Another gun law would not have saved those in Tucson

A deranged man in Arizona loads 34 9 mm bullets into an expanded magazine of a Glock 19 semi-automatic pistol and opens fire in a Safeway parking lot, killing six — including a judge and a nine-year-old girl and seriously wounding a Congresswoman.  America goes crazy.

Time to ban guns, the reactionaries say. Time to lock away all ammo.

That, the reactionaries say, is the way to stop violet crime.

What the reactionaries haven’t told us is that they have been trying to ban weapons since the cro-magnons first put rocks in slingshots and it hasn’t prevented a single crime.  It hasn’t stopped a single murder. It hasn’t saved a single life.

When it comes to overreaction, America excels like no other nation in the civilized world. But we fall way short when the results come in.

Prohibition — be it booze, cigarettes, guns or whores — just doesn’t work. You don’t rid the nation of a problem by declaring it illegal.  America has been at war with drugs for decades — and illegal drug use is at an all time high.

Jared Loughner didn’t empty a 34-r0und clip into rep. Gabielle’s brain on that Saturday outside a Safewa. It took one shot  to put her life in danger.

All it took was one round from Lee Harvey Oswald‘s rife to blow off the back of John F. Kennedy‘s head on Nov. 22, 1963.

If you want to stop people from killing each other, the answer won’t be found in creating new laws that ban new weapons that can be used to take another life.

The answer lies in finding a way to respect the right of another human being to live.

The question that should have faced Jared Louhner on that Saturday morning morning was not why Gabrille Giffords deserved to die but why she deserved to live.

If, for no other reason, she deserved to live because we — as a society — deserved to learn what contributions she might yet have made to the betterment of our lives. She might have found a lasting end to war, a formula that eradicated cancer or a end for AIDS.  Or she might have faded into obscurity. We might never know — unless she lives — which it still possible and a reason for prayer and hope.

And who knows what contribution a nine-year might have made 20 years from now?

I don’t know the answer to that one but I do know one set of facts.

I have one thing in common with Jared Laoughnner. Like him, I carry a Glock semi-automatic pistol.Unlike him, I actually live in a state that requires a license to carry it. Had I been in that Safeway on that Saturday, that pistol would have been in a holster on my hip and it would have come out and  some of those six people would still be alive.  I doubt that I could have reacted quickly enough to save Rep. Giffords since she was taken out first, but others would still be alive — and Jerold Loughner would be dead  — and that is more than any knee-jerk law would have done.

Enhanced by Zemanta

55 Responses to "Another gun law would not have saved those in Tucson"

  1. bmclellan  January 12, 2011 at 10:49 am

    Mr Thompson I applaud your keen sense of reality .. Bravo !

  2. Sandune  January 12, 2011 at 12:08 pm

    I second Bryan’s applause. We poor Americans are so helpless when it comes to tragedy. We built a Big Daddy and we demand that he protect us from ourselves.

    Many of us try to elect our legislators to keep us safe and the rest try to elect legislators who will pray for us. We the people, are not expected to do anything but come up with the money to accomplish this action.

    When I was a kid in the late 30′s it was the adults who hated people who were different and many of us were unable to bring kids home if they fit the list of the enemies. We revolted and stayed on the beach with anyone we liked. Now, I see in Arizona the kids who will stop and point and snicker at some of a different color (I’m mocha) or someone with different eyes and language. This bigotry is alive and well in the children.

    What happened in Tucson will happen anywhere. We’ve seen it in the schools, in the churches and now in the Congress on the Corner. I wish you had been in Tucson on Saturday. I wonder what I would have done without a gun but with lifesaving skills. We all should put ourselves in these scenes of tragedy.

    You always come through, Chief!

    Sandy

  3. Carl Nemo  January 12, 2011 at 12:37 pm

    A spot-on, fine piece of writing Doug.

    What amazes me too is that in these wild and crazy times that with both a Congresswoman and a Federal judge present why they didn’t have some measure of security for the gathering?

    They don’t have taxpayer supplied Secret Service or U.S. Marshal’s Service protection, but it could have been requested if they were willing to pay the freight for the day. Again there’d be no guarantee that no one would have been killed or injured, but the sheer presence of armed highly qualified men or women on the detail would have taken the assailant out. Possibly this will be a wakeup call for future gatherings in parking lots, townhall meetings etc. In these times people best be operating in my recommended “condition yellow” mode; ie., being alert to their surroundings and situations.

    As an example: If I’ve left my car in a parking lot and it’s now dark; I simply don’t proceed to the vehicle and unlock the door. I first do a wide to closing circle around the vehicle to see if anyone is in the back seat or crouched behind the opposite side of the vehicle and only then will I proceed to enter the car. People with vans should do the same thing. Take a peek through the side windows etc. Large mall parking lots and underground garages are prime places for muggings, kidnappings etc. so use such measures regardless of the time of day. If things don’t look right, back off and call 911 if you feel the situation warrants such support.

    If you are walking down a city street where there’s little foot traffic and you see two pedestrians approaching I always change sides of the street. If they cross too and continue to approach me I take evasive action and move over to a busier street with better lighting and more foot traffic. My weapons of choice are pepper spray and a “Cold Steel” folding chisel point tanto knife for defense.

    The main thing concerning my recommendations is to simply be alert and pay attention to your surroundings. Stop going through life on cruise control when in public places.

    Carl Nemo **==

  4. Pondering It All  January 12, 2011 at 1:42 pm

    Loughner was interrupted as he tried to change to another clip, after firing 34 shots. If we still had the over-sized clip ban that was in the assault weapons bill, then he might have been stopped after firing only 11 shots. We don’t know the exact chronology of each bullet, but there are very likely many people who would not be in the hospital or the morgue if that law was still in place.

    I think that kinda invalidates one of the article’s central points: Having a reasonable set of gun laws in place and enforced CAN have a beneficial effect.

    Of course, the best defense for this sort of massacre would be to have some real background checks and an interview to detect crackpots like Loughner before issuing a permit to buy a gun, ammo, and accessories. Arizona has opted for very little in the way of checks, in order to insure the right of the insane to arm themselves with deadly weapons. Be careful what you wish for!

  5. woody188  January 12, 2011 at 3:12 pm

    I only have 9-round magazines for my G-19. :( Time to go shopping!

  6. b mcclellan  January 12, 2011 at 3:27 pm

    These oversize clips probably number in the millions for many different calibers and styles of weapons.

    Again , a law to prohibit in hindsight a plethora of anything is as useless as a soup sandwich.

    Give a kid an after school job and a good education based on the value of work ethos so that he sees the future in the light of self worth.

    Give a man an even chance to advance by the sweat of his labor with fair wages and job security.

    To take care of his family with peace of mind give one an opportunity for the same benefits those he relies on in office enjoy. Those that he depends upon to steer this country right and true surely appear to take most if not all including we the people for granted.

    Our nations mental health hinges upon many things, paramount of those being the ability to earn the means to survive.

    I see no other clear way to deter at least part of this rampant violence that has us in it’s grasp.

  7. jim0001  January 12, 2011 at 3:52 pm

    I agree with Mr. Thompson 100%. Men have killed each other since Cain killed Able. They have used everything from the jawbone of an ass to an atomic bomb. Believing some law will stop this is folly.Laws are only good for the law abiding. Laws will not stop a determined killer, but a well placed 210 grain .41 magnum will.

  8. Carlos Aleman  January 12, 2011 at 4:12 pm

    Can you point to a factual link where reactionaries are saying “ban all guns”, “lock away the ammo”, or is yours an argument of the strawman variety?

  9. b mcclellan  January 12, 2011 at 4:32 pm

    The human mind as ever,
    the only, , truly, , loaded gun.

    Pop said, nothin like the tune of 455 by 8 Buick..
    Are your valves lapped properly ?

  10. griff  January 12, 2011 at 4:40 pm

    Excellent piece Doug.

    It’s pure irony that the Congresswoman is a pro-gun Democrat, and no one in the crowd was carrying.

    • jim0001  January 13, 2011 at 8:36 pm

      As it turns out there was a legally armed citizen who helped subdue Jared Lee Loughner. Upon hearing the shots, Joe Zamudio, who was legally carrying concealed, RAN TOWARDS the shots (as I expect a lot of us would have done, too), not away from the shots, hoping to stop the shooter and save lives. As an armed citizen he was in a position to do just that. However, upon arriving, he saw that Loughner had just been disarmed and two men were struggling to subdue him. Zamudio, realizing there was no need for him to draw his gun at that point, wisely left it concealed and proceeded to assist in subduing and holding the shooter.

      Hopefully it will open but I attached a site that has the CNN interview with Mr. Zamudio, http://tinyurl.com22rqtzn

  11. Almandine  January 12, 2011 at 5:04 pm

    An interesting juxtaposition with your “Death of a Nation” piece.

  12. dvl666  January 12, 2011 at 6:01 pm

    When discussing “gun rights’ the 2nd amendment is rarely qouted in full context , content, or intent.
    The reason that we have a right to bear arms is that our founding fathers did not trust a standing army since the Brits had stationed one here since 1763 to get around their own laws. Furthermore they did not have enough $$$$ to pay for one. Hence the 2nd amendment which gives a right to bear arms in order to have a “WELL REGULATED MILITIA.” in lieu of a real army.
    If they were writing it today it would be completely different, since we’ve had a large standing army for the first time in our nation’s history since WWII and have a ‘well regulated militia’ The National Guard.
    Just what unit do Doug and Griff et. al. belong? All gun owners should be placed in a Guard unit and sent to Afghanistan to fight the ‘Islamic Terrorists.

    When Doug and Griff pull out their weapons to shoot the bad guy, how many other innocent victims will be caught in the crossfire. Hell even trained police and military are not the most accurate shooters. When the police arrive and notice 5/6 people with guns out , who do they shoot?? Oh that’s right, a light will shine on the bad guys just as in a movie.
    Speaking of which didn’t Marshall Earp take the weapons out of the hands of the cowboys when they hit town?
    The argument that concealed carry will prevent crimes doesn’t hold water either. AZ has the most liberal gun laws in the nation. That did not deter a killer. In fact most victims of gun violence know their killer and were usually shot in a fit of passion many times with alcohol or drugs involved. Most innocent children were usually killed when horsing around with dad’s, grandpa’s or another relatives unlocked and “unloaded” gun.
    Guns do not solve problems, they just create more.

    • griff  January 12, 2011 at 10:14 pm

      How nice of you to single me out among all the others that agreed with Doug. I feel special.

      Over the summer there was a bank robbery near my house in which one of the robbers shot and wounded a sheriff. He got away on foot into the woods across the street from my house. Although there were plenty of police in the area, none were in sight of my house. Suppose this individual broke into my house and held my family hostage or outright killed us all, because I was denied the right to defend my property and family. He wasn’t captured until late the next day. You’re damn right I had my AK-47 within reach all night.

      “The argument that concealed carry will prevent crimes doesn’t hold water either. AZ has the most liberal gun laws in the nation.”

      It might have if some one at the Safeway were carrying. Did the fact that there are plenty of laws making murder a crime prevent this from happening? Should we have stricter laws banning murder? Is the death penalty not enough of a deterrent? Did the fact that this is a federal crime provide any deterrence?

      Suppose Loughner didn’t have access to a firearm. Would he have used a bomb instead, and caused greater death and destruction?

      Suppose he was denied a firearm through legal channels, and just acquired one through illegal channels? It’s quite easy to do. Would stricter laws have helped then?

      Since the average response time for police is 15 minutes, it’s safe to say that the perp would have been lying in a pool of his own blood long before the police showed up. Or don’t you remember how many victims fell at Columbine while the police milled around outside, afraid to go in?

      In the state of Florida, between 1987 and 2010, 5224 concealed carry permits were revoked due to a crime being permitted after licensure. Of those 5224 revocations, only 168 of those crimes involved the use of a gun.

      Source

      The fact is that if some one like this moron wants to commit a crime, they’re damn well going to do it.

      In a 1985 Department of Justice survey of felons found that 57% said they were more afraid of running onto an armed victim than they were of running into the police while 74% said that the main reason they avoid houses where people are home is that they fear being shot.

      In 1982, Kennesaw County, Georgia passed a law requiring heads of households to keep at least one firearm in the house, and the burglary rate dropped by 89%.

      Vermont has no restrictions on gun possession, and is one of the safest states in the country. Compare that with Chicago, New York or Washington, DC.

      In Florida the murder rate fell 52% since they passed concealed carry laws.

      A University of chicago study in 1996 showed that in states that passed concealed carry laws, the murder rate dropped by 8.5%, rape by 5%, and aggravated assault by 7%.

      Your assumption that concealed carry laws don’t prevent crime based on one highly publicized incident doesn’t prove any thing but your own ignorance of reality.

      As an American, you have every right to be a victim. What you don’t have is the right to force others to be. If you don’t like guns then don’t own one. I just hope you can dodge bullets for 15 minutes while you wait for the cavalry.

    • Almandine  January 12, 2011 at 11:19 pm

      Your opinions are noted.

    • jim0001  January 13, 2011 at 7:55 pm

      Judging from your comments you obviously have not read the Heller vs. D.C. decision by the SCOTUS. The majority finding states the Second Ammendment to the United States Constitution provides for the INDIVIDUAL the right for self defense.

  13. b mcclellan  January 12, 2011 at 6:37 pm

    I wish I could get back in the service on the basis of owning a potentially deadly weed eater.
    When shall we beat again plowshares, we old farts ?

    I’m 60 dvl, where do I sign up so some extended joe can come home for Easter?
    Will a 20 ga. single shot do, with a duct tape fixed bayonet ?

    Maybe I could get this danged tooth fixed. Still got my VA card….hack..

  14. Carl Nemo  January 12, 2011 at 6:37 pm

    All this Monday morning quarterbacking about Loughner is futile. To put it simply another whacked out, dysfunctional human went postal except in this case he ended up killing a high level politician, a Federal judge et al.

    So the MSM, along with the hundreds of our surviving crimpol disappointments are weeping, wailing and gnashing their teeth while they continue to scheme on how to commit a far greater murder; I.E., the murder of an entire nation, the United States of America on the sacrificial altar of globalism run amok.

    Fie on all these evil hypocrites…!

    Again, my condolences go out to the family members of the deceased.

    *****

    “Laws that forbid the carrying of arms… disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes… Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man.” … Thomas Jefferson

    *****

    Carl Nemo **==

  15. eve  January 12, 2011 at 7:15 pm

    “The answer lies in finding a way to respect the right of another human being to live.”
    -Doug Thompson

    Well stated Mr. Thompson.

    Steve Irwin (the Crocodile Hunter) said something to the extent of “You can go into any home, in any town/city anywhere in America and find violence on TV.”

    THAT speaks volumes on the state of the American psyche.

    While I can see how someone could hold the viewpoint of less guns = less death, I also clearly understand it takes a perfect world for this theory to work.
    In the “real” world however, criminals do not abide by the laws and are only deterred by counter violence. The possibility of counter violence anticipated (ie armed security DUH) could have prevented this tragedy.

    The big question that needs answered is WHY did this happen?
    What were his reasons for doing what he did? Why?
    WHY was there not proper security in place?

    Once again, I think about Doug’s words “The answer lies in finding a way to respect the right of another human being to live.”

    Indeed.

    • Carl Nemo  January 12, 2011 at 11:10 pm

      “The answer lies in finding a way to respect the right of another human being to live.” …extract from post and original article

      Grounded, sane, people with all their oars in the water respect other people’s right to live, it’s a given.

      People like Loughner, obviously a nutcase and thousands of others of similar stripe are sociopaths to a varying degree. They don’t bond with their fellow citizens on a personal level; ie, sharing identity with them. They objectify their fellow citizens. It’s soaring power trip for them.

      Serial killers are a prime example. Many kill simply to serve the needs of some dark fetish that drives them to committing mayhem. Ted Bundy being a prime example.

      With 300 million plus citizens it’s hard telling how many reside within our society.

      You are not going to ‘teach’ the aforedescribed ‘sick puppies’ to respect the rights much less the lives of their fellow citizens.

      So I advise ‘bleeding hearts’ concerning gun control to beware and to be alert. Given the opportunity someone will surely take your life and not think twice about doing so. It’s a jungle out there and respect for your rights much less your right to live is the furthest concept from their minds.

      I our leadership surely doesn’t set an example concerning the sanctity of life. We’ve been murdering Iraqi and Afghani civilians for ten years now and there seems to be no end in site. With the use of drones as the vehicle for extermination they can sit on their fat, jaded, evil asses in a situation room in the Pentagon and watch the bloodshed “realtime”. They’ve reduced warfare to that of a banal endeavor; I.E., simply a profit center for the MIC.

      Evil lives…evil does…! : |

      Carl Nemo **==

  16. b mcclellan  January 12, 2011 at 7:52 pm

    At the very instant the human mind is unloaded ( spanked ),
    there and by with little to no restraint eye witness becomes a survival instrument,
    not a Caerphilly equation.

    Alarming is not the growing numbers touting their side,
    but zero possession of communicative action amongst.

  17. Pondering It All  January 13, 2011 at 6:40 pm

    I notice that nobody seems to be able to list a legitimate need for super-sized clips. It may seem like a minor point that he could shoot 34 bullets instead of 11, before reloading, but its NOT insignificant to the family members who are praying for or burying their loved ones who were shot with those 23 “bonus round” shots.

    These clips turn a self-defense handgun into a weapon of war. Might as well just say we should all have machine guns, because they can both shoot the same size bullets at the same muzzle velocity.

    BTW: I’m not anti-gun and in fact I am a registered owner.

    • Carl Nemo  January 13, 2011 at 9:52 pm

      I thought I’d put a ‘face’ on the clip in question; ie., the 34 round clip for the Glock19.

      http://www.google.com/images?q=photo+of+34+round+clip+for+Glock19&rls=com.microsoft:en-us:IE-SearchBox&oe=UTF-8&rlz=1I7ADRA_en&um=1&ie=UTF-8&source=univ&ei=0aQvTf6oL5SosAPfn-G-BQ&sa=X&oi=image_result_group&ct=title&resnum=1&ved=0CCoQsAQwAA&biw=988&bih=559

      This enhanced clip kicks things up a notch and is an example of overkill. The problem arises when crazies, gangbangers, narcotrafficantes et al. of similar stripe arm themselves with such and innocent civilians get in the line of fire as in Mexico at this time where 20,000 civilians have been killed in the crossfire associated with drug related violence during the past five years.

      This clip seems to be the poor man’s answer to emulate the vaunted H&K MP9 a favorite of SWAT, SEAL and SOC personnel. The Glock’s roots are in Austria the home of BMW so the quality of the weapon along with innovative add-ons attests to old world attention to detail and quality, H&K being another although made in Germany.

      I’m still against gun control and accessories of any kind especially in the times we’re facing as a function of our “engineered” national demise at the hands of corporate globalists run amok as reflected by their terminal influence upon our national leadership, who are operating in a ‘full steam ahead’, damn the torpedoes mode relative to the safe passage of the USS America through dangerous seas.

      *****

      “To be forewarned is to be forearmed”…Miguel de Cervantes

      *****

      Carl Nemo **==

  18. dvl666  January 13, 2011 at 7:17 pm

    Griff I slogged through Nam and have hunted deer for 50 years and have unloaded weapons safely locked in my home. I’m sorry you live in an area here you feel threatened enough to need to have a loaded weapon handy or one on your hip.
    All the stats you provide have no real corelation to a drop in crime. I could just as easily show that the “pool” of those who commit said crimes had dropped in higher or at the same rate during the time peroid that you use.
    You still have not disproved my main premise that most gun deaths are not random, that most innocents are killed using a weapon left around by a relative, and that any real sportsman hunter realizes there is no need for 30+ clips, assault weapons etc.
    There were people at the AZ shooting carrying weapons it did not stop the shooter. Had they opened up I suggest the carnage would be higher.

    • jim0001  January 13, 2011 at 8:44 pm

      You obviously choose not to read nor try to understand the Second Amendment of that troubling Constitution “thingy” that interferes with the liberal agenda. It does not stipulate the type of firearm you may own merely that you may. After they come for the AR’s and AK’s, then it’s handguns and THEN your hunting rifle or shotgun is next. How dare you have the audacity to comdem someones choice of protection. I guess this is how things are defined as ok for liberals but wrong for everyone else.

  19. Warren  January 13, 2011 at 11:09 pm

    Two points I’d like to make here. First, I also routinely carry a gun. It has saved my life at least once. Had I been 100 miles south of my home, in that parking lot, I’d like to think that it might have saved another life or two.

    Second, please consider alternatives. If Loughner didn’t have a gun, what else would he have used? The family truck? How many people could he have killed ramming that into the crowd?

    —W—

  20. dvl666  January 14, 2011 at 5:28 pm

    Jim,
    you have not read the 2nd Amendment. Our right to bear arms is directly connected to the need for a well regulted militia. One could argue that we must all be members of one in order to bear arms. If you’re such a ‘strict constructionalist’ then your weapon should be a black powder rifle-gun that was the weapon of the men who wrote the amendment.
    Why is it that you ‘gun nuts’ think that anyone who wants some sane laws is a liberal? As I ‘ve stated I own rifles, have served in combat, and have hunted for more than 50 years.
    When the “Army ” comes to take you AK -47 just how many APC’s or tanks will you stop? Just cuz you’re paranoid doesn’t mean that their not after you.

    • Almandine  January 14, 2011 at 9:18 pm

      Directly connected, linguistically… comma aside, but not dependent on… else it would say so. Black powder??? Why not a knife? That not a weapon?

    • jim001  January 14, 2011 at 11:54 pm

      You seem to be rambling here. Black powder only clouds the issue. If the FBI needs a machine gun then the law abiding citizens need a machine gun.
      There were no machine guns when the revolution occured. Here rests your black powder argument. It was the people able to protect themselves from their government, now and then.
      I respect your intense study with regard to the Constitution. The SCOTUS ruled in favor of the Constitution not your liberal interpretation, I am not going to compare my military record with yours . I won’t compare my Boone and Crocket records to yours. I hope you are hunting with a flintlock or a snare not smokeless powder. I am not engaging in a “Mine is bigger than yours contest.”
      My question to you and your ilk, is why are you afraid of an armed law abiding citizen and their weapon of choice? If you choose to own an M-1 tank, I could care less unless you are starting the big bastard up on Sat. a.m. when I’m trying to sleep or ripping my driveway up, or breaking the law.
      What are you afraid of? Why do law abiding citizens scare you?
      Pledge your loyalties to the Crown, Feinstein, Schummer or Obummer but don’t claim to support the Constitution.
      Thank you for your service to our country, the United States of America.

  21. bogofree  January 14, 2011 at 9:29 pm

    If you really want to take out some folks in large numbers you don’t need a gun as shown by McVeigh. This is a pathetic loser and an isolated incident. Who did the background check? Barney Fife?

  22. logtroll  January 14, 2011 at 11:01 pm

    You guys are killin’ me here, anybody got a sense of humor?

  23. Keith  January 15, 2011 at 10:51 am

    Carl Nemo wrote:

    “So I advise ‘bleeding hearts’ concerning gun control to beware and to be alert. Given the opportunity someone will surely take your life and not think twice about doing so. It’s a jungle out there and respect for your rights much less your right to live is the furthest concept from their minds.”

    …and what a sad, sad commentary that is on life today in the United States of America.

    Indeed, under your scenario, the “bleeding hearts” will continue to bleed…quite literally.

    Is what you describe REALLY what our founding fathers intended when they set up a country where its citizens were free to pursue “life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness?”

    Did they REALLY intend that we would someday all be required to maintain our own private arsenals of ever-more powerful firearms, live behind gates and walls and put bars on our windows and multiple padlocks on our doors (along with installing all manner of alarm systems) just to keep our homes and our families “safe”?

    I find it absolutely fascinating that many of the otherwise strict constitutionalists posting here are STILL attempting (in vain) to square their own “I’ll keep my guns” attitude with the REAL intent of the 2nd Amendment…an intent that had absolutely NOTHING to do with “protection” and everything to do with avoiding the need for a standing army.

    What’s more, our founding fathers set up our Constitution so that what’s contained therein could be CHANGED as time and circumstances warranted. To date, our country has spent TRILLIONS on maintaining a standing army. Yet this 2nd Amendment nonsense still remains on the books LONG after it has outlived any sense of Constitutional usefulness.

    Clearly, what you and others posting here are describing are yet more indicators (as if we needed any) of the absolute, total breakdown of civil society in the United States of America.

    Our country has now (quite literally) become an “armed camp”, where more and more of our basic Constitutional freedoms…those that deal with “life liberty and the pursuit of happiness”…are being taken from us day by day, all in the name of some fleeting sense of both private and governmental “security”.

    Indeed, as Benjamin Franklin once opined, “Those who would trade in their freedom for some small measure of protection deserve neither.” And while those of you who insist on toting all your guns around may FEEL like are “more secure” by doing so, I contend you have ALSO given up a HUGE amount of your other “freedoms” in the process, the least of which is the freedom to feel absolutely safe and secure in your person and in your homes and places of work.

    For example, I can’t begin to tell what a wonderful feeling it is, while visiting with my family in Canada, to know that when I meet and greet another person walking down the street, that there is also a 99.9999 percent chance they AREN’T carrying a concealed weapon under their coat. That’s because there’s no need for them (or me) to do so in Canada.

    And even though Canada probably has the same per-capita share of “nut cases” as the United States does, it’s a wonderful feeling to know that, in Canada, the chances of such persons obtaining a lethal firearm to blow people away with are also slim to none.

    And while our friends to the north DO have their share of gun crimes, the rate of such crimes PALES in comparison to that same rate south of the border. What’s more, the vast majority of the weaponry used to commit those crimes was obtained (either legally or illegally) in the United States of America and smuggled across the US/Canadian border. That fact, too, is a sad, sad commentary about the rapidly deteriorating quality of life in the United States of America.

    I’ve always found it ironic that we in the USA keep saying that we are a peace-loving nation and that we want freedom and democracy for all. However, lately, more and more of that so-called “democracy” is being forced down the throats of others (and other nations) at the point of a gun.

    Sadly, we have now become a nation that forces others to embrace everything that it is not, while at the same time condemning everything that it is.

    • Carl Nemo  January 15, 2011 at 1:15 pm

      “Is what you describe REALLY what our founding fathers intended when they set up a country where its citizens were free to pursue “life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness?” …extract from post

      Of course not Keith, but that’s what this nation has degenerated to under many years of decay especially that with the onset of the 20th to now the beginning of the 21st century.

      One thing that adds to our problems is that the “melting pot”; ie., the U.S. has turned into a “crock pot” of fetid stew. Honest, legal immigration is now disrespected all for furthering the interests of globalists and their corporate bottomline and more voters legal or otherwise for the crimpols in D.C. We have over 300 million people milling about many who never embrace America or its dream, but are content to live in isolated communities for comfort levels and their own feeling of security.

      This country is headed for failure, then balkanization post collapse with any and all separating into their respective enclaves no different than the ethnic related crap in those regions they left prior to landing in this country, legally or otherwise.

      A paradigm such as this makes for a toxic stew. Politicians wax poetically how this is what makes our nation great. It did at one time, but now its backfiring in our faces. It’s my firm belief that immigration and work visas needs to be shut down indefinitely or at least a moratorium on such from all nations on earth. We’ve now reached a saturation point especially with the abject job situation that exists in this country with no respite in sight.

      I personnaly don’t tote a gun preferring pepper spray and my ever-handy folding tanto. I’ve made a point to learn how to use a knife in my life and have a few scars to prove so. Carrying a handgun also can make one feel overconfident and possibly cocky even to the point of being somewhat less alert to their surroundings. I also find it distasteful to run into characters who are toting in an open carry manner at public gatherings. To me it’s a form of psychological brandishing without them actually unholsterng their piece.

      It is a jungle out there and for those who fail to heed my words, there’s the possibility you just might pay the supreme price for not operating in my recommended “condition yellow” mode when in public situations. The first order of a confrontation is to avoid one at all costs even if you have to run to save your life to fight another day or better yet not. I’m not talking about warfare here, but simply survival as a civilian on the streets, anywhere planet earth.

      It’s sad that you are deluded into believing that if everyone gave up their guns that somehow we could go to sleep knowing we were secure in our persons and papers against an ever-usurping government who will be far more dangerous with the knowledge that the citizens are totally unarmed.

      You keep using Canada as an example. Canada has a population of nominally 30 million citizens in an landmass area slightly larger than the U.S. The Canadian government does not act in the same way towards its citizens nor is it engaged in waging engineered wars in far off places while stripping jobs away for their nation for the benefit of crooked globalists run amok. Comparing Canada’s violence issues with that of the U.S. is like comparing oranges to apples. As I’ve mentioned I have a brother in law who lives in Calgary. When we take trips up there it’s like going back 20-30 years in time to that of a kinder and gentler America.

      I’m not looking for my prognostications to come true regardless of how grim they may sound, but seemingly we’re headed that way. It’s time our national leadership changes course and demonstrates it too is interested in creating a “kinder and gentler” America by example rather than cheap butt rhetoric as engaged by our ‘dear leader’ and his brethren found in our Congressional ‘politburo’.

      *****

      “The government is the potent omnipresent teacher. For good or ill it teaches the whole people by its example. Crime is contagious. If the government becomes a lawbreaker, it breeds contempt for law; it invites every man to become a law unto himself; it invites anarchy. To declare that the end justifies the means — to declare that the government may commit crimes — would bring terrible retribution.” …Justice Louis D. Brandeis

      *****

      Carl Nemo **==

      • Keith  January 15, 2011 at 2:24 pm

        You wrote:

        “As I’ve mentioned I have a brother in law who lives in Calgary. When we take trips up there it’s like going back 20-30 years in time to that of a kinder and gentler America.”

        Which is precisely my point, Carl.

        And may I also say that your “melting pot” excuse for what’s going on in the USA doesn’t hold water either. Right now, there are more people of Chinese heritage than there are people of French heritage in Canada. If anything, Canada has now become MORE of a “melting pot” over the last little while and yet they seem to have still avoided all the class and racial warfare that have so plagued the USA over the years.

        And building more walls to keep people out is clearly not a long-term strategy for “security” either. Indeed, one must always remember that building walls always works two ways…while it may keep people out for a short time, they also have a nasty habit of keeping people IN. All of which relates DIRECTY back to my comment about the “fortress” mentality that seems to now pervade the thinking of many US citizens today.

        Could it be that, from the very beginning, Canada has had to deal with peoples of two very distinct nations in its midst…people of English heritage and people of French heritage…right from the very beginning of confederation? And while Canada has come close on occasion to having it all come apart at the seams (with the threat of Quebec seceding from confederation) cooler heads have always managed to prevail so as to avoid that eventuality.

        Now, don’t get me wrong, life in Canada has not always been a bed of roses for its citizenry. For example, their health care system, which supposedly purports “universal” coverage for its citizens, is anything but. For, while the care one receives under that system is usually excellent, GETTING it in a timely manner is something else again. And the personal and sales tax rates in Canada (upwards of 13% in most provinces) can only be described as “confiscatory”.

        On the other hand, besides NOT having to worry about locking themselves behind gated communities, barred windows, and with firearms always at the ready for “protection”, so far at least, Canada’s economy has managed to avoid all the horrific unemployment and fiscal crises that are now plaguing the USA. Maybe that’s because Canada’s banking system is so tightly regulated that they were never allowed to write mortgages that put people into homes they couldn’t afford. Nor were those banks allowed to use exotic “derivative” schemes for their investments, supposedly as a way to spread risk around. As a result, of the ten strongest banks in the world today, Canada is currently home to two of them…the Royal Band and the Toronto Dominion Bank.

        What’s more, Canada’s national debt is currently only a fraction of its neighbor to the south, which I understand went up by some $1 TRILLION in just the last 6 months of 2010. By contrast, up until very recently, the Government of Canada was actually operating with a SURPLUS of some $10-11 Billion annually. When was the last time THAT happened in the USA, Carl? Maybe that’s why the Canadian Dollar is now at par (and headed higher) with its increasingly worthless US counterpart.

        I had a good laugh the other day when I read a story about a Canadian woman whose German-manufactured “Kinder Egg Surprise” was confiscated at the US/Canadian border while she tried to enter the USA. It seems that the US EPA has now banned the import of these candies as they contain a toy that’s contained in a plastic container inside the chocolate outer coating. The EPA contends the contents of these eggs are potentially “lethal” to children and have therefore banned their import. It turns out that, to date, US border guards have since seized upwards of 25,000 of these “lethal” chocolate eggs at the US/Canadian border, mostly from unsuspecting Canadians (and US visitors) to Canada.

        I cannot help but compare and contrast this absolute, utter NONSENSE with what happened to that 9-year-old girl in Tucson last weekend. That is, how can our US Government be so concerned about what’s contained in a stupid chocolate egg so as to order its seizure at border crossings all the while still allowing all manner of “lethal” firearms…. weapons that are DESIGNED to kill people and that have ALREADY killed THOUSANDS of young children over the years…to legally remain in private hands in the USA.

        • Carl Nemo  January 15, 2011 at 7:28 pm

          In most instances Keith you are preaching to the ‘choir’ ; ie, me.

          You mentioned so many people of Chinese heritage reside in Canada. Canada has had a immigration policy in place for a number of years where anyone wishing to immigrate could do so with minimal questions asked if they brought at least one million Canadian dollars into the country. They may have increased the amount, but when Hong Kong was repatriated by the PRC in July of 1997 many wealthy Chinese fled to Canada with Vancouver, B.C. being their Canadian provincial residence of choice. They were so loaded financially that they went into what was once upscale Vancouver neighborhoods, bought homes and had them demolished so they could build mansions to suit their tastes. So in essence Canada took in the creme de la creme of Chinese people from Asia. It’s not a case of millions of Mexican nationals illegally immigrating to Canada utilizing the facilities gratis; ie, hospitals, public assistance and even packing the jails. I believe Australia and New Zealand have the same policy except NZ increased the amount for instant citizenship. In fact, Canadian illegals discovered in the U.S. are the only one’s we don’t deport, a recent Bill Maher joke. : ))

          The last time the U.S. had a budget surplus was in 1956-57 under Eisenhower, about 1.6-2.23 billion per annum respectively. The Clinton era surpluses were predicated on cooking the books; i.e., borrowing money from other federal programs to give the illusion of one; ie., surpluses as phony as Bill and Hillary themselves. Check it out on the web.

          You seem to miss the point that population density has a lot to do with how civilized a nation might be. 36 million citizens as opposed 312 million in the U.S. is quite a difference along with far more big cities in the U.S. that are suffering from core rot and neglect of many years. Roads, bridges, sewers and the electrical grid are in a state of grave disrepair in the U.S. We’ve had our day in the sun and seemingly soon to sing our swan song til the twilights last gleaming. : |

          Thanks for sharing your views and thoughts on this subject. : )

          Carl Nemo **==

  24. Almandine  January 15, 2011 at 12:00 pm

    A lot of good points, Keith, but I wonder regarding the founders. Did they not have to personally fight their way out from under their govt? Were they not aware that personally owned firearms were their only ticket to being citizens instead of subjects (literally)? Did they not foresee the probable need for such in the future, if individual people wanted to maintain their liberty?

    What is interesting and instructive about all that , vis-a-vis our current state-of-the-union is the quality of our govt and judicial system. The tenets that the founders proclaimed… individual liberty and the responsibilities that go with it are historical anachronisms today. The right to personal property is no longer guaranteed de facto, but subject to redistribution through govt leviathan, and personal property crimes have almost been given a free pass in court, whether the crime is committed by your “poor neighbor, who has had such a rough go of life” or by the elite bankers. In fact, we are now in the budding throes of another “bailout” of the bankers, by which you and I will get to pay – through our taxes – for more graft and corruption in the name of “saving” us from financial armageddon.

    What is sad is the fact that we have come this far down the road to serfdom, shooting at each other instead of demanding that our country is being governed as it should be… of, by, and for us. Yes, we have devolved into a sordid mess, and it won’t get much better until we reclaim our rightful heritage. BUT, what does keep us from having a total breakdown of civil society is that we do, in fact, keep our guns. Once they’re gone, totalitarianism will indeed set in.

  25. bmclellan  January 15, 2011 at 1:09 pm

    Woe to those that look to such future leaders who mirror the Clinton’s, Bush’s, or Cheney’s, Rice’s and Rumsfeld’s for their personal safety. Their fortresses are behind an impregnable economic wall and their bent is to build it ever higher and more difficult to breach.

    The only power we the people will possess when the final Jenga piece is removed from our crumbling infrastructure will be that of a well armed populace with the will to sacrifice individually for the protection of the greater good of our nation..Hack..

  26. jim001  January 15, 2011 at 1:41 pm

    I have read the Second Ammendment as well as
    the writings of Madison, Monroe, Adams, Jefferson, Franklin and other Framers. They are all very clear about the intent of the “right to bear arms”.
    In the Heller vs D.C. case the MAJORITY of the Supreme Court justices clarified that intent as an individual right to defend one’s self. The majority understands the true meaning of the Second Ammendment and the Framer’s intent.
    The Bill of Rights addresses individual rights, it is folly to believe that the Framers would stick an ammendment that is not an individual right into it.
    I agree with Mr. Nemo’s comments.
    Liberalism is a disease. Political correctness, destruction of the criminal justice system and all the idiotic ideas that liberalism has injected into America has poisioned our country. The Right to keep and bear arms is possibly MORE relevant today than it was 200+ years ago. Why else would my government be afraid of law abiding citizens having a means of self defense? Why else would my government allow criminals to remain at loose and even want to allow them the right to vote? Ad infinitum….

  27. eve  January 15, 2011 at 2:03 pm

    Are you going to believe your lying eyes?

    See and hear a first-hand account:
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fRG2q2sknR4

    Those legislators who wish to disarm American citizens should be voted from power and sent back into the general populace.

    If individuals do not wish to live in a country which allows it’s citizens to possess firearms for self defense, Canada, Britain, Australia, even China may be more to their liking.

    If you’re scared (of “criminals” because honest, law-abiding licensed citizens do not murder people) you have to option to seek a life of “safety” elsewhere.

    Lastly, those who believe banning enhanced capacity will be effective:
    (forward to 2:20)

  28. b mcclellan  January 15, 2011 at 5:38 pm

    Pop said, choose your plow carefully,
    after you’ve looked at the field..
    Llamraf.

    • logtroll  January 15, 2011 at 9:04 pm

      Always wondered what those folks were saying as I drove by on my “H”, in reverse.

      • b mcclellan  January 15, 2011 at 11:22 pm

        Oliver 60 wonders too.13 gears…..
        Shovel the grain to be ground into the wagon, drive o’er rolling hills,
        chuck it in the feeder..

  29. Fivebyfives  January 15, 2011 at 7:11 pm

    I lived in a place for years that had (and has) some of the strictest gun control laws in the world. It’s surrounded by water…deep and cold water. One cannot even get a license for a shotgun without a world of red tape, rifles (confined to .22 caliber and ONLY as a member of a “gun club.” Pistols? Absolutely forbidden. I remember one guy was caught with a box of 9mm ammo…no firearm, just the ammo. 12 years in prison. Quite strict.

    And yet, I wondered then and wonder now that despite all the laws that pertain to law-abiding citizens (since it’s assumed all people obey the law) there was such a huge supply of M16′s, M60 machine guns, mortars, rocket launchers, semtex…whatever is needed to provoke terror in a community. The conclusion I reached (and will always hold to) is that prohibition is effective only with those who are interested in obeying the law.

    Maybe it’s my age, but I also contend that as horrible as events in Tucson are, there is not any moral difference between someone like this lunatic cutting loose with a barrage of bullets and someone in congress raising their hand to vote for a resolution to send young folks to get blown away. The greatest culture of violence can be found under the capitol dome and at the White House. Their hands are all clean of course.

    As much as I admire Canada, I do not live there and choose not to. What I do say however is that common sense should creep in here somewhere. There must be a sensible middle ground in which total prohibition of firearms and the anything goes of firearms is found. For one thing (and I have a conceal carry permit) this high capacity magazine thing is crazy. I don’t have a problem removing them from the market any more than I do fully automatic weapons, machine guns, cannons, etc.

    • Carl Nemo  January 15, 2011 at 11:24 pm

      Sounds Fivebyfives that you once lived in Australia although maybe not so now. Good, salt of the earth people I must say and one of my favorites during my time in the USN.

      You mention your admiration of Canada, but don’t care to live there. Possibly you are citizen of the Commonwealth then again maybe not.

      Regardless I always both value and enjoy your comments to this site, many of which seems that you think beyond the “black stump”… : D

      Carl Nemo **==

      • Fivebyfives  January 15, 2011 at 11:32 pm

        Carl…thank you for the kind words. Sorry to have been oblique, but I lived in Ireland. My admiration of Canada comes from a lot of experiences with Canadians. I’ve always liked and enjoyed what I’ve experienced that way. I don’t care to live there because N. Carolina is cold enough!

        One thing I feel very strongly about is the flippant view of violence, in particular the taking of human life that pervades so much…in particular a certain form of the music industry. Many films, too, and don’t get me started on video “games.”

        The debate ongoing about gun control reminds me of George Carlin’s once being asked by a friend if he thought we had a dope problem in America. Yeah, he said, we have too many dopes. This applies to lunatics..some clinically so, and many conditioned to a state of dehumanization. Taking a human life, no matter the circumstances, is something to smile about. And there sure as hell ain’t no glory in it.

        • b mcclellan  January 15, 2011 at 11:45 pm

          While us dupes continue in our superiority, the dopes have free reign.Hck.

        • Fivebyfives  January 16, 2011 at 12:22 am

          Sorry, meant to say taking a human life is NOTHING to smile about.

  30. b mcclellan  January 15, 2011 at 11:31 pm

    Please elaborate on, black Stump o’er .

    • Almandine  January 15, 2011 at 11:59 pm

      Should you look beyond the stump…
      use an AK for resolution, er… V.

    • Carl Nemo  January 16, 2011 at 12:27 am

      What’s interesting about this expression is that logtroll made reference to it a bit back and brought back memories of many years ago when myself and an Aussie were having a discussion and the expression was thrown out. He explained it to me and I think I got his drift.

      Seemingly black, burned stumps were used in Australia as boundry markers as well as surveyor ‘stakes’. Over time this expression meant to express the thought of being ‘out there’ at the perimeter to beyond so to speak.

      In fact I was stunned when logtroll pitched the term out with Almandine responding.

      Carl Nemo **==

      • logtroll  January 16, 2011 at 12:22 pm

        Yeah, man! That was my super-secret Stun Gun. I ain’t lettin’ nobody take my guns.

  31. Keith  January 16, 2011 at 10:03 pm

    Carl Nemo wrote in response to my latest post:

    “You seem to miss the point that population density has a lot to do with how civilized a nation might be. 36 million citizens as opposed 312 million in the U.S. is quite a difference along with far more big cities in the U.S. that are suffering from core rot and neglect of many years.”

    That point has NOT been missed, Carl.

    Perhaps a comparison of the RATE of crime in some of Canada’s “big cities” versus the USA might be more instructive.

    That is, while Canada’s largest city (Toronto)…a major North American city of some 2.5 Million people…certainly has a problem with crime, the RATE of that crime in Canada’s largest city is significantly LOWER than many other North American cities of similar size.

    In 2007 for example, the homicide RATE for the city of Toronto was 3.3 per 100,000 people. Now, that’s still a lot of homicides! However, that rate PALES in comparison to other US cities like Detroit (33.8), Atlanta (19.7), Chicago (15.5), San Francisco (13.6), Boston (10.3) and New York City (6.3). What’s more, Toronto’ homicide rate is only marginally higher when compared to other major Canadian cities like Vancouver (3.1) and Montreal (2.6).

    Toronto’s robbery rate also ranks low, with 207.1 robberies per 100,000 people, compared to Detroit (675.1), Chicago (588.6), Los Angeles (348.5), Vancouver (266.2), New York City (265.9), Montreal (235.3) and San Diego (158.8).

    The comparatively low crime rate in Toronto has resulted in that city having a reputation as one of the safer cities in North America. Recent data from Statistics Canada also shows that crime has been falling steadily in Toronto’s census metropolitan area since 1998, a total drop of 33% for all crimes reported between the period 1998–2008.

    Now, all of this begs the obvious question: WHY? What’s so different about the crime rate (and particularly the homicide rate) in a large Canadian city like Toronto, as compared with other, equally large American cities like Detroit, or Atlanta, or Chicago?

    I still contend a LOT of that difference has to do with the fact that the ownership of guns (particularly handguns) is highly restricted in Canada.

    And Canada isn’t the only place that enjoys a low crime rate because guns are outlawed. Singapore is well known for strict restriction on gun ownership. Gun ownership is restricted for sports shooting and owners are required to have their guns secured at the armory of a registered club.

    And, as Singapore (like Canada) has strict firearm and customs control, hardly any crime is committed with guns. Indeed, Singapore’s overall crime rate is one of the lowest in the world. In fact, their Regional Security Officer (RSO) recorded that the total cases of criminal homicide in the country at the end of 2007 was approximately…are you ready for this…EIGHT! NOT eight hundred or eight thousand, Carl…EIGHT!

    And THIS in a country of nearly 5 MILLION people!

    So, please don’t continue trying to make the case that population density is somehow directly responsible for a high crime rate and that we, as private citizens, are all “safer” when we are are allowed to be armed to the teeth.

    The crime rate statistics from elsewhere in the world seem to tell an entirely different story.

    • Carl Nemo  January 17, 2011 at 3:29 am

      For citizens to be unarmed, safe and free is great as long as they have a responsive somewhat benign government, as in the case of Canada. It seems that unarmed and ‘safe’ is not an option when we have a government that seems to be troweling in the bricks of a New World Order prison courtesy of the Patriot Act, Homeland Security, TSA etc. for which Canada does not suffer although they try to cooperate with our national insanity at border situaitons. : ))

      Population density vs. crimes ports down to even the cities so regardless of the camparative statistics Canadian cities would be inherently more safe than one in the U.S. no matter what.

      We’ve become ignorant, self-destructive dangerous gun totin’ animals down under eh…? : ))

      Thanks for the great exchange on this issue. Just be glad you either live in Canada or move regularly between nations. Canada is better…! : )

      There’s nothing quite like protracted, extremely cold weather to keep riff raff out of one’s country.

      Carl Nemo **==

    • Almandine  January 17, 2011 at 10:53 am

      So guns are the driver for the overall crime RATE? Hmmmm……….

      In fact, Singapore – which you cite as opposing evidence to a population- density-as-partly-responsible argument – has the strictest laws of almost anywhere, and one can go to jail for almost anything there. Literally. Those folks can hardly breathe without running afoul of the state.

      Your agenda here is laudable, but obvious, and as with many other arguments that cherry-pick stats in support, the universe of variables that contributes to human violence [with guns] has hardly been scratched, much less defined or measured. We do, indeed, need to eliminate the urge and the follow-through of violence among the citizens of our society, but there are many more important variables that need to be understood and manipulated than mere gun availability.

      Why, for example, has the homicide rate across this decade fallen significantly (close to half), relative to the period from 1970 through the mid 1990′s?

      Why are weapons other than guns used for about 1/3 of all murders?

      Why are the less affluent among us committing violent gun crimes at a rate far above the rest, if gun availability is the big driver? Those with money can obviously buy more guns.

      Why does gun violence seem to have a racial component?

      I think you said above that you own guns… why haven’t they forced you into homicidal madness?

  32. eve  January 17, 2011 at 5:30 pm

    but there are many more important variables that need to be understood and manipulated than mere gun availability.

    Why does gun violence seem to have a racial component?
    -Almandine

    Indeed. A very important variable when observing Canada and Singapore.

Comments are closed.