My proposal: Store deposits of cash in schools and a few high profile legislators.

[botias]

When money couriers wanted to protect their shipments, did they press their legislatures to create legal Gun Free Zones around their delivery vehicles? No. They armored their vehicles and hired armed guards. When banks wanted to protect their deposits? Gun Free Zones around banks? No. Armed guards. When legislators wanted to protect themselves. Did they enact the Gun Free Capitol Act? No. Armed guards. When I hear people object to idea for schools, because 'it shouldn't have to be that way' or because 'it would be too dangerous' I get very sadly confused. Perhaps if we stored money in schools and perhaps a few elected officials? Gun control afficianado Dianne Feinstein can come work in my house. She has a concealed carry permit and armed security. (Mayors are horrendously more likely to be assassinated than other elected officials. They are high profile enough to draw the nutcases, but not generally well-funded enough to have armed security.)

I genuinely want to know what the thinking is for folks that think gun control is good enough protection for other people, but completely inadequate for their own selves.

Comments

[deborahw37.livejournal.com]

And I genuinely want to know what kind of society thinks that needing armed guards at a school is in any way acceptable,

Seriously .

Mind you here the police aren't armed, the only guns you ever see are when airports are on high alert and it makes me shudder every time I see them. A different world

[botias.livejournal.com]

I am confused. We don't NEED armed guards. School shootings are vanishing rare, for all that the media leaps on them like vultures. I'm not afraid of school shootings, or gun violence in my community. The first is unheard of, and I am statistically more likely to be washed away by a tsunami or eaten by a mountain lion, and the last is extremely rare in spite of most households being armed. Unfortunately, due to a law in the 90's meant to address gang violence in inner city schools, and eager advertisement by the media, the murderously insane have learned that schools are the place to go in order to get the attention of the world. BUT if people want to protect against these freak disasters, then armed response is the only way that has ever been effective.

Guns obviously frighten you a great deal. You have strong emotional reaction to them that you don't have to a kitchen knife, or a baseball bat, or a car, or even a hot tub, and so it makes you feel safer not to see guns. However the reality is that gun crime in the UK is on the rise, and violent crime there now surpasses the US. Americans own more guns than ever before, due to concerns about increased restrictions, yet violent crime is at an all-time low. How can I see that and feel like gun control or lack of it has an effect on violent crime?

[deborahw37.livejournal.com]

Sorry I was referencing the NRA speech yesterday, not your post.

And no, guns don't frighten me. There are several on the farm.

What frightens me is the type of guns and the quanity of guns and ammo that people can obtain seemingly with very little regulation . I can't see why the arguments so often seem to be all or nothing. A gun ban is not feasible. Regulation very much is. It may only save a few lives but a few is worth a go

[botias.livejournal.com]

Sorry, I misinterpreted your remark about guns at the airport.

Seemingly is the right word. The people calling for 'sensible laws' probably know nothing about existing regulations because they have never tried to buy a gun. It varies from state to state, but generally there are waiting periods, background checks, and a lot of restrictions on what they can buy. In some places, guns are completely banned. It is illegal at the federal level to buy a fully automatic weapon (a machine gun) and has been since early in the last century. Semi-automatic guns may sound related, but almost all guns are semi-automatic, it just means the action of the gun loads another round. There is no such thing as an 'assault rifle' or at least it's a very specific technical term that does not designate a particularly deadly type of gun. The term was used to market gun control because supporters knew it sounded scary. This might explain why the assault weapons ban was found to have accomplished nothing (except perhaps some political points with voters unfamiliar with guns). For anyone struggling to understand those crazy gun nuts and their strange resistance to common sense, I strongly recommend this post:

http://larrycorreia.wordpress.com/2012/12/20/an-opinion-on-gun-control/

[deborahw37.livejournal.com]

When it comes to guns at airports I hate them because they make me feel unsafe! No I don't expect to get deliberately shot but if people start shooting bystanders tend to get killed or injured as often as the intended targets.


Here guns are not for self defense, they must be licensed, locked up with ammo locked in another room and the key kept locked up away from both storage places. I don't expect America to go that far but it would be good to close the loophole on sales at gun shows and good to limit quantity and type of guns and limit the amount and type of ammunition

And all guns are deadly, it's what they are designed for. I will never see the need for anyone to own a gun capable of firing many rounds in a very short time, the need to have large amounts of ammo or the need to have multiple guns unless you're a hunter or sportsperson.

I will read the link however and try to do s with an open mind

[deborahw37.livejournal.com]

OK read it. If everyone with a gun was as well trained and knowledgeble as he is then it would be good.

Interesting read but when I read his remark that crime has gone up in the UK ( he said England but that's a common mistake) and that it's one of the more unsafe places to live in the EU I had to fight the urge to comment and suggest he checks his statistics.


50 gun deaths in the UK last year, including accidents and suicides as well as murders

550 murders ( by any means), the lowest rate in 20 years, almost all were domestic, mostly Men killing wives or girlfriends.

And we count a kick in the shins or a shove as a violent crime so those stats are deceptive but also the lowest in twenty years.

A minor rise in petty theft is down to the recession and a Tory Government sanctioning benefits.

Many things the UK may be, perfect it isn't but it's pretty darned safe.

[botias.livejournal.com]

I'm curious how Brits are expected to defend themselves. Say I'm a young woman and I wake up with a rapist in my apartment, maybe murderer too, hard to say. What is the official plan for that scenario?

Believe it or not, the gun laws here sound exactly the same. I hear the 'gunshow loophole' bandied about. But it's hard to worry much about it when the 'black market loophole' is never going to go away. Tons of drugs, unknown numbers and types of guns, and unknown numbers of people come across our southern border illegally year in and year out. How is making it harder for someone like me to buy a gun going to affect criminal activity? The people willing to jump through all those legal hoops aren't criminals, and the criminals either buy on the black market or steal them. I just can't parse the gun law logic.

[deborahw37.livejournal.com]

It's a vanishingly rare scenario one in which you'd not have much of a chance even if you sleep with a loaded gun under your pillow and have an astonishingly cool head... actually the vast majority of rapes are carried out by people known to the victim.

A knee in the bollocks is still a good defence technique ( and yes I'm trained in self defence)

The same arguments about criminals getting black market guns was made when they changed the laws here... didn't happen.

And our laws are vastly different. A licence is hard to get. The police check your background and storage. The licence must be renewed on a regular basis . The guns available are limited and you can only buy ammo by showing your ID. All purchases are recorded on a national database checked with each purchase so you can't stockpile,

Most of all of course it is illegal to own a gun for the purpose of self defence. And in the US that seems to be the main point. Fair enough but surely one gun and limited ammo are as good as an arsenal in that case.

As to storage more US children were killed last year by gun accidents in the home than in all the mass shootings combined.

I'm not anti gun, I would uphold your right to own one, but surely there's room for improvement in basic gun storage safety.

[botias.livejournal.com]

Well, I didn't say the person was a stranger. Perhaps an ex-bf, or one that should be an ex. So women are told to become trained in hand-to-hand combat if they wish to defend themselves in such a scenario? I've heard the opposite about knee-to-balls, surprisingly. That men instinctively protect this area so you are less likely to make contact than with other strikes. But what about the frail or disabled? What are they instructed to do to defend themselves if hand-to-hand is out of the question?

I'm glad to the author was mistaken about crime in the UK. The US is also experiencing a 40-year low. But gun rights supporters here are pointing to articles like this:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1223193/Culture-violence-Gun-crime-goes-89-decade.html

This article makes it sound as if more people are being killed by guns in the UK rather than less over time. It also makes it sound like criminals are getting black market guns if they want them.

You're right. That does sound more extreme than here, even in my state. And yes, there are many things that kill more children than mass shootings. While I agree that parents should make every effort to keep kids from playing with guns, I don't think I would support govt. inspections or things like that. I get bugged by people who don't immunize also, which kills babies, but I wouldn't force parents to do it (even if I'd secretly like to). I do things that other people think are stupid. I homeschool, which some people still think is nuts. If I have the freedom to be nuts and stupid, I have to allow other people the same, unfortunately. I would probably put the resources into banning hot tubs which kill many more children than guns, but have no great economic utility unlike cars, the biggest killer, or I would support more social services for at-risk families as many, many more children are beaten or neglected to death, than are accidentally shot.

[deborahw37.livejournal.com]

The Dail Mail is a right wing paper notorious for getting things totally wrong and inciting hatred and fear. Yes criminals get black market guns but they alao get black market drugs and anything else, the clue is in the word " criminal" when they get caught they go to prison.. meanwhile crime is falling steadily and less people are being killed... in other words The Daily Mail is distorting and lying as per usual.

You don't need hand to hand combat techniques, just a few tips to get you time to get away. And sadly more people are hurt when an intruder gets hold of the gun they thought would protect them, stats show you're more likely to get hurt or killed if you have a gun in the house than if you don't. The reality is that in crisis many people freeze or panic... one of the reasons that if you're going to allow access to guns you need to mandate training.

The hot tub thing is BTW discredited... look on Snopes.


But I agree totally that the welfare net and more social services support would solve a lot, sadly many of those supporting gun culture are for small government and tax reductions... you can't extend the welfare net without raising both


I'm with you on vaccination!

And I'm fine with homeschooling if it's properly supervised, ie the parent is qualified to teach and the child's progress is checked on a regular basis.

[botias.livejournal.com]

Thanks for letting me know about the Daily Mail. And yes, criminals get black market guns. They do the same here.

...just a few tips to get you time to get away. I'm asking about people like my grandma who are too frail to flee, but live alone. It's OK if your society doesn't allow effective self-defense for these types of people because of the feeling that it is for the greater good.

Please find that for me if you can about the hot tubs. I looked on Snopes and couldn't find anything. However drowning is the leading cause of accidental death among U.S. children after car accidents. Here's a breakdown by cause and age group. (http://webappa.cdc.gov/cgi-bin/broker.exe?_service=v8prod&_server=app-v-ehip-wisq.cdc.gov&_port=5081&_sessionid=2h6lQRPuM52&_program=wisqars.leadcaus10.sas&log=1&rept=&State=00&year1=2010&year2=2010&Race=0&Ethnicty=0&Sex=0&ranking=10&PRTFMT=FRIENDLY&lcdfmt=lcd1age&category=UNI&c_age1=0&c_age2=0&_debug=0) It looks like a kids are much more at risk from pools and spas than from unsecured guns. That doesn't mean those gun deaths are not tragic. But so are each one of those accidental deaths, and when people go after guns and say it's only about child safety, it looks like they may not be being honest with themselves. If they were chiefly concerned with saving children's lives, they would probably focus their efforts elsewhere.

...if you're going to allow access to guns... ...I'm fine with homeschooling if it's properly supervised, ie the parent is qualified to teach and the child's progress is checked on a regular basis.

I think this illustrates the difference in outlook that fuels much of the debate. Allow?? The Bill of Rights were not set out as privileges allowed by a benevolent government, but as unalienable human rights that a government is not allowed to infringe on. This might illuminate why a lot of Americans who cherish that idea get fired up when the govt. starts to infringe. My homeschooling would not meet your criteria, and I really, really like not to be 'allowed' and 'supervised', while happily acknowledging your preference for same. Still, you are not just choosing 'allowed' and 'supervised' for yourself, but presumably feel that you should be able to choose this for your neighbors as well and that it makes for a better society. I think while we make many of the same lifestyle choices and share a lot of the same viewpoints, we differ in how much we feel we should be able to make choices for other people.

[deborahw37.livejournal.com]

I'm busy with Christmas stuff and couldn't find the link to the hot tub thing but it related to an NRA email and linked to stats showing about 700 deaths total in 16 years in hot tubs of which a third were children, that's terrible of course but stacked against total gun deaths ( not just of children) it's way down the list. Drowning includes ponds, pools, oceans, rivers, floods and even buckets and is indeed a distressing number. I'll see if I can find the link when I have more time.

It's not an either or thing BTW. It's perfectly possible to try and cut all accidental deaths we have campaigns here about safety near water , near railway lines, around electricity etc and of course around owning and driving cars and preventing / reporting. prosecuting child abuse and neglect.... a holistic approach to trying to cut death and injury.


The homeschooling thing... I'm sure you are great at it but I'm equally sure that some aren't so great, A poor education has consequences throughought life and the reason we regulate it in the UK is that the right of the child to a good standard of education is put above the right of the adult to homeschool their child.. it's a different approach. The right of the child takes precedence. So yes, the standard of education is checked because you can't get those years back. I'm a teacher but would not have been able to adequately educate my children because, frankly, my maths and science isn't up to scratch ( I trained to teach English and Drama and then to teach adults in the care and social services sector) . If my daughters had entered the jobs market with no qualifications or been unable to pass university entrance requirements because they hadn't attained the level and qualifications required it would have impacted on their future choices and prospects.

And yes it's a case of " allow" in the UK because the education act mandates that a child receives full time education from the age of 5 to 16 and is entitled to full time education from 16-19 ( 24 if the child has a learning disability or other educational needs).

You say, quite rightly, that I shouldn't be allowed to make choices for other people... but say that a cult or religion wanted to educate/ indoctrinate children ... how much choice does the child have? We therefore mandate a standard and, if you wish to homeschool, you must demonstrate that you can reach that standard. Faith schools, free schools,and homeschooling are fine but subject to checks and, if there are more than a certain number of children, inspection. I'm comfortable with that.

I agree that self defence is an issue for the frail and elderly, the solution though seems to be to continue to work for lower crime rates and a safer society. Here we give advice on home security, personal alarms etc but I remain not at all convinced that guns make you safer.

I'm also still failing to see why people need so many guns or so much ammo and why sensible regulation is suh a big issue.


Two nations separated by a common language and so much more besides.

[botias.livejournal.com]

It's absolutely not an either/or thing. I'm just saying to people who focus only on that and present it as a very pressing danger to children may not be coming from a rational place. The statistics don't back it up their opinions.

I get where you are coming from re: education. I just feel that some people educating their kids in ways that I don't approve is the lesser evil to establishing an authority that mandates how all children are to be educated. There is a lot of flexibility here as far as who can attend college and at what age, so perhaps one's childhood school record is not such an issue as it is there. People who did very poorly at school as kids (or who lived in a hippy commune, or grew up Amish, or in a cult compound, etc., etc.), can still go to college as adults by starting at community colleges which basically accept everyone and transferring after establishing a positive record. I remember my German host parents were shocked that as a society we allow mentally disabled people to have children (not to mention that we could name our children whatever we liked!!). But the alternative is giving some people the authority to decide who is suitable have children. In the U.S. we believe there is no one that has that authority, even though there are people who know that they have deadly genetic conditions but continue to bear one doomed child after another, not to mention drug addicts. While there is debate about homeschooling, and many people feel that institutional-type schooling with curriculums decided by 'experts' is the way to go for all children, at the end of the day courts decided that American's have the freedom to educate their children in the way they personally think best and not how other people think best.

Even the most vehement gun control groups admit that something like 80,000 Americans successfully defend themselves from violence with their guns every year. Should I take that away from these people? Do I have that right? I would have to be convinced, at the very least, that the same people defending themselves and buying legal weapons are the people mostly likely to commit gun crimes and infringe on my life and freedoms. Everything I've seen points to the exact opposite. And that's why it's a big issue.

But I'm glad we can talk about this without hating! Uh, kitties are awesome! And here's a golden retriever napping with a bunny:

http://twitpic.com/b80tas

[deborahw37.livejournal.com]

I teach in Community Learning which is like your community college so get where you're coming from but it's tougher to learn when you're an adult,especially languages which children learn really quickly but adults often struggle with. If you lose the early years sure you can catch up but it's sort of like rennovating a house which was built without foundations, you have to put a lot more effort into digging and pulling lots of stuff down in order to underpin the house than it would have taken to build firm foundations at the outset.

BTW I also teach special needs and concur largely with your viewpoint, I teach sex ed as well ( taught not caught) and manage a range of classes for learning disabled people and other vulnerable adults ;we're starting one in the new year for young men, taught by a male tutor and looking at rights and responsibilities... don't know about the US but here we have a bit of an issue with young men getting women pregnant and then not taking a full part in parenting and of course with testosterone related machismo which is, to use a Spike-ism " not hardly helpful". One of our most popular courses for disabled and vulnerable people is on personal safety which covers lots of the stuff we've been talking about , from safety in the home to keeping safe in the community.

The parenthood thing for learning disabled people is a really knotty debate. We concentrate on support for such parents but sadly there are cases when the needs and rights of the child mean that children are fostered... we don't run any type of eugenics legislation and we have very strong laws on informed capacity to consent which mean that nobody can be medicated (for example contraception) much less subjected to any medical procedure ( for example termination of pregnancy or sterilisation) unless they or (if they are judged to lack capacity), an independent advocate ( not family member) agrees that such action is in their best interests.( and that hurdle is, quite rightly, set very high so that the individual gets maximum support to make their own choices)

Oh and here too you can name a child whatever you like... but of course at 16 the child can change that name to whatever "they" like.. which is why Zowie Bowie is now called Joe :). I believe that registars sometimes offer advice .. for example when the initials would spell something unfortunate, but it's purely advice.

Thanks for a civil and interesting discussion . I didn't expect to convert you to my way of thinking and I'm sure you didn't expect to convert me to yours but then conversion isn't the point of debate :). I've found it informative and interesting.

And we can agree on the cuteness of puppies and bunnies!

[zanthinegirl.livejournal.com]

Sadly the whole situation is so heated and both side are so polarized that it's really difficult to have a rational conversation about gun control. When any compromise is seen as abandoning your dearly held principles nothing ever gets accomplished.

[botias.livejournal.com]

I agree that it's polarized, but I think that most of the gun control advocates are driven by irrational fears that result from simple ignorance, and are egged on by those who profit from fear. Many people who want more gun control have no idea how difficult it already is to legally purchase a gun. How could they? They've never tried. But criminals don't have to abide by these restrictions. While some gun owners might think that their right to defend themselves trumps public safety, many genuinely believe that gun control makes people less safe. It seems like it might be more or less moot. States that have increased legal access to guns have not seen a noticeable effect on violent crime and vice-versa. I really recommend this post for an informed look at this issue:

http://larrycorreia.wordpress.com/2012/12/20/an-opinion-on-gun-control/

[zanthinegirl.livejournal.com]

I'll check it out!

I probably agree with you more than not. I'm a gun owner who believes that sensible gun laws are a good idea, though I'm skeptical about guns for self defense. Mine are locked in a gun safe. It's difficult to envision a situation where they would help me save my life! I own them because I grew up hunting and fishing!

I don't see any reason for non-military use of assault rifles for example. Or for crazy huge clips. If it takes that many shots to hit your target you need to work on your aim.

[botias.livejournal.com]

A lot of people support the ban on 'assault weapons' and restrictions on clip sizes. Sadly, I haven't found any convincing evidence that either improves public safety. The features that legally define an 'assault weapon' for the ban are basically anything that makes a gun look military-ish. Actual automatic weapons have been effectively banned since the 1930s. Guns that shoot the same caliber and have exactly the same functionality remained legal so long as they didn't have scary looking features like heat shields on the barrels. As a rational person, it's hard to support a ban on scaryness. And it's unsurprising to find that studies found the ban to have no effect on crime. How could it when the guns/features chosen for the ban were only ever involved in a tiny percentage of gun crimes?