaywalking laws. You’re proving MY point, not yours with this one.
And again, we DO accept the fact that sometimes good people kill with their cars for no reason. We’re agreeing on this point. So let me word it another way. If you modify your car to shoot flames out the front and back and add wheel shredding spikes to the axles, you’re now DESIGNED the car for causing damage. That modification is illegal currently, but YOU’D suggest letting people do it (for defense of course) and only harass those who actually use the modifications to cause damage. No difference there. Just like you’d have to ask the person “Why the hell do you think you need your car to shoot fire on other cars”, non-gun owners have to ask “why do you feel the need to strap an AK-47 on your back to go get milk?” No decent replies to that one yet, unless you believe American life is like war-torn Bosnia or something, and I’ve been assured it is not.
As for alternate methods of killing, sure you can kill with fists, but we don’t suggest amputations. However if an amputee wanted to replace his false arm with a spiked mace attachment, then he SHOULD be bothered about it because it’s now designed as a weapon and not a tool. Sure the guy could have thrown a Molotov at the cops to kill them, or any other method, but why should it be easy for someone to kill someone instantly at 40 feet away?
The right to own a gun doesn’t trump my right to not get fucking shot by the one idiot who can’t be trusted with them. I know that gun owners are so casual with their guns that they don’t see it as more than putting on socks in the morning, but for the rest of us, the good gun and the bad gun look the same, so why pretend that we’re the wrong ones?
I heard the expression “An armed society is a polite one”, but really it’s more like “an armed society is a paranoid one” because nobody can identify a threat anymore.
BTW, you seem more rational than most, so I’ll pose my thought experiment to you: “If a guaranteed non-lethal alternative to guns was invented such as a Star-trek style stun gun, would you advocate it’s use for defense instead of guns?” Careful though, because if the answer is “no” then you just destroyed the self-defense argument for owning a gun, and if it’s “yes” then you agree that guns aren’t essential for defense, so careful on the reply! 🙂
Clover,
I’d like to point out something very revealing about you that you let slip via a careless comment:
“But it’s a tool designed for one purpose: punch holes in things at a distance, preferably a living target”
Italics added.
Only a psychopath regards guns that way. Or someone who considers his fellow human beings to be psychopaths.
I’d prefer to never have to point my gun at anyone. Much less “punch holes” in anyone.
What sickness of the soul are you afflicted by?
It’s disgusting – and it’s sad.
You’d like a thought experiment, eh?
Ok.
I have a penis. It is capable of being used to commit rape. Yet I have not raped anyone with my penis. Does the fact that it was designed to penetrate a vagina and could be used to commit rape mean I (and every other male with a functioning Johnson) must be treated as a presumptive rapist… so women can “feel safe”? Should it be a legal requirement that all men get “trained” in the safe use and handling of their penis? Required to provide a semen sample (upon reaching sexual maturity) so that their DNA is “on file” just in case … so as to make it easier to identify rapists?
PS: Your Star Trek “argument” is just another non sequitur. You present something that does not exist to try to frame the answer you want. Tell you what: When a Star Trek-type of ray gun is available that can just as effectively neutralize a threat as a gun, we’ll talk.
Eric,
Politely: Your rape example is flawed from the premise. Something Clover likely can’t grasp, either….
Women can commit rape, too. And men can be victims of rape – even from women.
And don’t give these walking arguments for abortion any effing ideas, it’s bad enough now! There are (confirmed) stories of 11-year-old boys being forced to PAY CHILD SUPPORT for their 38-year-old teacher’s child! But because it’s a male child, he’s the rapist, and the (dried-up, past her sell-by date) child abuser / rapist / pedophile is a victim.
As of their fist day on campus, when cute girls ask to take his picture – and later he sees signs around, “Potential rapist” with the photo they took!
But I guess that’s all OK because “the children.”
Further, with the (now accepted) practice of randomly demanding DNA samples at roadside checkpoints…?
I truly believe the BEST we can hope for is the Second Revolution. MY complaint (well, one of them) is that Clovers (being cowards) won’t take a stand – same as last time. Too many will survive…
Good point, Jean – you’re absolutely correct.
Mamba (or Rene),
Did I once say that the gun couldn’t be sold?
No you did not, which is why I asked:
Would you suggest that vehicle use be severely restricted or banned outright?
There are many things in this world that have the potential to do harm. I think it is better to deal with the small minority of people that cause harm to others instead of treating everyone as irresponsible children unable to make good decisions and not harm others.
If some one demonstrates that they can not be trusted to not harm others, then there is a case to deny fire arms (in this case) to them. (some examples: A convicted felon, mentally unstable person, a person that can not understand the difference between right and wrong)
Guns have good uses and bad. It depends on how they are used.
Depending on ammo and gun used gun fire can result in severe damage and death to people. Guns can also prevent harm without being used.
You tried to compare a hit-and-run accident to a guy taking aim and shooting someone and called them the same thing.
I did not. You are not being accurate in your statement.
Re: car modifications and carrying an AK-47 on a milk run.
If they did not cause harm to others, I do not have an issue with it. I might feel uncomfortable about it, but they did not harm me or anyone else, then I can live with it.
The car mods (you describe) seem silly and a waste of time/resources to me. It is similar as most large rims and spoilers on cars.
Is this the type of mace you were referring: Bruce Lee vs. Han?
The right to own a gun doesn’t trump my right to not get fucking shot by the one idiot who can’t be trusted with them.
In the same manner, Why assume that everyone will harm you, just because there might be one idiot who can’t be trusted.
Why not deal with the idiot when he harms someone.
Re: ST style guns. Lets see them first. At the moment, it is just hypothetical.
Although if you are familiar with ST, then you know that there were certain beings unaffected by the stun setting. During those times more power was needed and phasers were set to kill setting from stun setting.
Assuming you could get a stun gun that worked (in a manner similar to ST) then that would be an alternative to guns as a defensive tool. (would need more information to make a fair comparison, but that would have to wait for when they are available to the public.)
Mamba:
We don’t have a reasonable CHOICE in driver’s licenses.
We are ORDERED AT GUNPOINT to get a license, or told to F off.
We are subject to random stops to make sure our papers are in order.
Subjected to warrant-free searches getting on the effing T (MBTA).
By that logic, we should all be neutered and spayed to prevent sexual harassment and rape.
Lastly, there IS NO NON-LETHAL METHOD OF SELF-DEFENSE.
Rubber bullets can kill. Beanbags can kill. Batons, masers, lasers, phasers (Supposedly one has been made). LRAD (Sounds weapons) can result in deaths (unsure they can CAUSE them – but try standing near a GP-9 diesel in the yards, and feel your heart and lungs VIBRATE in your chest, an you’ll doubt it’s impossible to kill someone with sound. Bump off a clot, interrupt the heartbeat, or just disorient someone – and they step off a stairway into nothingness, and die from the fall. but that’s OK, because that was done by the STATE…. )
Here’s a question for you: “If a guaranteed non-lethal alternative to guns was invented such as a Star-trek style stun gun, would you advocate it’s [sic] use for defense instead of guns FOR THE POLICE?”
If you answer no, then their guns aren’t for self-defense, MANDATING we have means of comparable defensive force; if you answer yes, you admit that the state doesn’t matter, in which case, you have no right to tell us what to do anyway – so leave us alone, and we’ll leave you alone, and we’ll all be happy that way.
But I’m not willing to accept that others can intrude on my life and never face a penalty. Using the police as your proxy enforcers doesn’t help me – or you. Just means you’re a coward.
Jean,
Well said.
Mamba;
Back in the days of the horse and cart, people were allowed to travel freely on the roads they paid for through every tax imaginable. Now they still pay for those roads, but according to grabbermint they must have a licence to use something that’s safer – simply because it’s mechanical. That was a money grab – nothing about safety, because the days of the horse was over and they saw it coming.
Licenses were only required for those that used public roads for personal gain, such as taxis etc. That’s what “driving” was and still is – being paid to be behind the wheel.
http://www.lawfulpath.com/ref/DLbrief.shtml
Your point on licensing for safety is junk I’m afraid. Thousands of people out there having to take their tests dozens of times. Would you assert that one of these fools after failing every time would be allowed to take another test in order to pass?
Simply making laws against anything will only make criminals of everyone. The answer’s in their face, but they fail to see the real culprit and blame the law for not being there. Dumb.
For example, the second you talk about jaywalking laws and the reasons behind them, I can label you a criminal because you know as well as I, that you’re just as guilty.
@mamba – What strawman “no rules to own a gun” state do you live in? Every state in the union already bans crazy people and other adjudged defectives from possession, and already makes in a jailable offense to get caught with one. And those states with open carry permissions are not suffering sidewalks littered with dead gunshot victims. So that is another non starter. All states also have very restrictive rules for concealed carry as well. So any new laws would do exactly what? Make it double secret probation? Cut their fingers off? Tatoo “gun nut” on the forehead? Force pre-crime tracking chips? What exactly do you think will happen if you get what you want?
Unless your instilled fear of others is so great that your intent is to remove all ability for people to defend themselves from bodily harm from an overwhelming aggressor in a non-discrimination by age, gender, race or political persuasion way (or in other words granting them “equality”) you are driving down a road to nowhere.
The only statistical rise in dead bodies from guns “poking holes” as you say in the past ten years are those places that prohibit possession of them. That includes cities, movie theaters, and schools whose names we all know. That is if you believe what the FBI publishes, not what some fat mouthed politician is spewing on TV. Please explain that dichotomy. And why is a total gun toting country like Switzerland not in the same “dead children at school” shape we are in?
Will your favorite new “Austrailia like” laws make all projectile expelling devices disappear like a magic show? Or make any “bad guy” shrug and throw his gun in the trash? Poof, all gone because he is scared of jail and the “law”.
No, your fear of guns has been insidiously placed in your mind by big talkers sensationalizing random events in a country of over 300 million walking, talking souls, but cannot be backed up in hard facts. The same big talkers will never touch any real discussion of what is really killing the youth, why guns are even involved, or attempt any remedy for the real problem. Get rid that blue steel piece of hardware and it will all be unicorns and happy-happy.
The hard facts are millions more borderline people then ever are on prescribed mind altering chemicals that by their nature make them unstable, and a youth population who have never been given a cultural mooring to cling to, but can’t watch a movie or play a video game without guns and explosions being drilled into the script. What do you expect to happen when so many live in a constant state of culturally induced paranoid mental confusion and pain. Outlawing firearms will not change that in any way.
This is a debate that everyone needs to have, only problem is both sides make arguments for their point of view. I stick to the facts.
Fact 1: gun violence has declined per FBI research
Fact 2: more people are killed with bare hands and blunt objects than with guns
Fact 3: Wether people want to except it or not, our constitution enforces the right for people to be armed, the right to defend your life is a God given right not to mention it was written in the constitution to protect ourselves from tyranical government.
Fact 3: it is well documented that the US has never been invaded directly do to the populous being armed, just like Switzerland.
How a person is viewed by how they store their firearms is no cure for a crazy person, just means they are safe, MSM wants to punish all gun owners for the extreme poor decisions of a few! I personally have been around guns all my life and for fourty years I have never reached for a gun to solve any problem other than what I am going to have for dinner. Keep this well, just more food for thought 🙂
Just like a spark plug doing its job, you never know when it’s gonna fail. People kill each other, just like apes do. You never know when or why. It’s the people at fault, not the firearms.
In places where it’s mandatory to carry firearms, nobody dares pull one out arbitrarily. Conversely, seems these shootings and massacres only occur in gun-free zones.
The MSM are extreme left, naturally this leads to Democratic reporting and concern.
Clover writes me back!
Hahaha, ok, I promise I’ll only send PRO gun rants for you to use or anti-cop things, the kind of things that are 100% your interest with no possibility for discussion or counter-thought.
That seems to be how the blogs operate on the internet lately (not just yours, seems to be a pattern), with only supporting opinions allowed. I was just doing what’s being done to me all the time…an opinion sent for me to ponder and weigh. Good for the soul to be exposed to the other side. That’s why I read your blog, I really do find it fascinating. But we can’t agree all the time.
Still, you’re in the right not to be bothered by e-mails, so if you want, not a problem. Just remember that if you post things that are a passion for you (which is good BTW), others might disagree with the same feeling.
Good for the goose, good for the gander and all that.
Though come to think of it, if you don’t want the anti-cop and pro-gun ones, I’ll avoid all contact if you want me to. No need to bring out the guns for this simple matter!
-Rene