More fathers. Virtually all these shooters are males (I can give them neither the innocent appellation 'boy' or the honorable designation 'man') from broken homes. The grotesque who shot up that Christian school a few weeks back was an exception. Gun violence in places like Chicago FAR OUTWEIGHs the odd mass shooting, and virtually all of them happen from criminals (who can't have guns) with heavy gun laws. There are too many firearms in America for any Hitlerite attempt to make the US gunless to work, and legitimate gun owners are perfectly paranoid and perfectly willing to undermine and defy the state's attempts to render them powerless against its abuse. So yes, more guns. Shoot the criminals, shoot the shooters, shooty shoot shoot.
Are you saying that it's a problem that can't be solved or a problem that can't be solved easily or isn't a problem? Presumably you're saying that the guns themselves are not the problem - but are they part of the problem, considering that gun violence and mass shootings occur nowhere else like the levels experienced in the US.
Is it a cultural issue? American culture is exported around the world, but I'm guessing that at least some of it hasn't 'stuck'. Is does seem beyond your (as in American) capacity to resolve. It's certainly not an easy fix, that's for sure! Whatever solutions people come up with will, inevitably, take a while to have any kind of significant impact. But I think it can be resolved - if enough people want it to be.
Oh, and the reason I posted this today (I wasn't intending to) was the BBC report of the High School graduation shooting in Richmond, Virginia. Them's the rules here @ SaLT.
We can see how that helps. Not. In many countries, there are stricter gun rules and when they had a shooting, they made them even stricter and haven't had any since (look the UK, Norway, New Zealand ...) They always mention the 2nd amendment and I once read, give them the guns that were available when the 2nd amendment was made and nothing more. That would help already.
Admittedly my knowledge of the 2nd Amendment is.... scant. But my understanding of it is that it prevented the Federal government from stopping individual States from forming and arming a militia. Of course, back in those days the difference between an armed militia made up of concerned citizens and an actually army was not not huge a divide. Plus the militia system was a pretty good way to get an army on the cheap.
However, with the creation of a national army to defend the country - to say nothing of the National Guard - the need for a militia structure kind of vanished didn't it? So the 2nd Amendment became redundant at that point? Without the need for a 'well regulated militia' surely the people no longer needed weapons to form part of it. Therefore they no longer needed to 'right' to bear arms - unless they could show that they needed them for things like (actually real) pest control.
I know the Constitution is from 17something, so the 2nd amendment can't be much younger. I think you are right that it was to defend the country but nowadays people think it was to defend themselves and their family and get food on the table through hunting. I mean, you and I, we don't have to know what it is about but an American defending it should at least know what it means.
5 comments:
More fathers. Virtually all these shooters are males (I can give them neither the innocent appellation 'boy' or the honorable designation 'man') from broken homes. The grotesque who shot up that Christian school a few weeks back was an exception. Gun violence in places like Chicago FAR OUTWEIGHs the odd mass shooting, and virtually all of them happen from criminals (who can't have guns) with heavy gun laws. There are too many firearms in America for any Hitlerite attempt to make the US gunless to work, and legitimate gun owners are perfectly paranoid and perfectly willing to undermine and defy the state's attempts to render them powerless against its abuse. So yes, more guns. Shoot the criminals, shoot the shooters, shooty shoot shoot.
So....
Are you saying that it's a problem that can't be solved or a problem that can't be solved easily or isn't a problem? Presumably you're saying that the guns themselves are not the problem - but are they part of the problem, considering that gun violence and mass shootings occur nowhere else like the levels experienced in the US.
Is it a cultural issue? American culture is exported around the world, but I'm guessing that at least some of it hasn't 'stuck'. Is does seem beyond your (as in American) capacity to resolve. It's certainly not an easy fix, that's for sure! Whatever solutions people come up with will, inevitably, take a while to have any kind of significant impact. But I think it can be resolved - if enough people want it to be.
Oh, and the reason I posted this today (I wasn't intending to) was the BBC report of the High School graduation shooting in Richmond, Virginia. Them's the rules here @ SaLT.
We can see how that helps. Not. In many countries, there are stricter gun rules and when they had a shooting, they made them even stricter and haven't had any since (look the UK, Norway, New Zealand ...)
They always mention the 2nd amendment and I once read, give them the guns that were available when the 2nd amendment was made and nothing more. That would help already.
Admittedly my knowledge of the 2nd Amendment is.... scant. But my understanding of it is that it prevented the Federal government from stopping individual States from forming and arming a militia. Of course, back in those days the difference between an armed militia made up of concerned citizens and an actually army was not not huge a divide. Plus the militia system was a pretty good way to get an army on the cheap.
However, with the creation of a national army to defend the country - to say nothing of the National Guard - the need for a militia structure kind of vanished didn't it? So the 2nd Amendment became redundant at that point? Without the need for a 'well regulated militia' surely the people no longer needed weapons to form part of it. Therefore they no longer needed to 'right' to bear arms - unless they could show that they needed them for things like (actually real) pest control.
I know the Constitution is from 17something, so the 2nd amendment can't be much younger. I think you are right that it was to defend the country but nowadays people think it was to defend themselves and their family and get food on the table through hunting. I mean, you and I, we don't have to know what it is about but an American defending it should at least know what it means.
Post a Comment