Gun control is coming. If you feel the need to purchase personal protection, now is the time to make that investment. Buy from an individual or at a gun show, not from a store where you must register your purchase with the feds. Use cash to purchase ammo, and don't buy too much from any one store. And don't forget cleaning supplies.
At my graduation ceremony yesterday, nearly all of the students receiving Masters degrees in mathematics were Chinese, with an occasional Indian/Pakistani thrown in for good measure. Nearly all of the students being conferred with Masters degrees in Fine Arts were Americans. The reality shock of both students and spectators was palpable.
On a positive note, my youngest brother is coming from California to spend Christmas with us. My granddaughter and I have plans to bake lots of cookies with sprinkles and icing, and we're both excited to try the new cookie cutters we bought the other day. Hubby and I have been happily discussing the menu for Christmas Eve...we're thinking a good quality smoked ham, baked slowly with a pineapple/mustard/brown sugar glaze. Mmmm!
What are your random thoughts this morning?
On my way home, last night, I saw a procession of fire trucks, most in the new lemon yellow color.
ReplyDeleteBut in the center was a red engine, with a very well made up Santa sitting in the spotlights, waving to all.
But the only thing that I could see was 20 murdered children, and the emptiness those deaths will leave in their families souls this year, and for every Christmas season to come.
If someone were to add up all the deaths caused by murderous shooting sprees similar to the one this week that have occurred in that last one hundred years, how may deaths would there be?
ReplyDeleteIn order to stop deaths like those, people are calling for government control.
In the past 100 years, how many people have been murdered by their governments? The web site Development Education (http://www.developmenteducation.ie/5-50-500/_files/067-murderous-governments.pdf) shows that governments have murdered at least 100 million people in that time -- averaging 1 million people being murdered by governments per year for the past 100 years.
How many murders and other crimes have been prevented by people with the ability to defend themselves?
How many problems are being allowed to fester so that shootings such as the one in Connecticut happen -- and then can be used to disarm innocent people?
Explosives are very difficult to obtain in the United States, but the Colorado theater shooter managed to get explosives to booby trap his apartment.
There is no doubt that the murders this week are horrific. But are we to allow the United States to become a Mad Max wasteland, with a much higher death toll, just to appease those who want to control us?
I say no.
We fiercely guard treasures of much less worth than our children.
ReplyDeleteWhy do we not allow/require a certain number of teachers and other school staff to be armed and trained?
There is the story of the Newtown schol custodian running up and down the halls, drawing the killers attention to himself by shouting for the teachers to hide their students.
What if he had been armed instead?
There are the stories of teachers who imposed their bodies between the monster and their children.
What if they had been armed, as well?
All that gun control or prohibition will do is to make for even more defenseless victims when the insane or evil monsters come out to murder.
I was reading the first paragraph of your thread, lady red; we were just saying the exact same thing. It's effed up, online and on tv. There is nothing I can do but pray for the people who lost children or a loved one. The last straw for me was Geraldo saying this was as bad as the Holocaust and then FNC fading out with sappy music. Screw them and the politicians who are using this to push their agenda. We have been on a news blackout since yesterday am.
ReplyDeleteI don't think gun control is coming. I don't believe that would ever pass judicial muster.
Then again, I never dreamed that Obamacare would either.
As a gun owner, I am livid with Mrs. Lanza's conduct, according to press reports a nutter/prepper who "loved her guns". Had she 1) never let her known-mentally-disturbed son near a firearm, and 2) kept those firearms stored securely, this horror would never have occurred. I regard her as the direct proximate cause of this massacre. Twenty children died needlessly because of her conduct.
ReplyDelete"Gun control" is a non-starter in the US, logistically (300M firearms in circulation, of which ~70M are handguns), judicially (Scalia wrote a defining decision in the DC gun case)and politically. So: focus on secure firearm storage, which would result in an immediate (admittedly limited) reduction in firearms murder. At least it's something.
Sandy Hook is the "fourth" mass shooting "tragedy" that Obama has had to attend as POTUS. In 2012, residency in the US means that the outfall of SCOTUS-framed Second Amendment rights will be periodic firearm massacres. That's just entirely-foreseeable reality now.
@DWT: you'd be looking at an arms escalation in a high-risk environment; that is why ETF train so actively. Also, Lanza wore body armour and managed over 100 quick shots from semi-autos with high-cap magazines before killing himself. Are you suggesting assigning a trained, armed agent at every school?- because no way will a teacher/janitor/psychologist safely be capable of terminating a gunman. Just inviting friendly-fire dead children.
I find it all very ironic- the libertarian firearms-rights proponents got the decision they wanted in 2010 from SCOTUS, but now will be howling for the state to somehow protect the citizenry from its inevitable outcome.
I'm not beating myself up cause I didn't shoot him, said Meli.
DeleteI know after he saw me, I think the last shot he fired was the one he used on himself.
Earl, could the outcome here possibly have been any worse with shots directed at the killer?
DeleteHe stood twice as tall as his victims, giving a pretty clear shot at the upper chest and head.
Body armor is not magic. Whether there was penetration or not, a 158 grain bullet from.357 at 900 fps carries 284 foot-pounds of energy, which would hit like a sledge-hammer swung by a strong man.
Plus, while the guards should certainly be trained and certified, we do not know that the killer was trained in any way, either, or would have been able to keep his murderous focus in the face of someone shooting at him.
In incident after incident, (as in the link in Lewy's post) mass shootings have ended almost as soon as someone began to return fire, and as I said at first, could the outcome possibly have been any worse?
@DWT: ...could the outcome possibly have been any worse?
DeleteOh, yes: the psycho gets his 20 victims, and the teacher/janitor/psychologist "civilian intervenor" kills another four.
The Sandy Hook murderer apparently offed himself as soon as the police started arriving, so even a "Breivik"-level psycho "might" have been stopped by an armed guard. But at what cost- every school in America has another $100K/annum added to payroll to effect such protection?
You know the conversation I want to have about race and guns?
DeleteIt'll start when some crazy white guy (and face it, most of them are crazy white guys) walks into an inner city school to shoot it up, and some crip walkin' shorty middle schooler draws his Glock and busts a whole clip into the crazy white guy's skinny butt.
Then we can have a fine conversation about race and guns.
[I think I just trolled the entire Internet. That has to be a record.]
And here is more information on armed citizens versus crazies.
ReplyDeletefrom Classically Liberal
Fuck it folks. I'm so tired of the hysterical over sensationalism of Sandy Hook I could puke. I even think Earl's analysis is off target. Arm everybody, period. Force arms training on everyone over 17 years of age. Then let's see how many introverted mommy suckling assholes decide to go on rampage know there will be few undefended innocents. Your attitudes about killing change when the opposition can shoot back, or even shoot first. Trust me on that one. How many police stations do you see robbed or attacked, eh?
ReplyDeleteAs Americans we've become a collective of tragedy voyeurs who have to examine in detail every bloody incident if it is close to use physically or geographically. If distant, we yawn, it isn't our kind, right?
Okay, so where is the outrage over the fact that our KIA's in Afghanistan have DOUBLED in the past 3 years, under alleged pseudo-heros like Gates, Petraeus, McChrystal, Panetta, Mullen, and Dempsey? We've lost 2000 KIA in Afghaniland from 2002 to today, and a full 1000+ plus have been KIA in the past three years. Where's the outrage pover the discrepancy?
When the Iraqis gased 5000+ of their own people, the Kurds in 1998, using WMD's (that don't exist, right?) does any recall an outrage in the media here? IIRC we blamed it on the Iranians, erroneously, and moved on within a single news cycles.
How much local outrage is there for the 40,000+ dead Syrians today? Seriously, there isn't much...no our folks, you see.
So here we are with a wacky mother who appears to have been a "prepper" of the kind portrayed on television as determined survivors weekly as we speak...the show is named "Doomsday Preppers." How that work out for Mom this time, eh? AS will be the case in most instances, the preppers will be killed with their own weapons and robbed of their stores. Good luck.
And yes, Earl is right on the inevitability of future tragic massacres. Damn right...and a good part of the blame goes to the media who glorify it for days on end when a Sandy Hook occurs, or an Aurora, or Columbine. Our media feeds our passion...a passion for gory entertainment to wax hysterical over between Tacos and televised football.
Yep, close all of our long term mental institutions, Kumbaya...kum-bay-fucking-yah!! Now round up all the guns and get all the nut cases into "treatment", which is temporary today, by law...or just house them in prison. Or ignore them if they aren't from our town...but express faux-grief, wail and holler loudly if a TV camera is near-by.
We are one sick fucking nation.
You've hit the nail on the head with this post aridog. We are definitely one sick fucking nation.
DeleteYesterday, my mother stated simply "let it ALL come down." She's right. It's too sick and twisted to fix.
Earl, I have no idea if the slimy worm's mother was a prepper or not. I've turned off the "news". It's not journalism, it's blood and gore, 24-7. However, the logic of teaching a mentally ill child how to shoot a firearm escapes me. What was she thinking? Her irresponsibility infuriates me. Why the hell she thought she needed an M-16 in the house with a butt-load of high impact ammo also escapes me. Maybe she was as cuckoo crazy as her POS son.
Also, DWT is correct about the body armor. My BIL was shot in the line of duty; he took a hit directly to his armor. He damn near died from the impact. A armed janitor/teacher/principal could have put the bad guy down.
Maybe she was as cuckoo crazy as her POS son.
DeleteI'd bet on it...acorn from the tree and all that.
As to Aridog's post:
DeleteHear, hear.
Much truth in the above.
DeleteI walked into Gun World in Buffalo, NY last year- they were selling an M82, semi-auto .50BMG sniper rifle (sight extra, natch). W.T.F??? Even Canadian ETF have nothing near this level of firearm. And yet, in suburban Buffalo, I can legally purchase a tactical mechanized column supression firearm.
I was thinking about this as I walked back to the house after hunting yesterday, with my 1913 American-made shotgun and low-pressure roll-my-own shells, and thought, "WTF is wrong with Americans, with their obsession over "black guns" and maximum lethality"- I would not permit any of these "firearms enthusiasts" anywhere near one of my shoots. They'd be unsafe in the field. And exponentially moreso in an urban setting.
I don't understand the enthusiasm either, Earl. I guess some people just want to own the biggest and baddest on the block. I knew a guy who had a working cannon some years ago. Why do regular people need body armour? Same thing.
DeleteI want to be able to have a shotgun at home for protection and I have a CWP, but a revolver is fine with me, I have zero interest in owning anything else. IMO, a sniper rifle is for a sniper. I would love to hear Chris Kyle's take on this, he is the most lethal sniper in the US military, I have great respect for him and his opinions.
There are always going to be crazy people who can manage to get hold of a lethal weapon and use it. If I was in a situation where someone was randomly firing, I'd take the chance and shoot them, I'm a great shot.
You think .50 caliber is big...you should have been around in the 50's and early 60's here abouts....20mm antitank rifles like the Lahti M-39 were easily available, without a special dangerous device permit from ATF. MY old room mate bought one for $150 and we fired it at Proud Lake Recreation Area Range until the rangers got nervous (one round cut down a large elm tree). Damn thing would pound you hard and move you back a foot or more with each shot. After 1968 it had to be special licensed with ATF as a dangerous device and anytime you moved it you had to notify AFT. It was "grandfathered for a nominal $200 one time payment, but new permits cost $1000 annually. Michigan doesn't permit any purchase or sale of such a weapon in the state, so to sell it Dave had to advise AFT and take it to Ohio to sell it. He got $1500 plus about $1000 for the 100 rounds of ammo he had, originally bought at 1.00 per round.
DeleteYeah, gun nuts can be weird...however, back in the day all we were doing was having some red neck fun...we saw one M-39 used in a movie and Dave just had to go buy one. Not something we'd repeat. Actually, you could also buy operational 60 and 81 mm Mortar kits in those days too, with live rounds each with increment packs attached. One guy we knew bought a 75mm Pack Howitzer and kept it at his office for his barage building business.
The only reason the .50 Caliber rifles are available today is because that is the caliber cut off determined in 1968 when the dangerous devices act(s) passed. They actually aren't any larger than many old African hunting rifles...like my college love's daddy had...a .600 Nitro Express double rifle. Damn thing nearly broke my shoulder, I swear.
I agree that most of the "black guns" are hokey and near useless Holly-weirdo attracting pieces...with a few exceptions. I'd make an exception for the new derivative M-14EBR's in 7.62 Nato caliber..and of course the original wood stocked M-14's. I have this special spot in my heart for them.
As for spending much time with today's "enthusiasts" ...not me. Thank you very much. I am leery enough of the new guys are the range I belong to and shoot at...the eager beavers invariably have expensive IPSC handguns and can barely score points with an entire magazine on paper stationary target. God help anyone near them in a move and shoot scenario, like real IPSC.
In the end, the truth is that increased availability of firearms has not proven to correlate with gun deaths, which have been decreasing overall in the past decade or so.
We have too many people with bad attitudes and if no gun is handy, they'll load up a van with Ammonium Nitrate, Nitromethane, diesel fuel, and a bit of Det-Cord.
Any cure will have to be cultural, not prohibition of mechanisms.
I agree 100% that it's a cultural problem, not calibre. But as part of the conversation, I am thinking about what Earl said, why do we need these huge automatic weapons? We don't, we just feel it's our right because of the second amendment. What I worry about...I start thinking that it would be a good thing to ban them but then...what's the next step? Banning semi-automatics? Then when is ammo too big? I'm afraid that once our government starts banning weapons, it's only a matter of time until they are all banned and we see clearly how well that has worked in Chicago and DC. So I don't know how to start to solve this problem. Where do we draw the line on these violent video games? I see the producer of this "Django" movie has scrapped the release for the moment; you know, the movie where Jamie Foxx talks with enthusiasm about getting to "kill all the white people". Tarantino and Scorcese are known for their violent movies, do we ban those? We're all crowded with little personal space and we're angry about that. Road rage and "going postal" - as well as these school/restaurant/theatre massacres has been a phenomenon just since the 70's. Why is that?
ReplyDeleteThe guy I knew that had the cannon never hurt anyone with it. We thought it was cool and he'd shoot it off every New Year's. But I was in my 20's then and didn't think about the safety aspect of it.
Our culture is sick, glorifying the worst kind of violence, doing away with any mention of God, the breakdown of the family, the American work ethic vanishing, hyperpartisanship, blurring the lines of gender, little personal resposibility, all these things (and much more) have brought us to this place, IMO.
I read a thoughtful article by Ben Stein in American Spectator. It's linked to on Drudge, he had some good thoughts on what happened.
@ Ari: Any cure will have to be cultural, not prohibition of mechanisms.
ReplyDeleteA great deal of thought produced this gem- that's a good post. Regrettably, a cultural change could take a generation. Or three...
@ flo: I'm off to look for it. Thx.
To play the devil's advocate here: the original intent of the 2nd Amendment was so that citizens could defend themselves from a tyrannical government. A .22 is not going to do a lot of good in that regard.
ReplyDeleteI think that all citizens should be given weapons safety training, allowing perhaps for a "conscientious objector" status. If everyone knows what to do with weapons, then there will be fewer accidents, and people will also know what their responsibilities are. Also, if everyone is trained then no one will stand out for government scrutiny merely for being trained -- although they will have greater responsibility to use weapons legally and correctly.
Florrie - it is not our right because of the Second Amendment. It is our right, simply acknowledged by the Second Amendment.
ReplyDeleteNeither the Constitution, or any governmental organization, gives rights. Those are inherent in us from God.
Matt is correct about the intent of the Second Amendment to be certain that the people were armed at the same level as the government, purely to make sure that attempted tyranny would be a bloody and dangerous business.
In order to make that a reality, large capacity magazines and 'black' guns cannot be limited to government, exactly BECAUSE they are military-style weapons, and the people therefore do have a right to them.
When the Secons Amendment was written, all that was available to both military and civilians were smooth-bore muskets. As firearm technology progressed through rifled barrels, to repeating weapons to smokeless powder, the level of civilian armament has always kept pace.
Not until the 1930's has the civilian population been limited to certain weapons, and a strict read of the Constitution would almost certainly make that null and void.
Fewer firearms, or more carefully controlled firearms is not the answer. The left is reacting to a culture that their foul philosophy has created, by attempting to regulate and control machines, rather than acknowledge that their vision for society is not only a failure, but a blueprint for collapse of all decency in interaction between human beings.
You're right, Dances; sometimes I forget that critical truth in the first sentence of your post. What you're saying about owning large calibre, etc., firearms makes a lot of sense and I absolutely agree with your conclusion.
DeleteI quoted you elsewhere, DWT, thanks for your explanation.
DeleteI'm hardly daring to step into the discussion here. Although I am prepared to accept that "gun control", or rather, banning guns, is impractical, I cannot understand the obsession with guns in American culture. Despite the fact that I live in a country where there is (at least in theory) a universal draft, there is no real "gun-culture" (for lack of a better word) in Israel
ReplyDeleteI thought you might be interested in this piece about guns in Israel: In Israel, a privilege, not a right, to bear arms..
I'm not sure I agree with the writer's impression that Israelis are special in being willing to risk their life and jump in to a terrorist scene to save another life. I think people all over the world, if they are courageous enough, would do the same thing.
Annie - I haven't yet been to Israel (although we are hoping that will be our Christmas trip next year), but I have a question: how common is it to see armed members of the IDF or police force going about their every day business in a mall or a crowd?
DeleteIn the US it is not common at all. Outside bases or other specific areas, US military are unarmed, and even ON base, only MPs and LEOs are carrying.
I agree very much with the Rticle you linked that mentioned the sense of social responsibility that Israelis have, and will counter that in the US we feel as though we can't count on the police being there in time to save us or our loved ones. We feel that we must be responsible for saving ourselves, a view that I think the article points out well in the description of police activities in regards to the Virginia Tech shooter. They are so afraid of human rights groups and backlash that they will weigh do everything they can to avoid taking someone out.
I'm not saying that is bad - the issues we've had recently with SWATs screwing up and entering the wrong houses is terrible, and innocents being harmed should be avoided at all costs.
Sorry - didn't finish, comment screw up...
DeleteI think our roots are different from Israel in key ways - for one, we are not rooted in the kibbutz, but in the pioneer family farm. I think there is a greater emphasis on privacy of the personal nature - and this is both good and bad. Mental problems in a more open culture can be seen an addressed more effectively. On the other hand, having moved to an overseas environment where privacy is virtually unknown, I can say that I feel like I'm never allowed to relax, I can't just sit and be with my own thoughts.
But most overriding of all - the US is HUGE. Protectors simply can not be everywhere they might be needed. We can't count on them to get there in time, we can only count on ourselves to defend what is dear.
@Girl on the Scene, how cool to be able to meet up with you! I'm really looking forward! (assuming the world does not end on Friday as the Mayan calendar claims...)
DeleteTo answer your question (which Earl also did before you even asked): "How common is it to see armed members of the IDF or police force going about their every day business in a mall or a crowd?"
It's extremely common and no one blinks an eye or thinks twice about it. Armed soldiers and police are everywhere. You see them in the streets, on the buses, in the shops, the malls, in college, and even in the synagogues.
I'll give you an example from my family: My elder son in law is an army Rabbi (chaplain) but he's home every night (unless he's duty officer) since his base is only 10 minutes from their house. He's permanently in uniform besides Shabbat (unless he's on duty and then of course he's in uniform too) and carries both a pistol AND an M16 or some such rifle. The pistol is his own personal weapon, and because of the Israeli gun laws, that pistol has to be with him at all times. He carries it on him even at home, even when he comes to us, even to the Synagogue on Shabbat. His rifle is with him when he's on base or when he's at home but on call. (To clarify matters, as a chaplain he's also an officer so he has to serve as duty officer a few times a week). He can be at home even when he's on call because of the proximity of their house to the base.
Example no. 2: My nephew who's in the IDF comes home every 2 or 3 weekends in uniform carrying his rifle (don't ask me which kind. I'm totally ignorant about these things!) While he's at home the rifle must be kept in a locked cupboard inside a locked room, and the ammunition must be kept in a separate locked cupboard. We had the same palaver when my sons were in the army. And the same scene is repeated whenever any of my sons, nephews, younger son-in-law, and men and boys across the country do their reserve service for about a month every year.
It's all such a basic building block of Israeli society that I can't picture the country without seeing armed soldiers all over the place.
But remember - a big part of the reason we see so many armed soldiers around, besides the fact that we have a universal draft, is that the country is so tiny that the border is only a bus ride away. So soldiers in the reserves or even in the standing army come home at the minimum every 3rd weekend, and often can pop home for a meal if they're in the area. And it is quite common for soldiers to "pop home", bringing half their regiment with them for a taste of home cooking! :))
Even in war time soldiers manage to get home for a short break before taking a quick bus ride back to the front. Unless home is AT the front in which case it's just a walk down the road.
@GotS, to answer your other points:
DeleteThey are so afraid of human rights groups and backlash that they will weigh do everything they can to avoid taking someone out.
We have a rather large problem of our own with "human rights" groups whenever a Palestinian is hurt or killed or evicted from his house. This has made many soldiers wary of carrying out their mission properly, or their officers wary of giving proper orders.
We saw an example of this just last week and it caused a country-wide scandal. I would refer you to this article from Israel National News.
Background: leftist "human rights activists" who aid and abet the Palestinians (and the leftists are worse than the Palis IMO) have taken to closely following the IDF wherever they clash or just intersect with Palestinians and video and photograph everything - all to be used in evidence against the IDF as proof of their war crimes.
Here's an excerpt from the INN article:
A damaging video of Israeli soldiers fleeing from rock-throwing terrorists has inspired an IDF review of the limitations being placed on the nation's troops.
Several Israeli soldiers have charged that officers' concerns about media photos have recently forced them to retreat in the face of PA Arab mob attacks.
There was national outrage at the thought of IDF troops running away from action, but I do understand those soldiers. Who wants to spend years fighting a court case and the possibility of ending up in jail while a judge second guesses your actions under fire?
However, the matter was happily turned around very quickly - and by a female soldier no less.
To be continued in the next comment...
The Times of Israel has the report:
DeleteThe officer, a 20-year-old from Tel Aviv, recounted the events in interviews with Israeli media late Tuesday night, saying that she and two border police soldiers under her command were manning a checkpoint near the Cave of the Patriarchs when the young Palestinian approached them.
“Following the standard procedure, the soldier who was with me asked him for an ID,” she said. “The Palestinian handed him his documents and I entered the room to run a background check.”
While inside, she continued, she looked out and saw that the Palestinian had charged the soldier and drawn what appeared to be a pistol.
“With one hand,” she related, “he grabbed the soldier’s neck and pressed against him, and with the other he put the pistol to the soldier’s temple. In that situation, the soldier couldn’t break free or react.”
The female officer, who was only a few meters away, cocked her weapon.
“I was looking for an angle from which to fire without hurting the soldier,” she said, and it was only after she ascertained that his life was in danger that she pulled the trigger.
“After the first shot, he continued to hold the pistol to the soldier’s temple, so I fired two more bullets,” she said, at which point the Palestinian fell to the ground, and she quickly kicked the gun away.
This brave soldier managed to restore not only national pride but the IDF's deterrence. The soldier said she had no regrets even after she discovered the gun was a fake. As you can see from the pictures, it was a very good fake, and the IDF have now published the security cam video - although it is disgraceful that the IDF always feels obliged to defend its every action.
The article finishes with the following:
The incident comes amid public debate regarding the army’s rules of engagement. In two separate incidents reported this week, one in the West Bank town of Kfar Qadum and the other in Hebron – where Palestinian police were involved — IDF troops were filmed retreating in the face of heavy stone-throwing from rioters. In response, some soldiers said that the presence of media “tied their hands” and prevented them from defending themselves.
So you can see that although the weakening of the army's morale is not necessarily due to PC-ness like your police force, but rather from external pressure from "peace activists", it has brought about the same result. I'm just so glad that there enough soldiers like this young woman who are determined to do the right thing.
And as an aside - she must be a brilliant sniper to have shot the Palestinian while he was holding another soldier hostage, without harming her comrade. She must have nerves of cold steel.
Here's a picture of the fake gun:
Deleteimgw:"http://www.algemeiner.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/12/pistol-lighter.jpg"
And here's the IDF video although it's not terribly clear.
I just remembered a funny incident with guns some years ago. My niece got engaged to a boy who was still serving in the army. The engagement party was held at my brother's house, and all the fiance's comrades came by to celebrate. But where do you put 20 rifles in a 4-room apartment?
My bro and sis-in-law had to empty out a whole bedroom cupboard for all the soldiers to put their guns in while they partied. :)
GotS: And I forgot one salient part of your comment:
DeleteI think there is a greater emphasis on privacy of the personal nature - and this is both good and bad. Mental problems in a more open culture can be seen an addressed more effectively. On the other hand, having moved to an overseas environment where privacy is virtually unknown, I can say that I feel like I'm never allowed to relax, I can't just sit and be with my own thoughts.
Yes, definitely. Israel is in a way one very large family, with all the pluses and minuses. So yes, just like you are experiencing, the lack of privacy can be maddening. But on the other hand the involvement of neighbours, friends and families can save both sanity and lives. I think I prefer the familiarity, with all its drawbacks, rather than the alienation.
But most overriding of all - the US is HUGE. Protectors simply can not be everywhere they might be needed. We can't count on them to get there in time, we can only count on ourselves to defend what is dear.
I think that is probably the greatest difference between our 2 countries - the sheer size. We are at completely opposite ends of the spectrum regarding size. So Israel is both easier to defend but also easier to invade and overrun.
But it's also easier to pop home from the front for tea. :D
Annie - your comment about popping home for tea reminded me of a story on of my mil-spouse friends told: when her husband first deployed to the war zone, a friend of hers said, "But he still gets to come home on weekends, right?"
DeleteIt would be so much nicer if that were the case! :)
Also - perhaps if there were a constant presence of trusted professionals who were armed, as there is in Israel, there would not be such an obsession with weapons. But our nation really is too big for that. We have to be more self reliant in regards to defense.
DeleteAs an example: my Gma lives on a small farm on the outskirts of a small town. Her farm is REGULARLY broken into - and twice her house has been as well. Calling the police doesn't help - they have never gotten there in less than fifteen minutes and in that time the burglars are gone. The response time practically invites criminals in because they know they are not likely to be caught.
This did not happen while my Pop was alive, as the pack of working dogs and multiple weapons he kept discouraged being messed with. But now, when my Gma refuses help or to arm herself, she is seen as an easy target.
It's not perfect by any means in Israel either, and in isolated communities (there are a few, even in tiny Israel) you get similar situations like your Gma. A while back there was a spate of burglaries, cattle rustling and the like in villages in the Negev in the south, the perps being local Bedouin. The police were called each time but also there, the response time was much too slow and nothing was done when they finally arrived.
DeleteOne farmer, Shai Dromi, finally broke when his farm was robbed for the 3rd or 4th time, and his dog was killed. He opened fire on the robbers and killed one of them.
The upshot: Dromi was arrested, indicted, and although he was acquitted of the charge of manslaughter, he was found guilty of illegal firearms possession.
There was uproar in Israel, and after about a year Dromi was released on parole. Following that, the Knesset passed a law called "the Dromi law" which entitles home-owners to take reasonable defensive action and not be liable for harm to the trespassers if they have been suitably warned, and if police help is not forthcoming.
@ DWT- you raise several good points:
ReplyDelete1. The "intent" of the Second Amendment is important- in a post-Enlightenment political theory environment (the thinking of Locke/Hobbes/Bentham/Austin/Rousseau), the level of firearm available to the individual was presumably intended to be comparable to that of the state. Ie., an offset to state power. With the Constitution being an evolving document, I suppose today the hard-core Second Amendment types would advocate citizens being armed with full auto and UAVs... Because a squad of 101st or Mountain Brigade would take a few days to terminate every MM member in the UP. Guaranteed.
2. Ari is correct, in that change stateside must be cultural. Logistically, here's America's problem: in 1934, Canada began regulating strictly handgun ownership (yes, a civilian can "legally" own a handgun, but restrictions thereon are onerous). On average in each of those intervening 80 years, America society has absorbed one million handguns. Those guns in circulation now are an immutable fact.
I'd bet on some form of "show" legislation, banning "assault rifles" and high-cap mags (think, 1994-2004)- possibly the "gun show" loophole closed. But all existing hardware will be grandfathered. And, periodically, the slaughter of innocents will occur using firearms having a degree of lethality that the FF would have viewed as sci fi.
Again, cultural: annie's note of IL security- entirely common to see 20 year old girls and late-middle-aged cab drivers with semi-auto pistols in view. Why? An entirely-different cultural attitude to firearms, viewed as a tool, not a political statement or fetishist object.
I also think there is a different relationship to death at work. In the US we are safe in a way that other countries can't imagine. I would extend this to Canada as well. We are safe - these massacres stand out because they are unusual. We do not live in a place where we all know someone who has been murdered by terrorists, or rival political factions, or other violent methods. We do not worry about reading the body language of people we see in malls or grocery stores or on busses.
DeleteA tool ceases to hold its value if it is not needed for the purpose it was created for. I think that new values have been assigned to firearms by some who do not understand the purpose of the tool.
DeleteThey have never had to deal with the consequences of using that tool. They fetishize it because they don't know.
In Israel they know. That is the difference, I think.
Although I will add that there are other cultures who do know ad still fetishize firearms.
And here I will stop, as my comment issues are driving me nuts. Not Baker Act nuts, but nuts nonetheless.
A few points:
Delete- I think the whole "fetishization" narrative is overblown, actually. I know plenty of people who shoot seriously and are gravely sober in their attitude towards guns. When they speak knowledgeably about guns in the presence of skittish liberals, what do they sound like? Fetishists.
Everyone the ninnies can't understand, they denigrate, and propagate the narrative.
Yeah, there are some fetishists out there. So what? People fetishize librarian's glasses, too. Mostly, though, librarians just use them to see.
Just shooting a damn gun is a sobering experience. The vast majority of people who shoot and carry feel that dread realism. Don't fall for the "gun nut culture" slander.
Earl - you talk about the 101's eliminating a citizens milita like it was some roll of the dice in Dungeons and Dragons. It's not.
Yeah, the professional Army has the winning points. On paper, the trained military can take anyone out.
But that's the point. They'd be made to. And that is unlikely.
An unarmed population can be ruled by a constable. An armed population has to be occupied.
And as recent insurgent warfare has shown, occupation can be made very costly indeed.
The stomach of American soldiers to hunt and kill other Americans is very likely not very strong. All over the world when civil war breaks out, the trained military is usually itself divided.
I'm not so sure that the National Guard would march in to Alabama again. Not sure that's a bad thing.
Oh, and GotS: I live in a city with a _lot_ of mentally ill street people. I keep SA at all times. It's necessary. I laughed at myself the other night - I was walking home from a restaurant with my wife and a (woman) friend of ours, and some black guy walking towards us starts barking at his imaginary tormentors. And my flash gut check on this guy was... harmless. Didn't even give me a rise. I've just seen so many that I can tell the real screwballs. This guy passes us and says how y'all doin'... Merry Christmas!
I do get what you're saying lewy, and I generally agree. The one thing I kind of diverge on is the general American lack of focus on tells in public.
DeleteI've lived in several big cities in different areas of the US (the SF area is certainly crazy homeless person Mecca), and while I think I've always been fairly street smart, I never had to focus on it the way I do now.
An example from about a month ago:
Sorry - my iPad is being a jerk.
DeleteAnyway, long story less long- I was forced into giving people a ride, if you catch my drift. They were armed and official government reps, I had stupidly left my dog at home (I usually take her everywhere as she is the biggest possible deterrent where we live).
Here is no way, given the situation, that a firearm would have made the situation better, I had to talk my way out of it and the only thing I had to go on was physical cues.
While that was the most hair raising example of having to watch behavior lately, the fact is that I ALWAYS have to be on guard now, in a way I never did anywhere in the US. It's so physically exhausting that a 21 day train trip across four European countries has been relaxing. I never appreciated how safe I was in the US until I went somewhere where I was not.
@ lewy: the "trained army" has sworn to uphold the Constitution. Failure to comply with a federal executive order would mean that everything discussed herein is moot- black guns, fetishists, dead schoolchildren, the lot. Utter anarchy would reign, and the WH/Congress' attempts at gun control would be immediately ignored in America's descent back to Hobbes' state of nature.
DeleteBottom line is, gun owners stateside love their guns more than other peoples' children and their co-citizens. Sandy Hook will be repeated ad nauseum. Batman 7 will be shot up. There's no public will to effectively limit access to firearms (especially handguns) and, even if there were, the installed base is too large to be curtailed. Pandora's box has been opened.
An unarmed population can be ruled by a constable. An armed population has to be occupied.
You have obliquely confirmed the cultural argument. Canada, Switzerland, (parts of the) UK, Sweden, IL are all heavily armed- but have firearm murder rates a fraction of America.
And coming back to my first post, Mrs. Lanza has a lot to answer for- her conduct in possession and storage of her firearms, in a household having a person known to have mental issues, is nothing short of criminally negligent.
Florrie said ... why do we need these huge automatic weapons? We don't, we just feel it's our right because of the second amendment ... start thinking that it would be a good thing to ban them but then...what's the next step? Banning semi-automatics?
ReplyDeleteWithout intending offense, I need to be pedantic here. Machine guns and submachine guns have been illegal, without special regulated ATF permit, pertaining to sales representation, under the regulation of *automatic* weapons law(s) enacted in 1934. These regulations were reinforced had additional *semi-automatic* weapons included, and made stricter in 1968 and 1986.
One reason I tend to mock many of the "black guns" for sale to civilians is that they are not what most people think they are...if legal they are all semi-automatic clones of the real assault weapons. Further many, if not most, have entirely different firing mechanisms.
A well known example is the ubiquitous Israeli Uzi...the auto versions for the military and police fires from an open bolt...e.g., the bolt is held back when cocked until the trigger is puled, then moves forward to engage a round and fire, automatically until the trigger is released. The *civilian* version of the Uzi is semi-automatic requiring a full trigger pull for every wound fired. The *civilian* versions fires from a closed bolt & firing pin mechanism, with a rotating bolt face to engage the breech.
Other submachine guns that fire from the *open bolt* configuration are the well know .45 APC M-3 "Grease gun" shown in myriad WWII movies, as well as the Thompson Submachine gun of gangster fame, and even the modern submachine guns used by the US Military today, the M-240 (updated version of the Vietnam era M-60) the M-249 SAW.
Virtually ALL civilian versions of submachine guns and machine pistols today fire from closed/rotating bolts and are semi-automatic only.
One problem exists that would derail any "ban"
per se. that is the simple fact that with today's modern machine tools and computer controls, full auto submachine guns can be made in a machinist's and/or engineer's home badsement...and they have been. Nearly 30 years ago in Detroit ATF/DPD busted a guy who mas making full auto military versions of the UZI at home, in large quantities. Steal one item and reproduce it. Bang!
As far as the thought that we might not need even the semi-automatic versions, once upon a time I thought so, too...I was far more into fine Ithaca, Winchester, and Remington trap shotguns, and accurized old fashioned M1911 Colt varieties from WWII and before. My choice today is still a Kimber full sized version of the old Government Model 1911 and an old Winchester Model 12 shotgun. I shoot a highly modified Japanese over/under for trap targets. I'd love a nice Remington Model 32, but they're no longer made, except by Kreighoff (sic?) starting at 5 figures and going up.
But do we need the black guns today...with the government we have, I think we do. I am very leery of DHS/FEMA intentions...and from what I know it them, they're well on the way to creating the armed civilian force Obama promised.
If they ever are chasing after me, for their sake they'd best know how to deal with fougasse aka foo gas ... never mind me having fancy weapons. I'm not a advocate of British Red coat tactics...hide and seek is more like it.
No offense taken, Aridog, I appreciate your knowledge on the topic and your thoughts on it in general.
DeleteIs it the people who support the Second Amendment who have the infatuation with guns or is it the people who are against the second amendment who have the infatuation with guns? Is it the “gun nuts” that get their knickers in a knot because one of the sign-language letters in a three-year-old deaf boy’s name looks like a gun? (http://www.cbc.ca/news/yourcommunity/2012/08/school-says-deaf-boys-name-looks-too-much-like-gun-gesture.html)
ReplyDeleteNo, it is the anti-Second Amendment crowd.
Is there any other legal interest where discussion of best equipment and how to use it is considered wrong?
In some countries it is a “privilege,” granted by the government, to carry a gun? Wow, a government grants people the “privilege” to be able to protect itself from the government should it become a tyranny? How nice of them.
Not – ABSOLUTELY NOT -- to make a correlation, but Adolph Hitler came to power through democratic means. He convinced German citizens that some of their numbers were “bad guys.” Hitler convinced Germans citizens if they gave up some of their rights and gave the government more and more powers that the government would make a Utopia free from evil-doers. The citizens of Germany, for the most part, willingly gave up their rights and gave their government sweeping powers. We all know how well that turned out.
As Dances said, the idea behind the Bill of Rights is that those rights were natural rights – they were not rights granted by the government. We should not cede those rights to the government, or those rights will cease to exist.
It is not the supporters of the Second Amendment who want to control every aspect of people’s lives. It is not the supporters of the Second Amendment who want to ban 32-ounce soft drinks. It is the left that wants all of the more and more encroachments into your liberties.
I agree with you that the people who have the weirdest fantasy about guns are the anti-gun crowd. Few, if any know anything about guns per se...except they want to control them right along with soda drinks and foods. They don't want YOU to have them, but if they have them or are protected by guards who have them, that's okay...they're special ya know. It is their irrational fear that drives them to refuse to acknowledge we have attitude problems in this country, not gun problems.
DeleteMy opinion is that we have the right to own and carry guns for self protection. Police cannot prevent crimes in most cases, although they are some successful police activities that reduce the incidence of it. The real problem, IMO, today is the lack of respect for our laws and the LEO's who enforcement them...let alone the soldiers and Marines who do our fighting for us.
I'd hope that self protection doesn't devolve in to fighting our own government, but it could. The politicians who rant against guns almost all have armed security protecting them, or their own carry permits, because they're special doncha know. When Mayor Bloomberg starts jogging in Central Park after dark in shorts and a tee shirt, or in the Morris Heights in South Bronx, without any entourage, then I'll listen to him and his kind. Otherwise ... walk the walk, M'F'er or STFU.
I'd add that I have no respect for the government we have now that gives less of a shit about 4 dead Americans in Benghazi, or the fact that the Afghan War had KIA's of about 140+ per year until this administration took over and appointed their "hero" [SPIT] commanders who ramped up our KIA's to about 330+ per year...and nobody in the liberal camp nor in the media is saying fucking word one about what that indicates?!!
DeleteAlso regret to admit that this deranged governance of our military efforts began under Bush, who appointed Gates. Our government is being run by institutionalized political autocratic dictators who don't leave with the changing of administrations.
In short, unless something changes in both parties main collection of shitheads, we are fucked good and hard....and asked for it.
While I'm on this roll, let's talk about Hillary and her concussion. I've had several and I know that sitting up and talking was/is no problem, only strenuous physical activity involving upper body motion was a problem.
DeleteTake that Harkonenian creature, shove ice cubes in her underpants, jam her chubby ass in a wheel chair, slap her awake and run her up to Capital Hill for testimony...under oath. I promise they will not make her do jumping jacks or squat thrusts.
Hillary does perform a public service, however, as recently a photo of her has been shown to cure Priapism in 99% of live men.
Ari, the Hillary Cures Priapism line was the very best insult I have heard (read) in a number of years.
DeleteAridog slapdown, heh heh.
DeleteHillary is obviously a Harkonnen ...check out the similarity in clothing...even the faces. No wonder she's a cure for Priapism.
DeleteMatt, you made exactly the point I attempted upthread (before I read your comment, or I would have referenced it.)
Delete"Gun culture" is mostly myth.
If you saw my compute setup (three monitors including a 27" Thunderbolt display) you'd think I was a "computer fetishist". I just need to get work done.
Heh. My thins Scottish lips, if ever so briefly, curled into something resembling a dry, wan smile.
ReplyDeleteI happen to be reading "Ships of Oak/Guns of Iron by Ronald D. Utt, about the war of 1812. Well sourced and spot on writing.
ReplyDeleteThe militia, back then, brought to the fight what they had, as individuals, up to and including uniforms. Entirely in keeping with, in my opinion, the intent of the Founding Fathers. All men armed equally with any other, including the military, if the individual could afford it.
I had a point, but lost it somewhere whilst rounding Cape Horn in the late 1700's. Maritime sailing took so much guts, I can't even imagine.
It reminds me of my trade, where basic hand tools are required for entry, but larger and more expensive tools are purchased by the shop.
Back then, in 1812, the shop/government supplied the artillery, ships, logistics, but it was up to the individual to protect himself as best he could.
Many of the bravest could afford damn little, but still stepped forward.
Ha, somehow blogger screwed up my para's. You'll all figure it out.
ReplyDeleteI don't know what happened to Radio Matt's post regarding his unpleasant dinner conversation, but if you deleted it, Matt, I wish you would reinstate it.
ReplyDeleteThough it's not only in random conversations where thoughtless comments are made. We even have them here.
I've been avoiding a response to Earl's comment of December 20th, simply through a fear of descending into an angry rant.
The first paragraph was wrong enough:
"the "trained army" has sworn to uphold the Constitution. Failure to comply with a federal executive order would mean that everything discussed herein is moot- black guns, fetishists, dead schoolchildren, the lot. Utter anarchy would reign, and the WH/Congress' attempts at gun control would be immediately ignored in America's descent back to Hobbes' state of nature."
Yes, the trained army takes an oath to the CONSTITUTION, not the president. A part of that oath is to refuse illegal orders, which would certainly include an assault on American civilians, unless they were rising in armed rebellion, and even then, the Posse Comitatus law would probably prevent the active-duty military from engaging in that. It would be left, as Lewy said, to National Guard units.
That was, and is, a large part of the basis of this country, a rightful fear of standing armies, which have been, are being, and will be, used to oppress the citizens of far too many nations.
And without the Second Amendment, it certainly CAN happen here.
A refusal to comply with an illegal order is far less likely to return man to a life that is 'poor, nasty, brutish and short' than the compliance with such an order would be.
But, it is the second paragraph that enrages me;
"Bottom line is, gun owners stateside love their guns more than other peoples' children and their co-citizens. Sandy Hook will be repeated ad nauseum. Batman 7 will be shot up. There's no public will to effectively limit access to firearms (especially handguns) and, even if there were, the installed base is too large to be curtailed. Pandora's box has been opened."
Maybe it was unintentional on your part, but nonetheless, the first thought that came into my mind was that this is far too close in both wording and obvious underlying thought to Golda Meirs' comment that 'we will have peace when the Palestinians love their children more than they hate us.'
How fucking DARE you to equate lawful citizens of the US with Palestinian terror groups?!?!? MY guns may one day be used to defend my neighbors children, but never to harm them.
Fewer than 1/10th of one percent of legally owned firearms in this country are ever used in the commission of any crime, and a far higher number are used in the defense of self, family, neighbors and other innocents than in crime.
The difference between a subject and a citizen is that subjects do not have any innate rights, only those granted to them by government. No matter what a national constitution may say, if the sole power is within the government, those paper rights can be stripped away at a moment's notice.
Citizens do have innate rights NOT conferred by any government, and the foundation of those rights is to retain the power to fight back against tyranny.
No matter what Obama says, Americans do not BELONG to government in any form.
We are citizens. In your mind, you are obviously still a subject.
I see now that GOTS has a comment on the missing post, as well.
ReplyDeleteMatt, I too hope that you'll repost. I didn't have a chance to read it before it vanished.
ReplyDeleteI also hope that the post is reinstated, because it is something we all encounter - one way or another.
ReplyDeleteFar from feeling like I can express things which I believe, I even keep my FB page inane for the most part. I just don't want to argue, and I have too many friends whose political beliefs don't mirror mine.
Having friends who disagree with some of my beliefs isn't a problem with me - even I disagree with myself sometimes over some things - but knowing that people will jump on things to provoke an argument and refuse to keep it civil *IS* a problem.
So I abstain in that forum.
Matt, your experience mirrored ones I have had, up to and including the gun control discussion. And as I said in my comment on your post, draconian gun control laws have not curbed the violence in either South Africa or Mexico.
In truth, I feel assaulted at all sides sometimes - for religion, for the color of my skin, for my political beliefs. While I'm everlastingly sorry you had to experience that, Matt, it created a moment for me when I could take comfort in knowing that I wasn't the only one and where I wasn't the only person for whom "discussion" means "shut up and listen to why you're wrong".
@GotS: "In truth, I feel assaulted at all sides sometimes - for religion, for the color of my skin, for my political beliefs."
DeleteYes. And it's not just dislike either; it's out-and-out hatred.
GoS and lady red are so right, I think we've all experienced it.
DeleteI was talking to my husband's niece last night and she described the exact thing about some eco-fanatics (that's the only word to describe them) who bully in the worst possible way to shove their agenda down others throats.
I'd like to see Matt's comment as well, I hope he reposts it.
ReplyDelete