continuing proofs America is wacko

Merry Christmas & Happy New Year Everyone. Dave your not alone , I think alot of people dont understand the true composition of the NRA is , your right its a huge gun Lobby but alot of the members are guys like me , Im not a member nor have I ever been simply because I dont feel like I need a gun lobby to speak for me , but any way alot of the members are sportsmen and most sportsmen dont like to be part of any kind of spectacle or in the spotlight , they are laid back people that like to spend time in the woods and relax, they are NOT out shooting up the woods and killing everything that moves . So that being said most of the people who are NRA members are just as shocked and pissed about this as the ANTI Gun people , but our voice wont be heard . It all boils down to big business . I personally like to shoot , I dont have to have an assault rifle and I dont hunt with one , do I own one well Id rather not say .It doesnt realy matter because my firearms are kept under very tight security.

Petty being armed with a half full buckie bottle is almost like having a gun.

Now Truth, I would never attack anyone with a half full bottle of buckie- I'd finish the bottle first.

Hi Truth. It's nice to have somebody else over on this side of the discussion.

the truth wrote: So that being said most of the people who are NRA members are just as shocked and pissed about this as the ANTI Gun people , but our voice wont be heard . It all boils down to big business . I personally like to shoot , I dont have to have an assault rifle and I dont hunt with one

I was just having a conversation like this a couple days ago with a hunter friend of mine. He was saying that he'd personally feel a lot safer in the woods if he didn't have to worry about idiots with 30 round clips or 50 cal sniper rifles who don't know anything about backstops.

He said he'd always supported NRA because they kept an eye on regulations that would make it difficult for him to buy ammo or to transport his rifle/shotgun over to Idaho to go hunting with his cousins, an old family tradition of theirs. But he also says he's not sure how much longer he can support them if they only listen to Big Business and not to the hunters anymore. I think the NRA may start losing quite a few memberships and votes if they don't start showing some common sense soon.

A (very conservative) friend of mine posted this on Facebook and I thought it was quite fitting even though it's about 17 years old.

http://www.nytimes.com/1995/05/11/us/letter-of-resignation-sent-by-bush-to-rifle-association.html

Context: that letter (by Bush 41, not W.) followed the Oklahoma City bombing, which was an attack against the federal government, largely in retaliation for actions by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms, which plays a big role in federal gun control efforts.

I think that if they act to swiftly and broadly and the broadly used term "Assault Rifle " isnt described accurately in any new legislation, then the backlash from the sportsmen side will be un-precedented . An example of people who do not represent my point of view and who in my opinion put forth a bad image and inflame people who sit on the rail about guns would be Ted Nugent , he comes across as a complete Idiot IMO and makes sportsmen look like a bunch of flipping psychos. A majority of Hunters are concerned because of the poor desription of assault rifles can lead to theyre semi-auto deer hunting rifles being considered assault rifles . In Georgia you cannot use a firearm to deer hunt if it has a magazine capacity of no more than FIVE cartridges , If caught with a clip that holds more than five rounds the consequences start getting tough and if you have harvested game and are in possession you face ,Jail ,confiscation of your equipment,firearm & vehicle .In reality I think the laws hunters have to abide by are alot more stricter than ordinary gun laws , you cannot even carry a handgun with you that is not approved for big game hunting unless you have a gun permit . I carry a gun simply because a police officer is way to heavy to carry .

I'm generally in favor of stricter gun control but I'd rather the law not use the term "assault rifle". The law should be far more specific and accurate in its descriptions of what is and is not allowed.

And yeah, Ted Nugent is batshit loco, though I do love his music.

I carry a gun simply because a police officer is way to heavy to carry . - Truth

This is where our nations are really different. The very idea of carrying a gun around, or that people just out going to the shops or something are carrying guns is horrifying to me. Its seems crazy and, well, primitive even- and I know that sounds judgemental but there you go, its such a strange and uncomfortable notion to me.
I can see no benefit or purpose if my society were to follow the US model on guns- none at all. The very idea is completely alien to me.

I understand how you feel Petty its a totally different culture . When I was Nine years old I woke Christmas morning to find a Winchester 20 gauge single shot shotgun leaning against my bed post. My father enjoyed squirrel and duck hunting . BTW I only carry when I have to do some work in one of the SEEDY areas of Atlanta , its not something I feel is necessary all the time . There are plenty of Nuts who dont carry guns in the Good Ol USA also. Hope i havnt offended anyone with my opinions . Yes Eldo I do like Teds music though. I saw him play Live In The Fox Theatre in the mid-80s its was a good show 5th row .

No offense at all Truth- its interesting stuff, just very different from what I am used to.
I grew up in rural Scotland- guns were about, farmers, gamekeepers, theres the yearly deer cull, grouse season- all involve guns and shooting things.
But you need a lot of papework to get a gun here and there are very strict rules about what sort of gun you can have, what you can use it for and how it has to be stored.
Its the idea of just everyday buckied folks like myself walking about armed I find terrifying- most folks I wont trust do up their fies properly let alone be armed with a lethal weapon.

Pettytyrant101 wrote: Its seems crazy and, well, primitive even- and I know that sounds judgemental but there you go, its such a strange and uncomfortable notion to me.
I can see no benefit or purpose if my society were to follow the US model.....none at all. The very idea is completely alien to me.

I do respect the strength of your opinion.

First I think it's important to repeat that nobody I know is suggesting that anybody else follow the US model. As a country we're in the middle of the process of acknowledging that our model is outdated and needs to be adjusted. I'd frankly be shocked if any country tried to follow our model right now.

It would be equally impossible for us to implement the UK model right now for more reasons than I can list, though I think we'd be foolish not to study the UK model and every other model to see what we can learn from them and adapt to our own.

But something else struck me in your statement above....
There are two mechanisms that humans have for making value judgements. One is rational. It involves calculation of the greater good and the lesser evil. It favors discussion and facts and takes at least a few seconds to reach a conclusion. It looks for cooperation and is prepared to make compromises for the collective welfare (at least of it's own group).

The second is emotional, often visual and visceral. It makes instantaneous judgements of right and wrong, sticking with them no matter what. This is the mechanism of martyrs who would rather die than compromise. I can be very noble, even heroic.

The first mechanism tends to view the second as loony, and the second tends to view the first as hypocritical. We all do both to some degree or another whenever we make decisions. That's part of what makes humans so complex and unpredictable.

Both mechanisms also has dark sides as well. The first is the mechanism of slavery, war, oppression, mutually assured destruction. It's the calculus that allows rational people to do almost unthinkably evil things, then justify them by comparing them to something worse. There are people like this on both sides of most debates. I've found that whatever side they choose, they're always happy to explain their position, and sometimes even listen to mine.

The second is the mechanism of racism, sexism, homophobia, religious zeal etc. These are people who see the world in black and white. They're on both sides of most issues as well . They believe they see the Truth with a capital 'T'. I've learned not to argue with these people because it just lowers their opinion of me without changing their view at all.

Your statement above seems to fall more in the second category than the first. The test is to try inserting charged words like 'abortion' or 'gay marriage' into the statement in place of 'guns' and see how it stands up. Does it seem to speak of absolute good and evil or look for a rational compromise?

I hope this doesn't mean you've made up your mind and aren't taking input anymore. I really enjoy your arguments when you're in full rational debating mode, but if this topic is making you feel 'strange and uncomfortable' I'm happy to drop the subject. There's really no arguing with emotions.

Hi Dave- I am enjoying hearing a pro-gun side I am not used to hearing- I try not to close my ears to any new ideas- and my strange and uncomfortablenness is not really emotional- its intellectual discomfort and strangeness- the idea that a nation would WANT to have all these lethal weapons to casually be a part of their everyday society- even when the result seems to be a consistent reoccurance of horrendous events.
In my society the idea of everyone having guns seems about as sensible as the notion that all local councils should be allowed their own nukes.
I dont think people like you and Truth are crazy, youjust are in a different sort of society from me- you are a farmer and have reason to need firemarms- if you were a farmer here you would be allowed them. but the general attitude towards guns in the US is so far from my own experiences and ideas on guns that they seem at times incomprehensible.

I'm glad to hear it!
To me it's so normal it's hard to imagine what the big deal is. They've been around all my life. It's no big deal for me to talk with people who are wearing a gun, even if we're disagreeing. If actually often keeps things calmer. Thinking back, I think I've been more often afraid of pool cues than guns.

On the subject of different attitudes, we had a friend from Wales working with us the last couple harvests, and had some good discussions. I could tell he was still getting used to the idea my brother and I carry knives in our pockets, along with other tools, pretty much all the time. I probably use it a dozen times a day. I've never carried a gun regularly because I just don't have that much use for it, but if I thought I had a need, it wouldn't seem strange at all, any more than the knife, screwdriver or crescent wrench.

In my whole life here, over 50 years, I can only think of one gun crime (excluding suicides). That was about 25 years ago. A young man's fiance had dumped him for his best friend in a pretty horrible way, and a murder suicide followed. Of course we knew them all. It was a community tragedy. But I really can't blame the rifle in this case. Knowing the whole story I'm sure that, if a gun hadn't been handy, any sharp or blunt object would have served.

Yeah, I don't really enjoy remembering that. It's hard to stay objective and rational when you're talking about this stuff.....

My mate is a paramadeic and according to him statstically in the Uk there is more gun crime committed in rural areas than in urban ones- the reason is simple- because of our gun laws there are more guns in rural areas than urban ones.
And tragically it seems a high percent of incidents they have to deal with which are gun related are suicides.
And I agree in those cases th gun is just a handy means, if they were not around another way would have been found for somone determined to end their own life.

The carrying of knives is also illegal here unless you can convince the police you have a reason to carry it.
So if you are clearly on a fishing trip with all the gear the police will not bother you for having a knife, likewise if you are clearly off camping- but if you're just walking along the high street with no obvious reason for having a knife about you, you would be arrested for carrying a noffensice weapon.
This is an area of law which has changed in my lifetime- when I was a kid we used to carry knives as a matter of course, I never once saw anyone threaten anyone else with one, we used them to whittle wood, make bows, kids stuff.
So I was a bit worried about the knife laws when they came in, but in practice they seem to be policed fairly sensible in that campers, fishermen ect dont get arrested. We always have knives as part of our camping gear and never had a problem yet.

Hi all and thanks for the response Dave.

I'm try not to make judgements on here about individuals own beliefs as one of the things I have always found about this discussion thead is that people will try and understand or at least throw light on others beliefs here regardless of whether they share that opinion. I was aware you were trying to help us Brits see some of the cultural differences. I was simply trying to make clear how completely non plussed I am by the whole thing due to the those influences upon me.


In that respect I found your comments on the differences you found when you travel interesting. Particulalry when you mention the police prescence, it is not something I even thought about or noticed, although I have a very different opinion of the police than Petty, through the diffferences in our interactions with them. In a way that throws up the strangest thing for me in the amercian gun debate. It is a huge country and just like anywhere the experiences of people within it must differ greatly. For whatever reason, truth, the vocal minority or even biased reporting, it seems from this side of the pond that amercia comes off as pro gun no matter. Yes people are calling for controls, but there seems a..... I was going to say resignation that guns will remain... yet thats the wrong word it's more of a desiren for them to remain. I suspect this is due in no small part to the reporting of these sorts of incident here, which is influenced in large part by those cultural differences and succintly expresses by the rather pointed post by Petty that I joined the debate on.

You talk about not feeling nervous around guns and I suspect this is largely due to familiarity. When I see armed police anywhere it always gives me a small moment, because it is rare here I cannot help but associate them with an increased risk or danger. (Much as I felt on my first trip to London after 7/7 to see the barricades up around major sites that hadn't been there on my previous visit and the increased bag searches as you went into events. As I have become used to them they don't have the same response). It is this association that makes the idea of people carry guns have an instinctive negative reaction.

At this point I suppose I should mention that I have never owned or shot a gun (except a small air gun of my dads years ago), but I have spent a good portion of my young years in a farming community, friends had rifles (2 cartridges, no clips) and went shooting (rabbits, phesant and grouse round us). In fact as a young teen I earned my money beating for the shoots, so I am not anti hunting or in esscence anti gun. I do however see them very much as a tool for a trade, to be used, as they still are in this country, where appropriate.

In addition I have, since the olympics this summer, taken up archery, and enjoy it greatly for the focus which clears the mind and the challenge of trying to beat my own top scores. (Although you don't need any checks for a bow, it is worth pointing out that there are hundreds of archery clubs up and down the country and if you want to be involved in any of them or the competitions you must complete a beginners course and then join both your local club and the national body.) Sports shooting still takes place in this country, just what you guns can be used is controlled and you need a licence, it isn't a big issue.

I can understand that people are nervous that legitimate use isn't curtailed or put under such tight regulation that people get swept up in it. That they want to ensure that clear bounderies and definitions are used, but ultimately if what you are using is dangerous I don't think the idea that their should be controls necessarliy warrants the sweeping negative response, after all you need a licence to drive a car, there are safety rules about how to operate heavy machinery and laws in place to say what employers should do to protect the workforce, there are controls on liquor and cigarettes. Why should it be so different for controls on a deadly weapon?

Petty mentioned the knife laws, something I was going to mention too, to add that the gun ban and subsquent focus on offensive weapons had a part to play in this. People here questioned whether carrying a weapon was something a person going about their everyday business would/should do and came to the conclusion it wasn't. It wasn't about carrying knives, it was about carrying knives as a weapon or for 'protection'. I wonder how true that would be of many americans? I'm not suggesting anything here, I am genuinely curious. As I have suggested the debate from here appears a little one sided, but that may just be the reporting.

I think one of the sad things to come out of the debate is that people feel there are so many guns already that changing the laws won't make any difference (having heard it said the there are 88.8 guns per 100 people in the US I begin to see there may be a point here.) It feels as if people are resigned to the fact that it will happen, feel little will change and with that have lost the will to try to do something. It may be a long road, it may take time, have set backs and require real fortitude to see it through, other aspects that influence these events may also need tackling, but if nothing is done nothing will change and in another fews years I fear we will be here again, discussing similar events.

There's a combination of resignation about the number of guns in America, and desire to keep the guns in America, depending in large part on whether or not you own a gun. I've never talked to someone who was against restrictions on guns who didn't actually own one.

I think the only reason people don't carry knives for protection is because guns are more effective. If you took guns out of the society you'd likely see more people toting knives. Americans are just more security conscious: in "Bowling for Columbine" Michael Moore did an experiment in Canadian cities testing people's front doors. In Canadian cities they were uniformly unlocked when people were home; in USA they were often locked. I know my family usually kept doors unlocked when at home, but that was in the suburbs.

My goodness! You American hobbits make it sound like Americans carry guns around because of a paranoid idea the streets are full of people who want to kill you? The next thing you'll be saying is that madmen have too easy access to guns and will kill multiple men, women and children in a delusional rampage! Oh dear me! Surely no country would let just anyone have a gun... 'cause that'd be silly...

Orwell wrote: Surely no country would let just anyone have a gun... 'cause that'd be silly...

I'm afraid it's even worse than that. We often seem to give the wrong people guns while keeping them away from normal folk. Two examples from people whose stories I know well:

I lifelong friend of mine did a stupid thing when he was 19. He had been laid off at his construction job, and was drawing a paycheck from State unemployment insurance. Then he got another temporary job and "forgot" to tell them to stop the checks... That's defrauding the government, and it's a felony. He plead guilty and paid the fine, thinking that was the end of it and he'd never do that again.

The only problem is that according to federal law, convicted felons aren't allowed to hold firearms of any kind for the rest of their lives. He and his family are avid hunters. After a few years or so of being excluded from what had been an important part of his life, he got a lawyer who was able to challenge the conviction in State Superior Court and eventually get the charge reduced. Now 30 years later he's able to own a gun by State law, but not still not by Federal law.

Another man I know who grew up in the mountains in a logging/hunting family had moved to a medium sized town and gotten a job driving a tow truck for a local auto repair shop (This requires a Commercial Driver's License.) Now one 4th of July a few years ago he threw a party for family and friends, and he made a few homemade firecrackers for entertainment. (This may sound strange to some of you, but I started doing this with parental permission when I was 9 or 10). Within the state this is viewed mostly as a fire code infraction, but his sister thought he was giving her kids bad ideas, and she reported him to the Feds.

The ATF agents (alcohol, tobacco and firearms) broke in the door of his house one evening with their guns drawn and demanded to see his bombmaking equipment. When he finally figured out what the hell they were talking about, he showed them how he made these simple little firecrackers from soda straws and black powder. They agreed that it was nothing to worry about, but by the letter of the law they had to charge him. Now he has a felony bombmaking conviction permanently on his record. Fortunately he is grandfathered in to his current job, but if he loses the job he'll never be able to professionally drive a truck for anybody else, or even hold a CDL. Or ever own a firearm for that matter.

It hardly seems fair that we let the mentally ill own military weapons, but won't let these guys even own a shotgun, does it?

Kafia wrote:It wasn't about carrying knives, it was about carrying knives as a weapon or for 'protection'. I wonder how true that would be of many americans? I'm not suggesting anything here, I am genuinely curious. As I have suggested the debate from here appears a little one sided, but that may just be the reporting.

We have literally hundreds of different laws on knives, possibly over a thousand, depending on cities, counties, state, federal jurisdiction.

It's hard to make an enforceable law that's based on the intent of the person with the knife, so may laws choose a blade length, typically 3.5 inches as the maximum. You can buy a 3.25 inch folding knife in almost any little shop for a couple dollars. That's what I carry with me almost all my waking hours for prying things open, cutting through tangled ropes, cords and string, probing for rot in fence-posts, digging out the roots of weeds, etc. Humans have carried such tools or the equivalent for at least 100,000 years. It seems so strange to me to propose to suddenly give up the most basic tool of humanity. It would be like banning fire-making devices because of arsonists (not a bad idea in some places I'm sure. .. but still weird.)
"
Just to show how strange the laws get: In Seattle, to name one city, it's legal to own a kitchen knife longer than 3.5" in your own home, and to buy one in a store or shop, but there is no legal way to get it from the shop to your home! If you carry it in the open, it has been ruled to be threatening but if you package it, it becomes a concealed weapon! Furthermore it's recently been ruled in court that a concealed weapons permit which allows a person to carry a handgun under their clothing only applies to firearms, not knives..!

I mention all this because it may explain why many people say things like"We don't need more gun laws. We can't enforce the ones we have!" Personally, I think better , simpler, more easily enforceable laws would be a big step in the right direction. The trouble is that not everybody trusts our government to develop those. (If you're at all aware of how disfunctional our Congress is at the moment, I'm sure you'll understand why..... )

This is where I feel police need to be allowed a little latitiude in how they persecute the law- upon seeing how inoccuulous your friends fire cracker making was they should have told him it was technically a crime in that state and could get him into trouble, ask him not to do it again and leave it at that unless called back for the same reason- in the US do the police HAVE to press the charge no matter what the circumstances?
As I said above if we are going camping and stopped and found to have a knife- we also usually have hatchetts and stuff too- the police would not press charges because they would use their discretion to judge that our intentions is to use it as part of your camping equipment and therefore legitamate need and use.

In Effect at least here in Georgia , you are at the mercy of the first responders ,be nice to them and hope you get a rational one . It depends on where you are and the circumstances Petty ,If you are in the big city and the police officer is a veteran and has seen so much crime that he is able to make a rational determination of the events , then you may walk of with a "dont do that again" if not it could get ugly for you . A person may accuse you of something and the police are called , if they find enough evidence you are charged by the police officer and a county or city district attorney will decide if there is enough eveidence to proceed with prosecution if the person filing the charges against you be it the person who called police ,the police officer or the district attorney ,drop charges against you , then the state & Feds have the option to proceed with charges . The thing is you have to rely on the training and competence of the first responding police officer . An example , though it is not a gun related incident ,Over the month of December I have been consumed with trying to get Two Insurance claims settled , one with my homeowners Ins. the other with my Auto Ins. , My pickup truck caught on fire in the middle of the night while we where sleeping , It was completely loaded with all my work tools in addition to the tools I had loaded my truck with all my hunting and camping gear as I was leaving that morning for a four day hunting and camping trip.
I live in a very rural area so I had to fight the fire for twenty minutes by myself til the volunteer fire dept showed up. After all was said and done putting the fire out a police officer had responded , he asked me if anyone was injured , had I done any work on the truck recently , was anyone angry with me , did i know what might have started the fire and was I suspiciouse of arson, he jotted these notes down got a little more info pertaing to vehicle make and model and Ins. info & value of contents in vehicle then left.
The officer was a supervisor/sargeant , a young fellow , I actually know his Uncle , I picked up the report the next day upon reading the report I realized it was similar to watching a PJ LOTRs film versus reading a Tolkien Novel , None of the info contained in the report was anywhere near being the same as the verbal statement I gave the officer ,actually because of the inconsistancies and the fact that I had already given the Insurance company recorded statements that DID NOT MATCH at all with the OFFICIAL POLICE REPORT, It in effect made the fire look of a SUSPICIOUSE NATURE , Luckily the volunteer fire dept. did theyre job and the report they wrote matched my statement and I was able to get things settled with the Ins. Company but not before causing a HUGE stink with the Local Police Dept.
All of this could have been avoided by the officer asking me for a written statement .
I guess the point I was trying to make is one Police officer will look at any situation and the facts and use good judgement as to if there actually is a crime or not , but another Police officer will follow the letter of the law and will not look at the big picture .
I have quite a few friends who are Police officer or are retired Police officers, they say there are two kinds of COPs ,ones who consider Police work just a job and ones who have a chip on theyre shoulder and like being in control of people , and out to make a name for themselves.

Another problem with are Legal System is the potential for corrupt activity with the money that is made off of fines , court costs , legal fees , and after court costs such as counseling and probation fees .
There is alot of money to be made by the Govt. and alot of Taxpayer money wasted in the prosecution and incarceration of people convicted of felonies . ITs a lose lose situation for the taxpayer.

In the UK the police have long been complaining that they have been getting less and less of the discretion needed to properly perform their job.
But the most ludicrous aspect for me are the police quotas- each police force has a quota to meet in tackling certain crimes- so far so good, however if they fail to they get a lot of hassle- the upshot of this means that if they have to make x amount of, say, drug arrests in a period, then the excuse- there werent enough people beaking the law- doesnt get them very far, so they have to go out, at the expense of investigating other crimes, just to find some dope smokers somewhere solely for the purpose of fulfilling a quota.

You'll pleased to know police where I live are now lessening their focus on drugs and increasing their focus on Family Violence (domestics). I've charged more people for breaches of Intervention Orders (Aggravated Violence Orders in some places) and assaults in the past six months than I have ever with any other offences - including drug related offences - in a commiserate period of time. I don't go for quotas, but confess that charging men who assault women whenever I can does give me some genuine satisfaction and inspires me to work harder. Some of these women are only ever free of violence when their better half is locked up. Sad but true.

Im not bothered that they charge people for drugs- they are illegal at the moment its there job- I might not like it, but I argue my case against the law and I vote accordingly when the chance presents itself and I hope it changes, but the idea, regarless of how many drugs or drug users there may be about at any given time- that they can be told beforehand how many they have to arrest, it seems mad to me.