MURDER, POLITICS, AND THE END OF THE JAZZ AGE
by Michael Wolraich
Order today at Barnes & Noble / Amazon / Books-A-Million / Bookshop
|
|
|
From the Readers
- barefooted 9 months ago
- PeraclesPlease 10 months ago
- PeraclesPlease 11 months ago
- PeraclesPlease 12 months ago
- PeraclesPlease 1 year ago
- PeraclesPlease 1 year ago
- artappraiser 1 year ago
- PeraclesPlease 1 year ago
- PeraclesPlease 1 year ago
- artappraiser 1 year ago
Creative corner
- PeraclesPlease 11 months ago
- PeraclesPlease 1 year ago
- PeraclesPlease 1 year ago
- artappraiser 1 year ago
- artappraiser 1 year ago
From the Dagbloggers
- Michael Wolraich 11 months 3 weeks ago
- Danny Cardwell 3 years 2 months ago
- Doctor Cleveland 3 years 11 months ago
- PeraclesPlease 4 years 1 month ago
- PeraclesPlease 4 years 1 month ago
- William K. Wolfrum 4 years 1 month ago
- William K. Wolfrum 4 years 1 month ago
- Doctor Cleveland 4 years 2 months ago
- Doctor Cleveland 4 years 2 months ago
- William K. Wolfrum 4 years 2 months ago
Hits of the Day
Giffords Reaches 'Responsible Gun Owners' At Firing Ranges
By artappraiser on Sat, 07/06/2013 - 1:28pm |By Mark Memmot, The Two Way @ npr.org, July 6, 2013
Former Rep. Gabrielle Giffords, D-Ariz., at a firing range in Nevada earlier this week. Her husband, retired astronaut Mark Kelly, was behind her.
Former Rep. Gabrielle Giffords [....] has been in the news this week as she and her husband Mark Kelly take their "Americans for Responsible Solutions" campaign around the nation.
Videos of Giffords and Kelly at firing ranges have gotten wide play on news outlets. In this one, you can see Giffords herself firing a handgun. Both she and her husband are gun owners (and were before she was shot) and say they continue to enjoy shooting.
Their campaign aims to reduce gun violence by pushing lawmakers to close the so-called gun show and Internet loopholes that allow weapons to be purchased without background checks. They also want the databases that get checked to include more information about individuals who have mental issues [....]
URL:
http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/2013/07/06/199364601/giffords-reaches-responsible-gun-owners-at-firing-ranges
- Add new comment
- 1913 reads
Comments
You have to be amazed with Giffords in her ability to sound rational when she is appealing to a demographic that is by definition irrational. I lived in the most dangerous parts of America and survived without a firearm - it's the climate of madness that American gunowners feed off of that resulted in Giffords nearly being murdered.
by Orion on Sat, 07/06/2013 - 6:32pm
Gun owners are not a monolithic group of like minded individuals. Many have the same beliefs as non gun owners on reasonable gun control. I'd like to see some comprehensive polling of just gun owners to sort that out. Occasionally you get a taste of it in regular polls that sort out gun owners but its not really as detailed as I'm interested in seeing. For example, 75 to 80% of gun owners would like to see background checks at gun shows.
One problem is the debate is often dominated by the most extreme gun owners, survivalists and those who have guns to fight an oppressive government. I think those crazies are a small minority of gun owners but without data I really can't be sure what percent of gun owners are nuts or sane.
by ocean-kat on Sat, 07/06/2013 - 7:24pm
They may not be insane but the reason we have a Second Amendment in the first place is lobbying by slaveowners who wanted to be able to shoot down their slaves. Gun ownership now is driven by fear - if it's not crazy, it's an irrational fear of everyone else in the country and a feeling they need to defend themselves because the government won't do it effectively.
Normal, everyday people wouldn't feel the need to own a firearm if they felt confident that police and government would protect them from criminals.
by Orion on Sat, 07/06/2013 - 9:06pm
I've never felt the need to own a gun, but then again, I've never lived in a rural area half an hour away from the nearest police station…
by Verified Atheist on Sat, 07/06/2013 - 9:34pm
Ha! I live on an island where there is no police presence until the State Police decide to make rounds every now and then. We don't own guns and have never felt the need to own them. (However, our next door neighbor has a gun room that is a damned arsenal, and he and his wife have covered the gun room walls with sharpshooter medals and ribbons. I've tried real hard not to make him (or her) mad.)
by Ramona on Sat, 07/06/2013 - 9:45pm
To say we have a 2nd amendment because of slave owners is as historically inaccurate as the gun nuts who say we have a 2nd amendment to overthrow the government if it becomes tyrannical.
There may be some gun owners who are driven by fear. My personal belief is it would be a small minority of gun owners. But there's no data so I don't really know what percentage. That's why I would like to see some comprehensive polling of gun owners.
You should realize though, that when you make these inflammatory false statements you drive away some gun owners that are in favor of additional gun control legislation. They begin to believe the lie that the democrats want to take away all guns. It really doesn't bother me. I'm used to inflammatory rhetoric on this issue and I know the democrats don't want to confiscate everybody's guns. In fact there are a lot of democrats that hunt, like me. (me and my dog are eating javalina this month) But you will drive some gun owners away with this type of inflammatory and insulting rhetoric.
by ocean-kat on Sun, 07/07/2013 - 1:19am
Why else would one ever own a handgun or any firearm other than a hunting rifle except for fear? I mean - seriously. Let's not lose track of what a gun is - it seems like some people do that alot.
And if it's inflammatory to say that stomping down slave revolts had alot to do with the Second Amendment, I have alot of company.
No offense and with respect, Ocean-Kat, I think you're the one not thinking clearly on this issue. If the Second Amendment wasn't meant either to preserve the right to overthrow a government or to preserve the right for slaveowners to put down rebellions, what was it written for? The Founding Fathers were comprised of slaveowners and people who had just revolted against another country. You have to remember it was a very different world when the Second Amendment was written - I think that slavery was in the minds of lawmakers back in the early 19th century a bit more than preserving the right for you and your canine to eat javalina.
And you can get all sorts of real and fake meat at the grocery store without ever firing a round. Many cultures throughout the world hunted and then ate animals without an AR-15 or Bushmaster rifle. Imagine that! Many people in the world go full, productive lives without filling their homes with an arsenal like many Americans have. Countries like Australia have passed very strict anti-gun laws without the world caving in or that country turning in to a communist dictatorship. In fact, the opposite happened!
To want to see change on this issue is hardly inflammatory - telling people to back down on this serious issue is. Many reasonable people simply have been cultured to think guns are more necessary in their lives than they really are - we will never be able to convince them that guns, especially at the level you are capable of owning them now in this country, aren't necessary unless we make the case honestly and unapologetically.
by Orion on Sun, 07/07/2013 - 3:15am
Why else would one ever own a handgun or any firearm other than a hunting rifle except for fear?
Many gun owners like to target shoot. Something about being human seems to lead people to enjoy aiming at something with something and trying to hit it. People also do it with arrows, they do it with darts, they even do it with basketballs. Who knows why, people just seem to find it fun.
To want to see change on this issue is hardly inflammatory -
Lumping all gun owners together and calling them irrational is inflammatory and insulting and untrue. Telling all gun owners they are driven by fear, an irrational fear of everyone else in the country is inflammatory and insulting and untrue. If you want to see change insulting people is unlikely to work.
by ocean-kat on Sun, 07/07/2013 - 4:52am
Alot of people like to do alot of things. I like to shoot off fireworks. I don't understand why fireworks are illegal and guns aren't. I really do not understand that. Given the obvious serious threat guns pose to people's very lives, they may need to find other things to find fun - public safety is a little more important.
That human need is provided by video games, by arrows and by basketballs. The right to do that with a fast traveling lead bullet, at this point, doesn't seem like something worth fighting for.
What I said is that there is a very good possibility that most ownership of handguns is driven by a feeling that one needs to "defend" themselves - that there are people who are threatening to them. Alot of the pro-gun articles you've seen since the Sandy Hook massacre have gone that route. I don't think that's inflammatory at all.
by Orion on Sun, 07/07/2013 - 5:09am
I haven't seen police or soldiers carrying firecrackers for protection, nor farmers using firecrackers for hunting or killing off wolves preying on their livestock.
In one place I lived a while ago, the neighbor's front door had a bunch of bullet holes through it. Does owning a handgun seem valid then? There was a short period when hijacking cars by ATMs became popular - just let it go, lose your car & money & what not?
It's hard to get change by ridiculing everyone's concerns as paranoid. Actually it heightens the paranoia - when other people can't differentiate real dangers from fake ones, I figure they're about to do something really stupid and dangerous.
by PeraclesPlease on Sun, 07/07/2013 - 5:26am
I'm not sure where you're proving me wrong. Most people who feel an imperative need to own a handgun do so because they think it defends them from something that the police or Feds can't or won't. That's not even a judgment.
Fear is defined as "an emotion induced by a perceived threat which causes entities to quickly pull far away from it and usually hide." Paranoia is fear "often to the point of irrationality and delusion." I am not saying that all people who own guns are paranoid but I am saying that there is certainly an element of fear to people who think they need handguns in their lives.
by Orion on Sun, 07/07/2013 - 5:43am
You put "defend" in scare quotes and act like it's irrational fear. Some of the people I know had guns waiting for the government to start imposing martial law, but most had it to handle someone who'd sneak into their house or real dangers in bad neighborhoods.
"Why else would one ever own a handgun or any firearm other than a hunting rifle except for fear? - when I was a kid, shotguns and even a nice palm-held Baretta were a "blast" to fire. Can shoot skeet without killing critters. Hell, even the county fair had a shooting gallery - only fake tin ducks, get a stuffed bear! Hey, I even went to a range with machine guns once - rather cool but can damage your ears. Why is that fear? I consider it the thinking man's golf.
Sorry, not a helpful persuasive tack you're on.
by PeraclesPlease on Sun, 07/07/2013 - 5:55am
So you are saying that she herself is and was irrational? Same for her astronaut husband?
Both she and her husband are gun owners (and were before she was shot) and say they continue to enjoy shooting.
by artappraiser on Sun, 07/07/2013 - 3:02am
No - but there is a good chance that alot of that is political talk for their conservative Arizona electorate. I worked for a conservative Democrat while living in California who would do the same sort of thing.
by Orion on Sun, 07/07/2013 - 3:16am
Well, they support the Second Amendment: From the Wikipedia entry on him
The couple supports the Second Amendment while promoting responsible gun ownership and “keeping guns out of the hands of dangerous people like criminals, terrorists, and the mentally ill.”[46]
And this sounds like something other than fear:
In April 2013, Kelly was photographed at his mother-in-law's house in Arizona, with Giffords watching and cheering him on while he used a Glock 9 millimeter for target practice.[49] This is the same gun that was used to shoot Giffords.
If you follow that footnote link, it has the CNN video of the Giffords doing that ("at home with Gabrielle Giffords") which you can watch for yourself, no need to take Wikipedia's word for it.
By the way, she is not running for office and is no longer in office.
by artappraiser on Sun, 07/07/2013 - 3:22am
Well then they don't really support the Second Amendment - at least not as it is currently written. The way the Second Amendment is currently written allows for "dangerous people like criminals, terrorists, and the mentally ill" to get guns. It allows for anyone to get guns. You would need an amendment added to it to change that.
“Keeping guns out of the hands of dangerous people like criminals, terrorists, and the mentally ill" would require action which would look alot like banning the sales of guns to certain people and in certain areas and (gasp) taking guns away from certain people who may already have them. So Giffords and her husband are really trying to have it both ways with their political position.
by Orion on Sun, 07/07/2013 - 3:35am
Oh come on now - there have been restrictions on gun ownership for criminals forever. Just because Republicans are fighting reasonable control of guns doesn't mean Giffords is "trying to have it both ways" by supporting gun ownership and lack of access for criminals. It simply means she's a helpless Democrat who can't push jack through Congress to do anything about the latter. Can't blame her solely for the position Democrats are in.
by PeraclesPlease on Sun, 07/07/2013 - 7:02am
The next thing you're going to tell me is that we're not allowed to yell "fire" in a crowded theater, even though that right is guaranteed by the 1st amendment!
by Verified Atheist on Sun, 07/07/2013 - 7:18am
At least there are no restrictions on yelling, "RELAX, EVERYBODY, ITS ONLY SMOKE".
by A Guy Called LULU on Sun, 07/07/2013 - 9:03am
The Second Amendment is a very short paragraph. It guarantees gun ownership for anyone who doesn't have an obvious criminal record. That restrictions on gun ownership of any kind even exist is a bit of a miracle - because as the Second Amendment is written, any limits on gun ownership would be unconstitutional.
If you don't like that, Peracles, I'm sorry, but not liking reality won't change it.
by Orion on Sun, 07/07/2013 - 8:17pm
[Including your "I think I would have to maybe shoot myself in the head with one of your guns and lose a couple thousand brain cells before I could talk on your level." comment above]
How about venting less?
Try another part of an Amendment: "Congress shall make no law ...abridging the freedom of speech" - yet you can't legally yell fire in a theater, threaten the president, lie about somone in damaging ways, foment the overthrow of the US, use curse words on public radio, take over stage at someone else's event, and a number of other restrictions.
It's not "a miracle" there are limits - it's how our constitution has evolved in practice, balancing one freedom with the others.
And no, I wasn't saying shooting up cans with machine guns as distinct from defense should be constitutionally protected over say playing tennis or flying down mountains wearing a squirrel suit. I just noted it's a nice recreation, that someone's not a conservative loon just because they enjoy firing high powered or rapid fire weapons. Hell, half of mobile phone & console games are roughly equivalent to this, and half of our TV shows exploit this urge - we see a target, bang bang, next target.
If we want to make any progress on reasonable gun control, we can't use insult everyone without understanding them at all.
by PeraclesPlease on Mon, 07/08/2013 - 3:03am