Letting Kids Shoot Guns Is Good for Them--TIME magazine, Aug. 28, 2014

[marions ghost]

Last edited Fri Aug 29, 2014, 01:09 PM - Edit history (1)

http://time.com/3211885/guns-children-firing-range-uzi/

Letting Kids Shoot Guns Is Good for Them

Dan Baum
Aug. 28, 2014

Marksmanship builds concentration, confidence and trust

It’s a terrible time to say this, right after a 9-year-old girl killed her instructor with an Uzi, but shooting guns can be great for kids. Of course, there’s shooting and there’s shooting. Handing a loaded submachine gun to a small child is patently crazy. Sadly, Charles Vacca, the instructor in Arizona, both paid for that mistake with his life and inflicted on the unnamed girl a life sentence of horror and regret. Lest anybody think that the gun-owning and gun-rights communities are defending Vacca’s judgment, rest assured that they’re not. I watch the gun blogosphere as part of my work, and even the most hard-core gunnies are appalled and infuriated.

What the shooting community worries about is that people will conflate this tragedy with proper marksmanship training for children. A lot happens in a good shooting class before a kid touches a gun. The first class often involves nothing but drilling on the rules of gun safety. When it comes time to shoot, that’s done prone, for stability, and the guns are long-barreled, single-shot .22s with minimal recoil.

----------

Shooting a rifle accurately requires children to quiet their minds. Lining up the sights on a distant target takes deep concentration. Children must slow their breathing and tune into the beat of their hearts to be able to squeeze the trigger at precisely the right moment. Holding a rifle steady takes large-motor skills, and touching the trigger correctly takes small motor skills; doing both at once engages the whole brain. Marksmanship is an exercise in a high order of body-hand-eye-mind coordination. It is as far from mindless electronic diversion as can be imagined.

Other activities build skills and concentration, too — archery, calligraphy, photography, painting — but shooting guns is in a class by itself precisely for the reason highlighted by last week’s accident: it can be deadly.
(more at link)

[elleng]

1. I studied and taught marksmanship in summer camp many years ago,

but it had nothing to do with anything like an Uzi. No automatic rifles, students were prone, on mats.

I won 'awards' from the NRA, actually found one among my memorabilia. This was way before NRA became the mouthpiece for the gun lobby.

I also studied archery.

[callous taoboy]

4. I loved shooting .22s at summer camp.

Same thing, we were prone on mats, hardly any kick to the rifle, and we were firing at regular targets, not silhouettes of people like the 9 year old was. And safety was number 1.

[malthaussen]

7. I was on the rifle team in ROTC...

... long ago before ear protection. Our range was in the basement of the armory. I'm pretty sure it's the reason I'm about deaf in my left ear. I enjoyed it, but I was a lousy shot.

-- Mal

[elleng]

12. Ear problem from shooting 22s indoors?

[malthaussen]

14. That's my speculation.

Could be wrong, but a .22 does have a pretty high-pitched crack, and the reverb off the walls was pretty intense. As a range instructor, you'd probably have a better idea than I if this is possible.

-- Mal

[elleng]

16. Ours were outdoors,

and have no recollection of being bothered by the noise, so have no idea if what you think you experienced is possible.

[sarisataka]

17. A 22 has a sound level

Of about 130 db. While not instantly damaging, repeated exposure, enhanced by the noise of other shooters in an enclosed area, can easily lead to damage if hearing protection is not used.

[malthaussen]

18. Ah, so.

Think I could sue the government after 41 years? Nah, probably not worth it.

-- Mal

[sarisataka]

24. Good luck with that

I have hearing loss of upto to 50% in certain frequencies that is noted in my personnel record as being due to exposure to weapons firing.

On retirement I went to the VA for testing and received a letter telling me my difficulty to understand voices in normal conversation is "not significantly impairing "

[malthaussen]

29. That doesn't surprise me.

Remember when Tammy Duckworth was reaming out the guy who claimed his prep-school football injury was service-related? She mentioned in passing that her disability was calculated at 30% (IIRC; might have been lower).

Both legs and an arm, 30%? Do tell.

-- Mal

[sarisataka]

30. Yes, the tables are ridiculous

In my case, serious hearing impairment, joint damage with severe arthritis = 4%

Born in the USA. I was Born in the USA

[malthaussen]

2. Stipulate that this is true, for the hell of it.

Fully-automatic weapons are not about marksmanship.

-- Mal

[elleng]

5. Correct.

[marions ghost]

31. Bingo--on the mark

The writer opens with the reference to the Uzi incident and then uses it to list the benefits of marksmanship.

You point out the difference between thrill-seeking machine gunning and marksmanship--exposing the dubious comparison, the underlying spin of what is largely an NRA lite article. Where is the article about the absurdity of allowing people unrestricted access to military weapons? The editors of Time have chosen to give this guy a platform, even in the wake of the tragedy. But that's OK--we need to see how pervasive and clever the spin is. And study the art of deflection.

Thanks for making the point.

[Blue_Tires]

3. Damn...Whatever happened to playing paintball?

Or did that fall out of fashion with today's kids?

[elleng]

6. Never heard of it, when I studied and taught marksmanship.

Its probably still around.

[NYC_SKP]

8. I've never "played" paintball but know of ranges. I have, however, played laser tag.

Paintball can be dangerous, 1/2" spheres filled with colored paint are fired from CO2 or compressed air guns, and they can seriously injure a person.

At least laser tag uses light beams.

Both have an element of marksmanship and they are active, exercise filled mind-body practices.

Full auto ranges for people of ANY age are just plain stupid noisy dangerous wastes of energy.

That they'd let a minor anywhere near one is criminal.

I hear that the owner of the range is "reviewing their policy" but hasn't suspended full auto use by kids.

I think the minimum age is 8 years old. He's reviewing that limit.

[marions ghost]

9. "Criminal"

IS the word for what happened at Burgers and Bullets.

But nobody wants to say it.

[malthaussen]

15. But it is *lots* of fun to fire full rock and roll.

Classic power rush.

-- Mal

[NYC_SKP]

20. That's probably what murderers say about taking a person's life.

Me, I don't get it.

I also don't get that people like to blow things up, or torture animals.

I also don't get why people are so into NFL and pro sports and go crazy over them.

I'd make a terrible typical American.

(just in case some jury finds fault)

[malthaussen]

27. Diff'rent strokes.

I wouldn't class torturing animals with blowing things up. I think there is a distinction between an action that injures a living creature, and an action that is exercised on something inanimate. Now, perhaps the difference is one of degree rather than kind, but I think it is real.

We do still have a culture in which strength is defined as the ability to impose one's will on another. That definition is something in which we are steeped on a regular basis. In terms of firearms (and high explosives) being the "ultimate equalizers," being able to wield such power feeds into that expectation, and evokes a positive response. (At least, in some of us) What matters, I should think, is the target upon which one expends such power. If it is a living being, then we might reasonably take issue with the one wielding such power. If it is an inanimate object, where is the harm?

Note I'm speaking directly about the "power rush" comment, and not making generalizations about marksmanship, which has other satisfactions.

-- Mal

[IdaBriggs]

50. Wow. The line about murderers...

Well said!

[rock]

83. I'm confused (as usual, so bear with me)

Since you're post is sarcastic, you didn't really mean any of it, is that right? and you DO get that people like to blow things up, or torture animals. And you DO get why people are so into NFL and pro sports. Yes?

[NYC_SKP]

85. Actually, I don't get why people like to blow things up, beat up gays, torture animals...

...or drive big noisy trucks and deliberately harass people in smaller cars.

Use of the sarcasm tag was for the purposes of preventing a jury hide, since some people love to alert on other people.

Absent the jury games, I wouldn't have included the sarcasm tag.

[rock]

87. Gotcha and agree.

Both for the opinions and the point of the sarcasm tag! thx

[tblue37]

48. Apparently the new rules set 12 as the minimum age. nt

[BeyondGeography]

10. I got all that and much more from shooting a basketball

[elleng]

11. So did my brother, I think.

[Rex]

13. Yeah until they lose control and start spraying people with bullets.

http://www.danbaum.com/Nine_Lives/dbhome.com.html

He pretends as if 8 year old kids need to learn how to shoot a bazooka. For their health.

No agenda there.

[marions ghost]

19. Thanks for the tip about who Dan Baum is

I see he's had articles in the New Yorker and Harpers also.

Like "How to Make Your Own AR-15" :

http://www.danbaum.com/Nine_Lives/Articles_files/How%20to%20Make%20Your%20Own%20AR-15.pdf

[Rex]

21. Sad to see him doing damage control for the NRA.

But those that worship the gun, are somewhat blind to the harmful side effects imo.

[marions ghost]

25. He seems to be making it his personal mission

to be the "sensible voice" of the NRA. (Paid? Makes ya wonder)

The editors of Time would have had to approve this fairly mind-boggling statement though:

"It’s a terrible time to say this, right after a 9-year-old girl killed her instructor with an Uzi, but shooting guns can be great for kids."

--So the editors of these magazines are allowing this guy to use them as a mouthpiece. They are to blame.

[NYC_SKP]

23. Last four paragraphs from that article:

States could also require those who
apply for concealed-carry permits to
be at least as well trained as the police,
with regular requalification to
maintain the permit. (To get my
Colorado permit, which is valid in
thirty states, I took a two-hour class
that was mostly a recruiting session
for the NRA, and I fired twenty
rounds at a piece of paper—a joke.
Five states require no training at all.)
We could then relieve permit holders
of a blizzard of fussy rules, and
allow them to carry their guns anywhere
police officers can. We don’t
worry about police officers walking
through schools, restaurants, or post
offices with their guns holstered.
Why should we worry about private
citizens—duly background-checked—
doing the same?

We all wish a police officer had
been at the Aurora theater and at
Sandy Hook Elementary; why would
we not want to increase the chance
that, at the next mass shooting, an
equally competent armed citizen
might intervene? Seven million
Americans are already licensed to
carry guns. Let’s benefit from them
instead of worrying about them.

To those gun owners offended at
the thought of having to be trained
in order to exercise their Second
Amendment rights: Training is not
an infringement on your rights, it’s
an enhancement of your rights. A
well-trained armed citizen is more
effective in a crisis. If we are asking
those who don’t like guns to let us
carry ours everywhere, developing
professional firerearm skills is the least
we can do.

Our gun politics are frozen and stupid.
Efforts to ban and restrict guns
like the AR-15 are hopeless, and they
drive gun owners away from a good-
faith debate. But Second Amendment
absolutism gets us nowhere. To be a
gun owner in a democracy is a sacred
trust. We who choose to own firearms
have a responsibility to our fellow
citizens to be better custodians of
our guns—and better guardians of
public safety.

Baum Report CX2.indd_0423 38
4/23/13 6:00 PM

[Rex]

28. We who choose to own firearms have a responsibility to our fellow citizens to be better custodians

Yet some cannot leave their home, without demanding the rest of us be at risk while they walk around in public with their auto-death stick.

All for the LOVE of the gun! Everyone else MUST be put at risk!

[marions ghost]

32. nice rhetoric but

--he also says "Everyone needs an AR-15." Calls it an "awesome consumer product."

--This in an interview w Mother Jones about the AR-15:
-----------

DB:
If I put one of those in your hands and you shot at a target you would be awestruck at how well you shot. It's like a guitar that makes everyone play like Jerry Garcia. It was not a particularly popular gun until the assault rifle ban of 1994. The second thing that made it very popular after the ban was lifted in 2004 was the Iraq War and the war on terror. Everyone has seen these guns a million-billion times because it's the gun our soldiers and marines use. So we are bathed in free advertising for the AR-15 with all the coverage of the wars. But also, it is enormously popular precisely because it's just so cool. It shoots so well, it's lightweight, it has a spring in the butt-stock so you don’t feel much recoil. It's accurate and modular and it has all those great accessories. It's just a fucking awesome consumer product. It's the iPhone of guns. When gun guys hear all this talk, they just don’t get it. They’re like, "Are you kidding me? Everyone needs an AR-15!"

http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2013/03/dan-baum-gun-guys-interview#disqus_thread

[NYC_SKP]

39. I've never even held an AR-15, I don't get the attraction except that our culture glorifies war.

I classify this kind of attraction with 4WD assholes and ATV assholes and people who think that it's OK to destroy national monuments.

Still, I support the Second Amendment. It's sad for us that assholes like these tend to represent gun ownership.

[Rex]

40. Please tell me they faced a lot of jail time for doing that or at least something punitive.

[NYC_SKP]

41. Avoided jail time with plea deal, resitution fees TBD

I'd be happy to see them given a life sentence of national park cleanup duty. Ideally, latrines and animal carcass cleanup.

However, it's more likely that they'll get their own series on A&E or the Discovery Channel inbred family of cable stupidity.

Boy Scout leaders who toppled Utah rock formation avoid jail with plea deal
By Staff Writer 03/18/2014 22:09:00
Font size: Decrease font Enlarge font

Glenn Taylor and David Hall initially were charged with felonies for destroying the formation in Utah's Goblin Valley State Park
Taylor and Hall were both stripped of their leadership roles with the Boy Scouts
A judge is yet to determine how much the men will have to pay in restitution



- See more at: http://www.georgianewsday.com/news/regional/224599-boy-scout-leaders-who-toppled-utah-rock-formation-avoid-jail-with-plea-deal.html#sthash.5pKB8DkM.dpuf

[Rex]

43. The judge is probably flabbergasted that two grown men would be so shallow and stupid.

That just pisses me off to no end!

[hack89]

47. One element of the attraction

is that it is an easy rifle for women, teens, and small framed men to shoot. Very ergonomic, easy to adjust and a very light recoil. Not everyone can comfortably shoot a "real" rifle shooting 30 caliber rounds.

It is the only kind of rifle my wife and daughter can accurately shoot and enjoy doing it.

[Duckhunter935]

52. I like mine as it is a modular weapon

most components are simple bolt on and I can change the caliber of the rifle by just replacing the upper receiver without having to purchase another rifle.

[LittleBlue]

22. It's pretty safe if you don't use an Uzi

My kids will learn how to shoot. With a low power revolver or rifle, not a submachine gun.

[NightWatcher]

26. I shot my first .22 at camp when I was 9. I shot my first uzi at 24.

It's the difference in a child riding a Huffy bike and a Kawasaki Ninja.

Whomever thought that the uzi was a good idea for a child should be brought up on charges. I'm glad to see that the Burgers and Bullets is closing down.

I avoid the shooting range even though I enjoy shooting holes in paper because too many people today do not respect the power of firearms. They treat them like it were a video game.

[Generic Other]

44. Best analogy I have seen

You don't put a kid on a Harley for their first solo ride around the block.

I don't really care for guns, but I do think the guy has a point to ask his fellow gun hobbyists to be more responsible for the ones in their possession.

I can't even wrap my head around the idea of folks who would let a kid who probably couldn't ride on some amusement park rides in this country for being too short, that they would allow her to fire such a dangerous weapon. I can't even believe that's legal! The instructor should have known better for safety's sake. And the parents? Mercy! Did they hope to get her on that reality show "Tikes and Triggers"?

[marions ghost]

46. It should not be legal

Your point is the only logic that makes any sense--we have an infinite number of laws to protect Americans from death and injury, except when it comes to guns.

Because guns are untouchable in this society, "awesome consumer products" (Baum says), and they make a LOT of money for some people--the rest of us are held hostage. Even if we are not injured ourselves we are made to watch the carnage they wreak just as if we have no caring, no concern. This situation hurts all of us, if we would only see that. It numbs us to wanton killing and maiming. Fear and paranoia reign.

We must demand laws that stop this. There is no other way to deal with it. Just give us some laws with teeth that put some brakes on this--and yes, gun owners must ask for this too. This kind of insanity does not help their cause.

[Subways]

49. How are you held hostage?

[marions ghost]

53. You are held hostage if you consider yourself

part of a functional community. I realize that many people are so literal that they figure that because they personally haven't been threatened by anyone with a gun then it does not concern them. This is a typical isolationist, "I got mine" attitude. I know from experience gun violence could happen to anyone at any time. You would be naive to think otherwise. We live with a physical fear of gun violence that restricts us as a society.

For example, I wouldn't go to a Walmart because of the Concealed and Open Carry crazies that like to do their ritual parades there. You see how that holds me hostage to them? Limits my freedom? If our society is so dangerous that we have to carry guns on our person--we have just lost 300 years of progress.

Then there is the psychological impact. There is a pathology about a nation awash in guns. It is a symptom of deep insecurities. And the need for owning and shooting unregulated military-style weapons is enough to give any responsible citizen serious concern. These are weapons of mass destruction, weapons of war. We should not be a country at war with itself. These guns may give the shooters cheap thrills but for others it is depressing and disturbing. This incident affects all of us--it sticks in your memory. It causes alarm and anxiety. Nobody wants to live in a militarized gun culture where children think it's "fun" to operate Uzis. For sure this affects more people than you realize.

I could easily write a book on the negative impact of unrestricted guns in our society. It is everywhere you care to look. There are many answers to your question, and I'm sure it's not an uncommon one. Thanks for asking it.

[Subways]

54. While gun violence could technically happen at any time...

... Actual incidents are at an all time low.

The rest of that sounds like it is driven by your personal fears.

We already have laws on the books against threatening or brandishing and of course actual violence.

Why are you afraid that a random citizen might shoot you but not beat you, run you over or stab you?


It's unreasonable to expect society to revolve around your fear at our expense.

[marions ghost]

60. These laws are inadequate

everybody knows that, even you, as you fight against it.

Here is an example of the fearful thinking that does not bode well for our country:

-----------

A post from the thread today on the subject of Revolution:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=5463511

derby378 (29,527 posts)
5. That's why you've got to arm yourselves, people...

Not every revolution can be as bloodless as the Czechoslovakian uprising. God, if only they could be.

If you can't or won't purchase a firearm, at least get something.

[Subways]

61. In either case...

... That doesn't really seem to be the main point.

You talked about being fearful of even being in the presence of a gun or potentially near a concealed weapon.

That's the part I don't understand. If the person intends to harm you then they've already decided to break the law.

[marions ghost]

65. I'm talking about the psychological impact of underlying fear

1. People so fearful of what they see going on in the world that they feel the necessity to carry guns everywhere. I could see this as a rational fear, but an irrational response.

2. People fearful of others licensed to carry guns who can be dangerous, even stupidly dangerous.
(Not to mention those who just don't care who's in the crossfire). I don't think I need to give you examples. We all know it.

Both types of fear are undercutting this country. Not good.

[Subways]

68. I think you are projecting your personal fear of firearms...

... And assuming everyone must share it.

I'm sure that some gun owners are afraid but the vast majority treat it like a tool to be used in very specific situations.

I can say that because tens of millions have access to guns every day and there are relatively few incidents.

I've got a fire extinguisher in my truck too but I don't have a fear of fire or worry that one could break out at any moment. It's just there in case I need it which is really unlikely to happen.

[marions ghost]

76. That's what everybody says

before a child is killed by another child, a domestic spat gets out of control, a family member on meds gets their hands on a gun, a "mistake" is made about an intruder, a school gets shot up, a kid is given an uzi to fire for fun....etc And I'm not even talking about the case of being in crossfire, ie. being in the wrong place at the wrong time.

This is always the argument. "It's just another tool."

Sorry a gun is not the same as a fire extinguisher.

It is a symbol of "safety" to many, like my hammock is a symbol of leisure time to me (but does not give me any leisure time). A gun in no way ensures safety. But that is the delusion.

[Subways]

78. It sounds like you have an inordinate amount of fear...

As for ensuring safety, I hate to break it to you but life isn't always safe.

It is more safe than ever before as part of being in the modern age but there are no guarantees this side of the grave.

In any case the fear and the problem lies squarely with you and it is absolutely unreasonable to expect the world to cater to your illogical concerns.

[marions ghost]

80. Ratchet down the personal

mkay? Just a suggestion.

I am "The Fearful Loner"--and you are "The World" .........

[Subways]

82. I'm just repeating what you said...

You are scared to be in the presence of guns or the possibility of a gun you can't see.

Nothing more or less...

[marions ghost]

84. Of course

I'm scared to be in the presence of guns in the hands of people that have no business owning or handling guns. You'd better believe it.

[beevul]

89. You left out the fine print.

I'm scared to be in the presence of guns in the hands of people that have no business owning or handling guns. You'd better believe it.

You left out the fine print:

That you think most people are "people that have no business owning or handling guns".

That's the attitude you give off.

Care to dispute that?

[Marrah_G]

63. How fast can a person go from just carrying to open firing?

I would never feel comfortable seeing someone carrying around a weapon like it's a fashion accessory because I don't know if it's a good guy or a bad guy.

Sorry but if I see someone in a store with a rifle slung over their back, I am leaving that store.

[beevul]

66. "because I don't know if it's a good guy or a bad guy"

For the most part, you don't know if anyone you don't know and may run across is a "good guy or bad guy".

What determines that, is behavior.

[marions ghost]

71. And one anti-social behavior is flaunting guns

These people are just show-offs. They like the reactions. They like being renegades, like being naughty. Much more fun if it's not concealed. Sad display behavior, really. I'd put it in the category of loud obnoxious music or motorcycles, except it's more dangerous.

[beevul]

73. Thats your opinion, not empirical fact.

Like just about everything else you've said about guns in this thread.

[marions ghost]

75. Read the "opinion" article in the OP

I am responding to "opinion."

[beevul]

77. "I am responding to "opinion." "

"I am responding to "opinion."

With more opinion.

[marions ghost]

79. And so is everybody else here

because this is GD where opinions are not always referenced.

[Eleanors38]

55. I live in a functional community. I don't share your fears.

[marions ghost]

57. Look at the dysfunctional communities

in this culture. They are all around you and growing. Naturally people choose to live in a bubble so as to be able to feel positive about things. But look at the patterns of where people of reasonable means flock, where they think things are working well. Then look at how and where the "have-nots" live on the fringes. Really take the time to look around you. I'd be willing to bet there is suffering in your community that you are not even aware of. This is indicative of the isolationism and fear that is undercutting our society and partly contributing to, and a result of, extraordinary levels of gun violence.

"I got mine" is a negative way to look at society.

[Eleanors38]

91. "I got mine" is Your narrative, Your stereotype.

You don't know me, nor do you care to know. True?

Sorry, to let you know, but this $900/mo SS recipient is pretty aware of this society's inequities, and I actually some thing$ about it. I'll turn it around: I bet there is suffering in your community you aren't even aware of. True? The tediousness of the droll "my knowledge of suffering trumps your's" kinda makes discussing many things here insoluble. Why it always about some individual; why isn't the cause bigger?

Truth: I live in a fairly-well functioning community, and I do not live in fear. And there is a lot more out there than two folks' pissing match. Thanks for the conversation.

BTW, most "gun crimes" are in fact committed by the usual suspects, if rap sheets are any indication.

[marions ghost]

92. I speak in general terms

--don't take it personally. This is a forum where we can't really know each other, can't even see each other.
We speak our minds always with the idea that it's a platform for group consumption of opinions and ideas (some would say group therapy, ha ha). I speak to all who care to read the thread.

So it's the plural "you"--not the singular "you"--that I'm addressing. I don't single out people around here.

"I got mine" is an attitude I see every day in this country. People who have their heads in the sand about the reality of our dysfunction as a society. People who are just fine with the struggle the poor to average person goes through in America, and oppose any criticism of the failures of the system. Because they live in the illusion that it's functioning well. That illusion could blow apart in a second. We live in perilous times.

So please cool your over-reactive jets. We are both on the same side and the cause is truly big--huge, in fact. We must radically change as a nation if Democracy is to survive here. And that includes looking at the proliferation of unregulated guns as a public health problem (my area of interest being public health that's the way I see it--from a physical and psychological standpoint. Re gun violence--Houston, we have a problem). The degree to which people are arming themselves is an indicator of a failure of society--just one of many indicators IMO.

In. My. Opinion.

[Eleanors38]

93. Glad for the clarification. Guns are deck chairs

on the Titanic. I agree with you that times are perilous and illusions can blow apart at any time. Which leaves the question: What entity or functions of government have the trust of people (and the viability) to go about disarming or even preventing the arming of the people? Such is the state of a "dysfunctionality of society" that its people, including those of color, might turn to armed self-defense. The main power of gun control is its use by reactionary forces to beat down a progressive agenda; it's like a remora fish that attaches to progressives.

Public health is Always brought to bear in Any discussion of bans and controls, be it about gays, gin, guns, ganja, and Old Gold cigarettes. And the best anyone can do is moral suasion and promotion of best practices to reduce harm. And these are most effective approaches. Go much further and you get problems. The whole cigarette-ban movement has already created a full-throated black market due to excessive taxes. A comic can get a lot of laughs by advocating huge taxes on bullets, but we know how this nation reacts to prohibitions and their comrade-in-arms, high taxes. We know because of our History with de jur bans and bans-by-any-other-name.

We have a Party that has walked away from its job, and has allowed piracy to rule the economy. It has become virtually silent on issues even LBJ championed! Gun issues are a gross emotional distraction to the tasks at hand. My meager role in what passes for that "debate" is to get the Party to junk that chin-leading issue. We have far more important problems.

Thank you again for a civil conversation.

[marions ghost]

98. We are not talking about "disarming" people

It's not either/or. Reasonable controls are not bans. That's extremist. I say prosecute any gun owner whose gun is misused. Period. Let the jury decide, but prosecute. The laws are way too lax. That criteria allows you to keep your personal guns. I doubt they can save you from anything, but go ahead and think that as long as they are not misused.

This can be done, especially if gun owners would get behind laws that lower the frequency of stuff like what happened in Arizona, Sandyhook, Aurora, Columbine, Va Tech etc etc etc--and daily in every part of the nation on a less spectacular but cumulative scale--something could finally be done. It doesn't help your cause to allow those things to happen so easily.

I don't buy the argument that not pursuing reasonable laws to control guns is good for the Dem party. I'm not looking to the Dem party to address many of the issues I care about, since with the exception of the affordable care effort, they have not been able to knock back the right wing corporates who have hijacked the country. I have serious doubts unless there is new blood in the Dem party, that they will be able to turn the country around --so I guess I don't care too much about the Dem image re guns.

Every gun that is bought in this country puts money in the pocket of people I DON'T want to support. For an extremely hazardous consumer product that feeds on fear, but does not benefit many people, and cannot ensure any form of security --to go so under-regulated and under-enforced, this is just totally irresponsible. We are all complicit in these wanton, needless killings.

Just my 2 cents. I know you don't agree.

[Lurks Often]

94. "proliferation of unregulated guns"

I have some bad news for you:
1. Guns are heavily regulated at both the state and Federal level, perhaps just not heavily regulated to suit you.
2. Crime rates have been dropping for 20 years.
3. At both the state and Federal level there has been very little change in the laws that govern who can buy a firearm. Certainly Chicago and Washington DC are exceptions (there are always exceptions).

What we really need to do is start addressing the underlying causes of crime, which means changing the social and economic pressures in the high crime areas. Getting decent paying jobs would certainly be a start.



*And it's not about race, I am certain that you could drop any racial or ethnic group into those inner city conditions and within 2-4 generations you'll end up with the same results.

[marions ghost]

95. The "regulation" of guns in America is failing

Of course you address the causes of crimes at the same time that you control the gun violence and what are called "accidents" (which I see as negligent homicide). Penalties need to be much stiffer to compel those who own guns to pay directly for the misuse of their gun. That is the only way.

We need laws to protect the innocent and also, to change the casual attitude people have around guns in general. I agree with those in this thread who talk about the glamorizing of these weapons in games and movies. It's a very negative effect on society. We're not going to be able to stop the fascination with these weapons which exists for many reasons, but we can control their use through sensible laws.

Don't worry, you can keep your guns. But not the idiots who let their children kill people with them.

[Lurks Often]

96. Ah, the "sensible laws" approach

Lots of pretty words, but no details on how you are going to get such "sensible laws" through the state legislatures, Congress and have them hold up to judicial scrutiny.

There are plenty of laws on the books, it's that the prosecutors tend not charge people when they have weak cases. Using the tragedy in AZ as an example, who are they going to charge? The instructor is dead, the nine year old who was holding the UZI in her hands shouldn't be charged and you have to prove that the two parents, who I am certain was assured that what they were doing was perfectly safe, were reckless or negligent under AZ law.

Given that what happened in AZ is only the second time I am aware of that someone died when shooting a rented machine gun, you are going to have a tough time convincing state legislatures and Congress that this is worth their time and worth the political fight of getting gun control legislation through Congress, especially since members of Congress will attach their own amendments. You MIGHT get a law restricting the age of who can rent a machine gun, along with that you might also get a law that mandates ALL 50 states recognize other states concealed carry permits.

[marions ghost]

97. It's common sense what needs to change

In the Arizona case, I conclude that the parents are negligent. I conclude that the gun range and the instructor (who make a serious mistake) are also negligent. Plenty of negligence to go around. Until the owners of guns are held directly responsible for their gun being misused, we won't stop this needless carnage. This man did not need to die, if the laws made any sense at all. Don't try to call this "unusual"--just include it with all the so-called "accidents," including the "accidents" caused by the mentally ill who find it easy to obtain guns.

The only criteria for evaluation should be "was the gun owner in control of his weapon?"--just like "was the driver in control of his vehicle?" If not, prosecution with heavy penalties. Would stop this real quick.

There need to be laws to protect the innocent, and in that category I include the stupid.

[beevul]

56. Laughable. Utterly laughable.

"I know from experience gun violence could happen to anyone at any time."

Uh huh.

"We live with a physical fear of gun violence that restricts us as a society."

Most people don't.

"For example, I wouldn't go to a Walmart because of the Concealed and Open Carry crazies that like to do their ritual parades there."

So essentially, you're held hostage by your fear of these people and the guns they're carrying, in spite of the fact that this group of people which you point the finger at, are the least likely to commit "gun violence". And then you extrapolate from this "fear" and presume everyone else shares in it.

That makes sense.

The only one limiting your freedom, "holding you hostage", is you.

"Then there is the psychological impact. There is a pathology about a nation awash in guns. It is a symptom of deep insecurities."

Asserted without evidence, and dismissed likewise.

"And the need for owning and shooting unregulated military-style weapons is enough to give any responsible citizen serious concern."

Nice variation of "no true Scotsman" there. And "unregulated"? Ridiculous. "Military style"? So what. Heres your chance:

Please explain for the readers, what makes the "style" of the gun (as opposed to the substance) problematic.

("unregulated" )

"These are weapons of mass destruction, weapons of war."

No, and no. They fire a single round of ammunition for a single pull of the trigger. They do NOT fire burst or fully automatic like true "weapons of war" do. Militaries generally do not limit their troops to semi-automatic weapons. What you're doing here, is repeating a falsehood which has been around for 20 years, OR you're deliberately attributing to these weapons falsely, characteristics which they do not have.

Or both.

You tell me.


I think you just don't like guns or at least "guns other people have", and will cling to whatever justification you can to support that. Like most of the anti-gun crowd. You have all the standard anti-gun talking points down - "military style", "weapons of mass destruction", "weapons of war", "unregulated", etc.

[marions ghost]

58. I want laws that work

to prevent killings like Burgers and Bullets. And allow the rights of non-gun carrying individuals to be recognized. Laws.

It doesn't matter whether I like guns or not. I like civilized societies. Ours is dangerous and irrational. And becoming more lawless. Thanks for illustrating that.

[beevul]

62. Of course you do.

"I want laws that work to prevent killings like Burgers and Bullets."

Uh huh.

"And allow the rights of non-gun carrying individuals to be recognized."

Which "rights" are you referring to here? Which rights of non-gun carrying individuals aren't being recognized?

The right to exist free of guns and the people that choose to own and carry them?

You don't have that right in this country. Sorry. You may want it, but you don't have it.

Nor should you.

"It doesn't matter whether I like guns or not."

Of course it does. Your like or dislike of guns is completely relevant to the discussion. People dismiss pro-gun posts and posters as "gun lovers", "gun humpers", "gun nuts", "ammosexuals", and on and on.

If you're a gun hater, its fair play to point it out. Unless you think that there should be a double standard.

Do you?

" I like civilized societies. Ours is dangerous and irrational. And becoming more lawless. Thanks for illustrating that."

Suuure you do. Of course, you seem to define "civilized" as "a society moves and changes to assuage my fears and discomforts".

Yeah , You can go on and on about how "dangerous and irrational" our society is, and falsely claim it is becoming more lawless including the implication that its because of guns, and even pat me on the back for "illustrating" ...something.

And I and other people who aren't afraid of guns, can go right ahead and point out every falsehood you state, and every absurdity you engage in.

Theres a bunch of both on your part.

[marions ghost]

67. All I can say is

it doesn't matter whether I like guns or not. I want laws with teeth and I'm sure that you know we don't have them, no matter all your bluster.

[beevul]

69. Oh, it matters.

It matters if people "like" guns, hereabouts, so turnabout is quite fair play.

[marions ghost]

72. I leave you with one word

Laws.

[beevul]

74. Fine. Propose laws which attack criminality....

Fine. Propose laws which attack criminality, and leave the law abiding alone.

Let me guess:

You aren't interested.

[pinboy3niner]

33. Reader's Digest: I am Joe's Uzi-perforated heart, lungs, liver, and spleen

Maybe RD should have run that one.

[Arugula Latte]

37. Not Getting Shot in the Head by an Uzi: The Best Medicine!

[pinboy3niner]

38. I can go along with that...

...having been shot in the face myself with an AK-47.

Unfortunately, the victims usually don't have that choice.

[Arugula Latte]

45. Oh, man, sorry about that.

Wow, glad you survived!

[GeorgeGist]

34. Needs the pic ...

?w=1100

[marions ghost]

90. Thanks for posting that

This doesn't look like they're at a range--just blowing away some varmints off the back deck...

[gratuitous]

35. "It's a terrible time to say this . . ."

But here goes anyway.

Dear Dan: Shut. The. Fuck. Up.

P.S.: Asshole.

[Rex]

99. Exactly, he should have been more honest and said

"I'm going to shit right here in the middle of the table, but you go ahead and keep on eating - don't mind me."

[Arugula Latte]

36. These gun humpers just can't help themselves, can they?

[LiberalElite]

42. "Shooting a rifle accurately requires children to quiet their minds."

So does meditation.

[spanone]

51. quite the crock of shite.

[WinkyDink]

59. TIME? I'd expect this in MAD.

[MH1]

64. There might be some truth there, BUT shooting a gun is not the only way to achieve

the positive benefits of which he speaks.

The other ways - meditation, other sports that require accuracy, certain kinds of puzzles, etc, are far safer.

So why would we choose the riskiest method to instill these abilities in young children?

[DirkGently]

70. Firing Uzis at a hamburger joint

... bears no resemblance to summer camp marksmanship courses.

Many people can see reasonable ways for firearms to be owned and used by reasonable people for reasonable purposes.

What we have now, though, is an insane fetishist cult conceived for marketing purposes that expressly rejects reasonableness and is trying to normalize unreasonable ideas about guns.

Like handing a nine year old a fully automatic weapon at a hamburger joint.

[intaglio]

81. Let's try that with other weapons

Letting kids fight with live steel (sharpened, swords axes and knives) is good for them

Letting kids throw fireworks is good for them (good practice for using grenades or Molotov cocktails)

Letting kids practice with garottes ...?

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

86. Yep. It's almost as good for them as shooting heroin.

If it's natural to kill, how come men have to go into training to learn how? Joan Baez

[Tikki]

88. And not letting kids shoot guns is good for them...I can prove it, my great children have never...

shot a gun...

Tikki