Subscribe to Common Dreams News Updates
Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
Crooked Timber
America's suicide bombers don't use bombs and don't seem to have a cause larger than their own angst, but they're as lethal as any misguided political fanatic and they beg a question as urgent as any the human race has faced.
Yet it's the same old - indeed, Paleolithic - question we've always faced. Are we the hunter or are we the prey? Or are we something else, some preposterous and divine mixture of the two, holy terrors, flawed creators who keep failing to get it right? As Immanuel Kant put it: "Out of the crooked timber of humanity no straight thing was ever made."
Even the glory that is the 21st century U.S. of A. is a construction of crooked timber, psychologically and spiritually speaking, at least, and a sad kid named Robert Hawkins, a "lost puppy" (so a friend's mother described him), gave the umpteenth demonstration of this fact at an Omaha shopping mall last week.
In case you missed the Mayhem Roundup on page 3, he murdered eight random people - Christmas shoppers and store employees - in a six-minute spree with a borrowed AK-47, the whole point of which was his own suicide. But as he had written in a note found shortly afterward, "I just want to take a few peices (sic) of s--- with me." This fragile and isolated kid, shattered by recent setbacks in his life, felt compelled to dehumanize a few strangers as he himself exited the human race, anticipating in doing so not the reward of virgins in the hereafter but media attention in the next news cycle, which might impress his friends: "Just think tho I'm gonna be f------- famous."
As luck or fate would have it, two shooting sprees a few days later in Colorado, at a Christian missionary center in Arvada and the parking lot of a mega-church in Colorado Springs, in which five people died, seemed to push the Omaha shooting out of the news. A few days after that, terrorist bombs killed 22 people in Algiers and, just this morning, as I write, 27 are dead from car bombs in Amara, Iraq. These headlines, and dozens of others, blur together. Most of us move on. The holiday season hits high gear.
Still, a prayer lingers. An unheeded "please, dear Lord" floats in the collective consciousness, belying our timid political agenda. Can't we do something about this?
Sure, says the gun lobby. Before the smoke cleared, the Gun Owners of America had sent me a press release that announced: "Gun Bans Are the Problem - Not the Solution." And it asked: "When will we learn that being defenseless is a bad defense? . . . If just a single person was packing, they could have stopped Robert Hawkins dead in his tracks."
Dear Lord, can I stop getting press releases like this if I promise to eschew simplistic solutions that emanate from the disarmament sector? Armed lingerie shoppers! And, I suppose, armed parishioners as well. I thump my chest; my heart starts beating again. This is nuts and most of us know it, but after every mass shooting the gun lobby ignores Immanuel Kant and trots out its fantasy scenario of a domestic war on terror, with decent folk packing sidearms and racking up clean kills in school hallways and department store checkout aisles and everywhere else that evil prowls these days.
In the house of crooked timber in which we actually live, bullets go astray, guns are stolen, panic trumps good judgment, the invisible threads of trust that hold things together vanish and a Hobbesian "war of all against all" becomes suddenly, eerily plausible.
Hawkins got his AK-47 out of a closet at the house of his former stepfather, who was on vacation. These semiautomatic rifles were once illegal under the Federal Assault Weapons Ban, which expired in 2004. They're not illegal in the Bush era because guns don't kill people (not even semiautomatics, which have no other purpose); only people kill people. Nevertheless, the killer's step-family now bears the horror of being unwittingly complicit in the deaths of eight people. "It's like a bad dream," the gun owner's brother told the Omaha World-Herald.
I say this not to pass self-righteous blame, or even to dismiss the gun lobby's cries of alarm about defenseless citizens. I hate that vulnerability as much as they do, but I think we need to talk ourselves down from a fever-pitch of fear before we cock more triggers. I also know how inextricably and complexly we are bound together, the law-abiding and the deranged, the prey and the predator, and suggest that any move we make should recognize rather than thumb its nose at this truth.
I remain committed to the vision of a disarming - if not disarmed - America, and grope for the deep healing without which peace is impossible. The so-called war on terror has devalued the lives of millions of Iraqis, Afghanis and perhaps Iranians, and is one obvious inspiration for armed loners like Hawkins, who imagine themselves going out like heroes. As a nation we role-model contempt on the mega-scale. Let us stop inventing enemies and dehumanizing them. Please, dear Lord . . .
Robert Koehler, an award-winning, Chicago-based journalist, is an editor at Tribune Media Services and nationally syndicated writer. You can respond to this column at bkoehler@tribune.com or visit his Web site at commonwonders.com.
© 2007 Tribune Media Services, Inc.



47 Comments so far
Show AllSo long as America leads the world in trafficking arms, great and small, guns will be glorified in all our "it's just fantasy" entertainment venues. From the "innocent" video "game" that shoots virtual targets to bits, to those flying over real nations with real living, breathing persons who are taught to drop bombs into "theaters of war" that do not bear human casualties, but only the neat, clean math of "collateral damage," so long as the gun is sexualized as a phallic extension that somehow beefs up the macho character of the latest Hollywood "hero," then we can fully expect the less balanced members of a society that itself is teetering on the edge of sanity to snap. And when they snap, given the prolific numbers of weapons abounding, they will take others along for the ride.
Ours is a brutal nation, and while I know the vast majority who post on CD are genuinely caring, intelligent and thoughtful people, I do not think that necessarily translates as a generic truth about the character of our land. Before LUCKY LEFTY reminds us of the blood shed in the last few centuries to secure this land for capitalist's glory, and before we remember that Eisenhower recognized the growing and deadly influence of the military-industrial complex, this land had karma to cope with.
The human brain is constantly recording what its senses reflect, and we are IMMERSED in violent imagery 24/7. While persons of relative balance can ward off the monsters of these dark voices, the disgusting pulse of so much misogyny in rap, the "might makes right" glory of sports, the combined energy of these exploits and their feast upon raw power lends unconscious complicity to deeds that champion force first.
"When will we learn that being defenseless is a bad defense? . . . If just a single person was packing, they could have stopped Robert Hawkins dead in his tracks."
What a great idea! Joe Budweiser shooting at another shooter in a crowded mall, and yet another Joe shooting at the first Joe, because who knows who started the the whole shoot-out, then more and more Joes shooting at each other and anybody who looks wrong.
Chain reaction!
Armageddon in the mall, brought to you by the proud gun owners of America!
I'm staying home and shopping over the Web! Malls are scaring me!
I think we could put a lid on this whole thing in the following way: People of high moral character, and who "pack", should go to their nearest mall, church, or school, and pre-emptively shoot anyone who they suspect may be thinking of attacking ordinary citizens with WMD (Weapons of Minor Destruction).
Why does this happen frequently in regressive countries and seldom in progressive ones?
"Chain reaction!
Armageddon in the mall, brought to you by the proud gun owners of America!"
[And how-many plain-clothes Officers would then dare to draw their weapon in Public, regardless 'good-reason'?]
My first-impression after reading was also the 'million mouse-traps loaded with ping-pong balls' sort of "proud gun-owners" chain-reaction in a Mall...
to which I will probably and someday react-myself by saying "...and Good-riddance".
Our family is not giving mall bought gifts for Christmas. We also do not watch the news on TV. We just don't consume that stuff. There are better local alternatives for gifts including personally made gifts. The net is easily the best way to consume news. I will not vote this year either. I'm done with that for now.
Here is the problem for me.
Maybe if people treated each other humanely…. kids like this wouldn't feel like the only thing they can do that impacts the world is to shoot it up.
Everything that led up to this is part of the problem.
And if we can't or won't recognize that, then we deserve to have it brought to our attention.
The event gets hijacked by the gun debate. And that debate has a life of its own. And every ones knees start jerking and responding with the classic responses on both sides. All in all its very static debate and that's the point. Just like abortion.
All the invisible violence that make canvas of American life is bound to bubble up, where were the military recruiters? Isn't it their job to funnel kid like this into the military?
If our children were assured a place in this society that they didn't have to worry about their future, maybe we could have guns without mass murder.
Do you think that in our tribal days, (most of human experience) we had some tribe members doing extra work, while others were told there was no place for them and they were worthless for not having a place? That is what happens today. Only some kids can go to college and get good jobs, and some go to college and then are unemployed and some never have a chance to go to college and are told they are worthless.
And that is why so many are seduced into picking up guns and killing people. Most of them do it in a society-approved way and join the military.
We're lucky that so few kill locally.
After the shootings at the mall in Omaha, the Missionary Center and the mega church in Colorado I had this terribly unpatriotic thought: Those shooters are alot like islamic suicide bombers, only not as effective. Obviously guns, even AK-47s are not as effective as explosives. American terrorists need to get with it. I also wonder why and how many churches have armed security guards. The shooter at the church was supposedly killed by an armed security who was a personal body guard of the pastor. I'm glad my pastor preaches peace and doesn't attract crowds or nuts.
[Gonna get flamed for this...]
National Gun Locker Program anyone?
An armed society is a polite society.
Jeanne Assam was an armed Citizen that stopped a massacre in progress in Colorado Springs, CO on 12/10/07. She shot the shooter before he could kill more than he already had.
http://www.thedenverchannel.com/news/14817480/detail.html#
When will you Brady Kids figure out that bad people will do bad things with whatever they could get their hands on? Are we going to ban butcher knives? Saying that the SKS that kid was carrying was responsible for the deaths of those folks is like saying that we should ban spoons because fat people use them to eat ice cream.
This mall was a victim disarmament zone - it was posted that you cannot carry a concealed firearm inside. Had that not been the case there was at least the possibility that someone carrying a concealed firearm (like I do) would have put this kid down before he killed other hapless shoppers.
Aren't you anti-gun folks tired of having someone else do things for you? How about you man up and take charge of your lives? Of your security? Of that of your families?
WAKE UP AMERICA. http://www.jpfo.org
Jeanne Assam - http://www.thedenverchannel.com/news/14817480/detail.html#
No one will be secure as long as we worship violence. I do not want you to "protect" me or my family with your guns. I have chosen not to be a gun owner. That too is my right. If someone else shoots me because I am unarmed, I guess that I have to accept that. I don't feel safer knowing that you have a concealed weapon. What if you snap or what if you miss your target? Violence will not stop violence. The question we should all ask is what are we doing to our sons that they do violent acts? What can we do to promote peace?
The gun nuts in this country are living in the wrong century. They would have fit right in 200 years ago when everyone had a six shooter on his or her hip ready to shoot first and ask questions later. Talk about a regressive notion, that is the scenario that bunch want to force the country into. It is not "manly" to have to have a secret cannon under your shirt, it is manly to make an effort to find out the causes of all this violence, and try to end this bloody mess we are seeing. We used to watch western movies where lots of folks got "shot" but we knew it was just entertainment and did not think of acting it out for real. Some of the grisly, killing videos that young people are now watching are nothing but an education for killing on a grand scale and they are affected severely by the graphic images. We are reaping what we sow.
@ezeflyer December 13th, 2007 2:08 pm
And just WHO are you calling regressive?
LOL you folks are pathetic, classic co-dependent lily livered, statist, sheep. You'd never know that I have a full size USGI 1911a1 .45 ACP in my waistband - that's the "concealed" part.
Statistically, you're more likely to snap and toss your latte at the person next to you because of all the seratonin re uptake inhibitors you folks live on to help you justify your existence. Let's ban all lattes! Do it for the children!
And to those who think that the Old West was like the shootout at the OK Corral, how about you read some real history books? If you did you'd know that shootings were actually much less that you'd be made to believe. The eastern papers and magazines sensationalized everything about to west to keep folks buying their yellow sheets - sound familiar? Or would that take you away from reading Stalin or Mao's treatises on how to emasculate a population?
I'm a decorated veteran, I've given my pound of flesh so that you can have your opinions and that I will not begrudge you. But remember this: YOU CANNOT HAVE THE 1ST AMENDMENT WITHOUT THE 2ND AMENDMENT. The 2nd Amendment is what all the others Amendment flow from - it gives them teeth. And the 2nd Amendment isn't about hunting.
If you look like food you're gunna get eaten.
I'd hope the the hoplophobes among you who read this pick up a good history on the Warsaw Ghetto and read it. Think it can't happen here? It's happening here, all around you.
Wake up America.
Jews for the Preservation of Gun Ownership:
http://jpfo.org
"This mall was a victim disarmament zone"
By that logic, the whole of oz is a victim disarmament zone, but I don't feel scared. I don't even think of myself as a victim, or a target.
But I can understand why you want your own country to continue to be a war zone. If you right-wing types weren't pumped up with fear and hate, you'd just deflate and blow away.
You can be as disarmed as you'd like sir. Just keep your views Down Under - this matter does not pertain to you as you are not a Citizen of the United States.
Thanks for playing!
There is nothing wrong with owning a few guns, I own three of them but have not yet shot another person and hope that will never happen. It is the glorification of guns that is the problem, as if they are the only solution to all of our problems that is troubling. They have become yet another thing to divide our nation, along with so many others, such as war and defense, abortion, gays, taxation, social programs, privacy, (also in the constitution), immigration, etc. They cannot be compared to knives and ball bats, as guns can kill from such a great distance. Also, the ridiculous idea that the 2nd amendment guarantees the right to carry assult weapons that could kill an elephant or a crowd of people should be put to rest. If the gun lovers would use a little restraint and common sense, most people might agree somewhat with them.
mankypro your rant is about the most foolish I have read in a long time. Professional help is available and de-programming is advised.
You do not sound as if you know the history of your own country, or much about the character or motivations of the early immigrants who made those laws. Not that I hope to educate you on any of this, as you have obviously reached the age of majority with out the sensibilities of a rational man.
I imagine you are a devout Christian as well, right?
Yea, lets try a 'disarmed' America.
We'll just ban guns like we did cocaine and weed and meth. That's working real good, right?
Read the post by mankypro. He knows what he's talking about, sheeple.
The 2nd Amendment is not about Hunting!
It's about saving our country from an overzealous, Orwellian government.
The Founding Fathers knew this, that's what it's there for, not duck hunting or skeet shooting.
Besides, do you really think the criminals will obey a ban on guns? Ha!
They don't care about murdering, raping or robbing, so you think a gun ban will 'set them straight'?
You ever heard of the black market? Did prohibition eliminate booze back in the 20's?
Ah, sheeple, my poor sheeple.
HolyRoller__This is sheeple wondering why if the assault weapons and other guns are primarily for protection from our own government, why does this present overzealous , Orwellian administration support the NRA? It seems that they would try to limit the ownership and use of firearms so they could more easily take us over. There is an old saying,"If you live by the sword, you will die by the sword". I think guns could be substituted for swords in that passage. But what do I know, I am just a sheeple who prefers guns be used for target practice and hunting, instead of this insane killing fever that has taken hold in this country. Of course, any of us would use our guns to protect our families, but it should stop there, unless we want to develope more graveyards. It may not be workable to have our police be outgunned by whoever gets their hands on the biggest, fastest weapons available.
Crooked timber, Interesting metaphor - no?
"This is sheeple wondering why if the assault weapons and other guns are primarily for protection from our own government, why does this present overzealous , Orwellian administration support the NRA?"
Because the NRA was founded as a gun control organization from the beginning. The NRA does not protect the rights of gun owners, they're there as Judas Goats that serve the establishment and keep the unibrow, inbred "I got me a shotguwn" types under control. My God folks just really have fallen for all the hype form both sides hook, line and sinker. The NRA is not against gun control, they've signed onto and helped write most of the significant gun legislation ever enacted in this country.
The Left vs. Right paradigm is a total con!
The left and right are controlled by the same powers. They've created the left vs. right paradigm to con us, and split us into different camps, so we can clash and bicker while they steal, lie and connive. It is used to divide and conquer us and it's working very well. Time to wake up kids.
The left/right constructs are meant to give us the illusion of choice. The Republicans and Democrats answer to the same masters: The Council on Foreign Relations, The Security and Prosperity Partnership and The Bilderberg Group. Don't believe me? How about you do some searching on your own. Or would the truth upset your little zen world too much?
This is why no matter who we ''elect'' into office, the same things happen.
Do yourself a favor and do some research on your own - figure it out. Or would that be too hard to do? Like the pap that the mainstream media feeds you too much? How about you engage in a bit of critical thinking and original thought.
Wake up America! You've been done had.
If guns are banned the people currently killing random civilians will continue to do so, and will likely graduate to explosives.
Again, I'm a pretty liberal guy, but I don't think disarmament of the populous is the answer. I especially hold this view as I do not trust an armed sub-culture (police and 'security' professionals) when I have no right to be armed myself.
The sub-culture I spoke of being what it is, I think citizen disarmament should be quite far down on the list of priorities, after and contingent upon a complete restructuring of the security apparatus (read: getting rid of the aggressive faux-cowboys) and securing stronger and more specific laws regulating the security apparatus' behavior. If you take away citizen's guns before securing those footholds I fully believe we WILL be led quickly and quietly into a submissive state.
Yep, guns are quite efficient enablers of atrocious behavior. So are telephones, should we monitor them more carefully? What about the internet, a finely skilled user could cause far more damage than any single person with an assault rifle, if someone REALLY tried to. (I'm quite serious, people are breaking secure and NECESSARY (to our modern way of life) systems all the time, they just happen to do it for profit instead of damage) Should we monitor IT more closely? Given the threat an outright BAN might be in order... I shouldn't have to point out liberty/security balance issues here, amongst you genuinely intelligent people, but I guess I do.
Am I missing something? Point it out to me if you can, but whatever you come up with, any disarmament proposal or rationalization you make HAS to deal with the security sub-culture I talked about earlier, or I just can't buy it. I absolutely refuse to trust the police to be the sole armed group until there is a real and effective solution to the 'Neanderthal with a badge' problem.
"They're not illegal in the Bush era because guns don't kill people (not even semiautomatics, which have no other purpose); only people kill people."
Wow, this statement proves that you don't know the first thing about firearms. Please educate yourself before you open your commie mouth to spew lies about this topic again.
neomunk:
Combatting the "Neanderthal with a badge" problem by complicating it up to a "Neanderthal with a pulse" nightmare, where every yahoo who wants to be is armed in a chaotic, itchy-trigger society, is terrificly counterproductive, and I might add, dumb.
You also seem to argue: even seemingly innocuous technology like IT might be used for serious harm, but it doesn't make sense to ban every potentially dangerous thing because some of it is very useful or popular or difficult to ban, ergo we shouldn't ban guns , because they can all fall broadly in the same liberty/security balance domain. Want to fuck with gun ownership? Better fuck with a lot of other things too, things that you don't want to, you sure seem to be saying.
I shouldn't have to point out an irony here - if it weren't for our society's love of weapons and militarization, there wouldn't be vulnerable computer systems controlling that kind of danger.
This lumping-together of actually dissimilar concerns is an error. Some computers are used to control the economy, but an economic hit isn't like the hit of a gunman's bullet, immediately life-threatening, and economic damage can be diffused. Computers are used to control the infrastructure, and appropriate safeguards should be put in place on these systems!
An argument for computer system vigilantism, analogous to your proliferation argument for guns, doesn't work in that domain either. If any computer user who wanted to had the ability to nullify, through his own sufficiently armed computer, the possibly dangerous misuse of any another computer on the network, the result would be increased danger and instability of the entire interconnected system.
Taking your arguments the other direction, we can't justify not having the right to privately possess WMD, because after all an armed subculture - the military and the government leaders, very likely some of them Neanderthals - would have an advantage over us. In your world view, we generally can't trust ourselves to sanely endow groups of people with certain specialized powers in our government and society - and the truth is that you are probably right. But you are dead wrong in your proliferation solution to the problem.
Robert Hawkins was symbolic of many things that are wrong with our culture, not just easy access to firearms. If we believe that actions such as his are on the rise (and it appears that they are), we must ask ourselves "Why now?" Access to guns has not increased in my lifetime. The opposite is true. When I was much younger, a person could walk into almost any local hardware store with the cash and buy a gun, no questions asked. Hell, Sears even sold them mail order. I grew up in the rural South. There were loaded guns throughout my house - shotguns and rifles for hunting, handguns for "protection." And guess what? There were "losers" in high school, those poor outcasts not part of the social circle so important to young people. Some of us even had our hearts brokens by girlfriends; some of us were picked on by the bullies. Most of us could have gone to school or the mall (well, maybe not the mall, but main street) armed to the teeth and taken out a lot of people. We didn't then; why do they do it now? It ain't guns, folks. Wish it were...it would be much easier to fix.
We as a culture are sick in our soul, not because humans are necessarily degenerate (though some obviously are, and not primarily the Robert Hawkins of the world.) We are sick because we allow the most degenerate among us to "lead" us - into meaningless war, into greed, into empty consumption we call the good life, into isolated cells of fear - all for the material profit of the truly greedy, immoral, evil ones among us.
I am a gun owner. I have never had the need to defend myself with one and hope never to have to. Do I feel safer because I own guns? No. I feel safer because I refuse to let fear control me. And I struggle mightily not to let greed, consumption, entertainment, religion, or politics control me. As long as we react to mall, church, school, etc. shootings with essentially meaningless arguments over guns, we are not addressing what's really wrong - we do not "love our neighbors as ourselves."
"i am constantly awaiting a rebirth of wonder..."
What is a Terrorist:
The Neo-Conservatives want to define them as Muslims or Illegal Aliens....
A Terrorist is a person who commits a heinous crime against a random number of people out of anger, hate, or revenge usually ending with the terrorist committing suicide or being killed by the police.
For decades the American People have suffered "Terrorist Attacks". Those attacks were always committed by young men who were either lost, angry, or wanted revenge. The men didn´t use bombs, they used weapons, except in Oklahoma and a few other cases.
Every year 48,000 to 100,000 people die from mistakes made in hospitals. (2000 American Medical Institute Study) That means that since 2001, anywhere from 288,000 to 600,000 people have died from those mistakes in hospitals.
Every year 18,000 to 20,000 people are murdered in the United States. That means that anywhere from 108,000 to 120,000 have been murdered since 2001.
Yet, the Neo-Conservative/Conservative Government of the United States has the American People terrified that there will be a terrorist attack from the Islamic Militants and are willing to spend trillions of dollars fighting an enemy that was created by the very same people. "Operation Cyclone" was a joint CIA/ISI of Pakistan operation to recruit 100,000 Islamic Militants and that operation continued well into the 90´s with Saudi and American financing, training, and arming.
Anyone with a brain knows that the demolition of World Trade Center #7 was a planned demolition not the results of a terrorist attack. Therefore, that puts into question the rest of the events of September 11,2001.
"The Political Elite" had it their way with the assassination of John F Kennedy, they could then escalate the Viet Nam Conflict into a full fledged War. They have had it their way with the Invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq.
Personally, I would be more afraid of being admitted to a hospital or walking the streets of any American City after 2:00 AM.
All these events of random murder started within our lifetime. When I was a kid, they just didn't happen. When I was a kid, there were no automatic weapons available to civilians. The only thing we could get were 22's and hunting rifles and shotguns. Pistols were available, but you really had to show that you needed it. It shouldn't take more than a couple synapses to see the connection between the lack of random murders and the lack of weapons to murder with.
dkm: "It shouldn't take more than a couple synapses to see the connection between the lack of random murders and the lack of weapons to murder with."
I just can't agree with this.
Throughout my childhood, I had available in my home the following:
Browning semi-automatic rifle (30.06
caliber, 5 shot magazine)
Winchester Model 94 rifle(30/30 caliber
lever action, seven shot capacity)
Remington 1100 shotgun (12 gauge, 5
shell magazine)
two or more .22 caliber rifles (semi-
automatic, bolt action, multiple shot
capacity)
at least three single or double-
barrelled shotguns, vrious gauges
Walther P38 semi-auto pistol (9 mm; nine
shot clip)
Smith and Wesson .357 magnum revolver
Mauser 8 mm. German army rifle (bolt
action, multiple round capacity)
Beretta 32 caliber semi-auto pistol
And my family was not wealthy. This was not atypical for homes in the rural South. What was atypical (unheard of, really) was for someone, no matter the circumstances of his life, to take this armory into a public place and begin shooting strangers.
Again, why now?
The Clinton adminitstation banned assault weapons and the rate of violent crime dropped. The Bush administartion allowed it to lapse and the rate of violent crime has skyrocketed. When am I going to read an article that puts two and two together?
"When will we learn that being defenseless is a bad defense? . . . If just a single person was packing, they could have stopped Robert Hawkins dead in his tracks."
This is the mentality of the gun nut culture. A gun fight at the OK Corral in a mall. Wouldn't that just be intelligent? These people are not using any common sense in such a statement. The likely hood you get it out of it's hiding place and get the safety off to fire it isn't likely. No intelligent person would carry a gun to a mall with the safety off. It might accidentally go off. What about all the innocent bystanders who might get hit with a bullet and sue you? The average handgun is added weight a woman doesn't need. Not to mention all the road rage victims who have been killed by a handgun in someone's car when there was a confrontation. In the 60's when my husband and I traveled all over the country. I sometimes got lost from him and had to wait along a busy freeway I carried one in my purse...a small 25 auto. But, to be honest with you in this day and age it is a terrible idea! The likelihood I would have ever had the nerve to shoot someone with it is about 0. The likelihood someone would take it away from you and shoot you with it is extremely high. I don't know why the gun nut advocates keep persisting on spreading falsehoods to further their agenda. People like me who used to be for guns have started taking a second look at the need for one on your person.
QUOTE:
"All these events of random murder started within our lifetime. When I was a kid, they just didn't happen. When I was a kid, there were no automatic weapons available to civilians. The only thing we could get were 22's and hunting rifles and shotguns. Pistols were available, but you really had to show that you needed it. It shouldn't take more than a couple synapses to see the connection between the lack of random murders and the lack of weapons to murder with."
---
Wow you must be **REALLY** **REALLY** old. That or a liar or ignorant. So if you were a kid before WW1 you're pushing 100 years of age - I salute you!
Semi-automatics were "available" to everyone, in fact they were often brought home after the wars. Lies will get you nowhere here. Try facts.
And the reason nothing like these shooting happened when you were a kid is because everyone was armed. My mother used to bring her bird gun to school in NEW YORK CITY in the 40's to go trap shooting in the park after school. She kept it in her school locker. This scene occurred across the country every day - and no one cared. The ills are with our society, not the tools we use.
Classic, moronic American thought processes - this is why our country is going to hell in a handbasket. Use your BRAIN PEOPLE. Critical thought. Some folks are waking up. You should too.
Here's an interview with Naomi Wolf a celebrated author - author of the 90's classic "The Beauty Myth" - she gets it, it may be too late, but she gets it. The US is in dire trouble. Even she recognizes the need for an armed, vigilant citizenry.
http://youtube.com/watch?v=i0LvtQAQ6sc
Jews For the Preservation of Gun Ownership:
http://www.jpfo.org
mankypro__ You evidently believe that the more guns we all have scattered around everywhere the safer we all are. If that is the case, then why should we not have hand grenades available for instant use in an emergency? After all, grenades do not kill people, people kill people. Same goes for tasers as no taser could kill by itself, so why doesn`t our country get with it and really make us safe? I notice the gun lovers are calling everyone stupid that wants just a little restraint used (not confiscation) but perhaps they should look in the mirror for a good look at stupid.
"Guns don't kill people. People kill people." And sharks kill people. And tornadoes. And N5H1 viruses kill people. And ever-shortening telemers kill people. Thoughtless asteroids kill people. Therefore, I would conclude it's in the nature of reality that people get killed. As usual, compassion, self-discipline, and awareness are our best tools to prevent premature killing when we can. Namaste and aloha.
QUOTE:
"mankypro__ You evidently believe that the more guns we all have scattered around everywhere the safer we all are. If that is the case, then why should we not have hand grenades available for instant use in an emergency? After all, grenades do not kill people, people kill people. Same goes for tasers as no taser could kill by itself, so why doesn`t our country get with it and really make us safe? I notice the gun lovers are calling everyone stupid that wants just a little restraint used (not confiscation) but perhaps they should look in the mirror for a good look at stupid."
----
Who called anyone stupid? I'd say you're well meaning, uninformed folks. Hand grenades kill indiscriminately - you tell me if that's a good idea. And you've put words in my mouth. I've not advocated leaving guns laying around - I've advocated for folks to be armed, trained and responsible Citizens. You sir are a civilian - and armed person is a Citizen. This confers different rights and responsibility - a responsibility you're not willing to take upon yourself.
Chew on that for a while.
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
Terrorist don't kill American people,
Our gov't does that quite well by itself
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
Terrorist_in_Chief
Dept, of $hrubery Hypocracy Iniquitous Thugery ($HIT)
Namaste … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … Mahatma Gandhi … … … … … … … … … …
« We must be the change we wish to see in the world »
« There is a sufficiency in the world for man's need but not for man's greed »
yohocoma: Alrighty, bit by bit...
"Combatting the "Neanderthal with a badge" problem by complicating it up to a "Neanderthal with a pulse" nightmare, where every yahoo who wants to be is armed in a chaotic, itchy-trigger society, is terrificly counterproductive, and I might add, dumb."
You start with NO response to my misgiving about civilian disarmament other than to call it (and me I assume) 'dumb'. Well, I find your argument to be lame (as in crippled) due to it's complete lack of any real information, and I'd like to point out that the superiority of your position is not as self-evident as you mistakenly believe.
"You also seem to argue: even seemingly innocuous technology like IT might be used for serious harm, but it doesn't make sense to ban every potentially dangerous thing because some of it is very useful or popular or difficult to ban, ergo we shouldn't ban guns , because they can all fall broadly in the same liberty/security balance domain. Want to fuck with gun ownership? Better fuck with a lot of other things too, things that you don't want to, you sure seem to be saying.
I shouldn't have to point out an irony here - if it weren't for our society's love of weapons and militarization, there wouldn't be vulnerable computer systems controlling that kind of danger."
Your admirable disdain for weapons does absolutely nothing to change the reality that there are armed individuals out there with the legal authority to shoot me based on THEIR WORD that I was a danger to them. I have no love for implements of death, but I'm not so foolish as to think everything will be alright as long as -someone more responsible than me- has all the weapons. Again, you bring to the table a complete lack of any solution to the problem of armed aggressors being a legitimate part of the status quo.
Speaking of the computer network situation, you are blindly shortsighted if you think I'm talking about setting off nukes in their silos and other acts of movie magic. No, I'm talking about clever manipulation of traffic signals, taking power-grids far beyond operating limits in areas of vulnerability. How about changing around the patient records in a hospital... We could even go as far as to collect personal information in order to facilitate targeted violent crimes, far more effective than random shootings.
"This lumping-together of actually dissimilar concerns is an error. Some computers are used to control the economy, but an economic hit isn't like the hit of a gunman's bullet, immediately life-threatening, and economic damage can be diffused. Computers are used to control the infrastructure, and appropriate safeguards should be put in place on these systems!"
Anyone who says economic weapons are less potent than firearms lives in an unrealistic version of the actual world. I'm not going to explain this to you other than to request you put your gut reactions in check long enough to evaluate what you say before you post it.
Oh, and nice use of the word 'should' in the last sentence of your quoted above. Come back and talk to me when that 'should' gets anywhere near a 'might be', your point will be ALMOST valid at that time.
"An argument for computer system vigilantism, analogous to your proliferation argument for guns, doesn't work in that domain either. If any computer user who wanted to had the ability to nullify, through his own sufficiently armed computer, the possibly dangerous misuse of any another computer on the network, the result would be increased danger and instability of the entire interconnected system."
LOL, apparently you're not that active in the computer security world. Nearly ALL computer security is handled in a vigilantistic way. Individuals find security holes and (usually) figure out a way to plug said hole. The vast majority of common people (you know, the people you called Neanderthals earlier by expanding the definition I had laid out for that word, you know, people like me) take this newfound hole/fix combination and post it to one of several major bug tracking systems.
Wow, active citizen defense, how novel. Perhaps we should just trust our ISPs to handle the security for us, toss out that unsocial firewall and virus scanner, let the people in charge take care of you, right? Not this guy.
"Taking your arguments the other direction, we can't justify not having the right to privately possess WMD, because after all an armed subculture - the military and the government leaders, very likely some of them Neanderthals - would have an advantage over us. In your world view, we generally can't trust ourselves to sanely endow groups of people with certain specialized powers in our government and society - and the truth is that you are probably right. But you are dead wrong in your proliferation solution to the problem."
Now you're just trolling. In my worldview the groups that YOU seem to trust with your safety don't give a rat's ass about you, your life, or your freedom. In fact, if they think you might hinder them in their 'duties' they most certainly WILL resort to violent force. Oh, and about WMD, well, I hate to break it to you but it's only due to the technical ignorance of the populous that keeps those from being commonplace in the homes. It's terribly easy the whip up a batch of chlorine gas or even cyanide in the kitchen. Why don't people do that then? Maybe, just maybe, it's because not all gun owners are froth-mouthed psychos who want the highest body count.
Besides, I'm very much in favor of global disarmament, and nothing I said indicates otherwise. However, I don't trust your judgement enough to let you pick who has guns and who doesn't. (not like you'd get a say anyways, but I don't trust whoever acts as your 'proxy' either)
Nah, you're right, I'm just a bloodthirsty beast who feels the need to sacrifice innocents to my blood god. Yeah, you got me.
To sum up, just because you feel passionate about something doesn't mean you'll change minds with sarcasm and poorly presented, informationless, criticism.
If anyone ELSE has anything CONSTRUCTIVE to say regarding my post, I'm still honestly looking for someone to try and change my mind on this, as it seems to be a position held by intelligent individuals. Unfortunately the post I'm replying to here didn't offer me anything but snotty attitude and lack of both solutions and understanding.
Mankypro, and neomonk - nice contributions…
I am in agreement with both of your postings.
Thank you for sanity in a world spiraling downward into the abyss of fear and paranoia. Peace truly is an ideal worth pursuing.
And to your detractors? Canada has been proving for years that two societies so similar in many ways sport dramatically different statistics on murder and gun crime. And the main reason they are beginning to go the American way is that the cross-border pipeline of guns from 55,000 dealers in the US is furnishing firepower to the underworld north of the 49th parallel.
While Americans fret about cheap high-grade marijuana flooding the market, Canadians worry about the guns. Which one does more damage? (By the way, I am an unarmed, non-user, non-smoker, tea-totaller; so I have no agenda other than wanting my world to be safe and for my grandchildren to grow up in a world where fear and loathing do not dominate the landscape of human interaction or public policy)
"The Clinton adminitstation banned assault weapons and the rate of violent crime dropped. The Bush administartion allowed it to lapse and the rate of violent crime has skyrocketed. When am I going to read an article that puts two and two together?"
Those are very misleading stats.
Most of the crime you are referring to is black gang related, or black crime in general.
These wacko whites that go off a few times a year get the headlines, but they are a tiny, tiny fraction of gun related crime.
There are over 80 million legal gun owners in America.
So you're going to lower the boom on all the good guys, just to make a political statement?
There is a crime problem in America, not a gun problem.
But you want to punish the law abiding folks, while the criminals keep their illegal guns?
An Armed Person is a Citizen; An Unarmed Person is a Subject.
"Then said he unto them, But now, he that hath a purse, let him take it, and likewise his scrip: and he that hath no sword, let him sell his garment, and buy one." Luke 22:36
I let someone talk me out of carrying a gun once, but when I got out of the hospital, I swore I'd never go unarmed again - and I won't. There are things worse than dying - or killing - and believe me, you don't want to experience them.
We used to take guns and knives to school during hunting season, and nobody said a word about it - and nobody ever used them against other human beings, either. In fact, gun safety was a class with mandatory attendence - what's happened in our schools?
This is a question about a civilized society - which we no longer have - and not about fire-arms. Why in the hell didn't this kid get the help he needed? Why is it that every shooter has a record of mental instability, and yet his problems are never seriously addressed, as they would be in a caring civilized society? Why do we spend trillions on wars against defenseless innocent peoples in distant lands, but pinch pennies when it comes to the welfare of our own people? What the hell is wrong with the people in this country? And why should I care about a few mall-walkers when they don't seem to give a damned about all the millions of innocent people killed in other lands by their own government? Why are they out shopping instead of in the streets striking against an evil regime that is bringing our country down - finally, after 30-odd years of tromping down the fascist path? And do you really trust the paramilitary gun-nut psychopaths in the police departments and federal agencies that invade people's homes with heavy weapons in the middle of the night - usually going after a joint of pot - and usually hitting the wrong house (as they do in Iraq and Afghanistan) on a tip from a grumpy neighbor?
The madness we've sent to other countries is now coming home to roost - and you guys try to blame it on guns? Are you all nuts? Ye gods - what a bunch of losers - no wonder you can't mount a challenge to the Fed and their thuggish minions - too many of you are either ignorant, crazy, stupid, or brain-dead! This is a police-state, you know!
We were taught to shoot straight as kids - because the Nazis invaded country after country where all guns were registered and there was no way for the people to resist. Fool me once... never again! And they didn't just kill Jews, who were a very small percentage of those killed in WWII. Most were unarmed civilians - just as in Iraq today. No gun - no chance. And yes, the government has bigger guns and more fearsome weapons - but is being unarmed the best defense? How's you anti-war crusade going? How's your peace rallies going? Think there won't be blood on the streets before this all ends? Think again. I lived in post-war Europe and I saw what happened when the Nazis and 'Allies' were done with the country. Coming soon to a neighborhood near you - just check out any poor ghetto to see what happens when there is no middle class anymore - and that's where we're headed.
Make sense or shut up until you grow a brain. Filling the net with garbage isn't helping anyone. You're just wasting our time. If you don't have experience, don't say what you don't know. Too many arm-chair experts trying to everyone else what to do - that's what got us into the Iraq occupation - remember? Ignorance, stupidity, denial, and lots of lies - all in the face of experience that foretold exactly what's happened over the last 5 or 6 or 7 years - and more to come. Why do you think soldiers have guns? Do you really think peace will work against armed thugs? Why do cops carry guns? Why do security guards have guns? Most crimes are no committed by gun-toting criminals, after all - and lots of European cops don't carry guns. Guns are used to terrorize - and that's their only use. Beyond that, we have mentally disturbed kids who didn't get the healthcare they needed - that's OUR fault - not theirs. So wake up people. Fix the cause - don't just patch up the symptoms with band-aids.
zimmie53- I stand by my earlier post. Kids may have not been in the in-crowd when you were young, they may have had their hearts broken, but they had a future.
You didn't even have to be a high school graduate to get a good job. Union wages made for a decent life without a college degree.
This society and economy we're in now leaves out vast numbers of our children. They have no hope for the future. That's why some kill at home, and many more join the military.
That's how the military markets itself-as a way out for the hopeless. They are master marketers and they know that most kids have no chance of making a decent living today. Sad thing is, joining the military doesn't help. Go trip over the veterans on the sidewalk to prove it to yourself.
"An armed society is a polite society." Right. That explains why the US is the politest society on the planet.
Studies have shown that people who express these kinds of sentiments are also likely to believe that global warming is not occuring; that the world was created 6,000 years ago; that economic wealth "trickles down," and that George Bush will go down in history as a great--if not the greatest--US president.