Why is America becoming a battleground?

[SecularMotion]

People run frantically towards Hoyt-Bowne Hall, otherwise known as the Great Hall. They hurl themselves over the ramp rails leading to the Learning Center.

Some flee from campus, some have no choice but to hide under desks in the Library’s Quiet floor, squirming as the man holding an AR-15 in his hands outside in the courtyard moves ever so slowly. He’s looking for targets as if he were on a battleground.

Drew and the borough of Madison are relatively safe places as is New Jersey, where even an Airsoft rifle is considered by law a full-fledged weapon. We would never think of something so horrific like this happening here, but neither did those at Columbine High School, Virginia Tech or Fort Hood Army Base, TX.

Those watching The Dark Knight Rises in Aurora, Co never could have guessed, nor those praying at a Sikh temple in Oak Creek, WI just 16 days afterwards. Certainly it never occurred to those restocking the shelves a few days ago at a Pathmark, just half an hour from Drew in Old Bridge, NJ.

http://drewacorn.com/?p=14167

[4th law of robotics]

1. Q: Why is America becoming a ham-sandwich?

A: it isn't. What a stupid thing to ask.

/violence is down across the board. You are safer today than you were 20 years ago.

[glacierbay]

2. We've also noted a decrease in crime in the city in which I'm employed in.

This notion that America is getting more violent is nothing more that BS, true, some places like Chicago, DC are more violent but for the most part, the majority of the nation is pretty safe.

[Atypical Liberal]

3. Some choice responses to the article.

This is not to villainize responsible citizens. However, no one can predict human behavior. Responsible citizens can sometimes go insane. Sometimes signs are ignored, as we saw with the Aurora mass shooter, James Holmes.

Yes, sometimes people do go insane. But this is a rarity. The vast majority of people who commit homicide have extensive prior criminal records. Most people work themselves up for years as they hone their detachment from valuing human life. In fact, most people who commit homicide have a criminal record so extensive they can't even legally own firearms.

After Aurora, many fired-up debates on assault weapons bans. Those ‘firing back’ argue that only 2% of gun related crimes involve semi-automatic firearms like the one used in Aurora, but regardless of this, there is no reason why a civilian should be purchasing a semi-automatic weapon.

The 100+ year old technology that is found in semi-automatic weapons constitutes the best defense against violence yet devised. It is why nearly ever police force in America issues them to their officers.

These aren’t weapons for hunting, they are meant for battle.

And of course, the second amendment isn't about hunting, it is about battle.

America is not the agrarian nation it once was, when it was essential for people to hunt or protect themselves with guns. We have evolved into an urban, more civilized and advanced nation. Its people have changed and so has society.

Unless you live in rural America and are part of law enforcement, there is no reason why anyone should privately own a firearm today. There is no reason for one owner to have a miniature arsenal in their home. What are these people preparing for, a delusional war against the government? Perhaps we’ll get invaded upon by extra-terrestrials.

1.3 million people are the victims of violent crime in the United States every year. Without firearms, what else would such people use to defend themselves? The weak would become the victims of the strong.

It is also ridiculous to believe that we have reached the pinnacle of civilization and representative government whereby the government will always be beholden to the interests of the people. Frankly to me the government seems more beholden to the interests of a tiny wealthy elite and seems to be growing more that way all the time, not less. Our government is becoming less representative of the people, not more.

Human nature has not changed much throughout recorded history. There have always been, and always will be, people who will abuse power and will try and use violence and oppression for their own gain. A disarmed people have a much harder time resisting such predations. To equate this with invasion by aliens is ridiculous and dangerous.

Further, the trappings of civilization are amazingly thin. Look at what happened after Katrina. Much of our "civilization" hinges on virtually instant access to food and fuel. Any major disruption of this could cause a massive unhinging of "civilization".

When one considers that two-thirds of homicides are gun-related, there should be no plausible reason to own a firearm. Many argue that they themselves are law-abiding, that they know how to handle a weapon, that they are responsible and morally righteous. The fact is that humans are essentially flawed creatures and anything can happen.

The sum of this argument is that because a few people are bad that no one should be able to own the best tool of self-defense available. Sorry, I'm not buying.

[oldsarge54]

4. Gun Control is Not Banning Guns

However the Supreme Court was just as right with District of Columbia vs Heller as they were with Citizens United. The blind defense of a wide open interpretation of the 2nd Amendment may eventually result in a gun ban. In an ideal world, I would like the NRA and lawmakers get together and hammer out a set of laws that will work. Every illegal weapon started life out as legal purchase. We MUST break the chain somewhere.

Self defense. When the founding fathers were talking about it, indian raids were still a real possibility in every state. Militias were needed because we inherited a dislike for standing armies from the British (they never did have a large standing army, that is why they were hiring mercenaries for the Revolutionary War. The only founding father that thought an armed citizenry was important as a defense against the government was Thomas Jefferson, and he was really an anarchist who disliked any government larger than a township.

2011 was the first year that more Americans died from gunfire than automobiles. Now, before we trot out the stupid arguments, cars are designed to transport people. Baseball bats are for baseball. Kitchen knives are generally intended for the Turkey (fowl as opposed to spouse). Firearms have one purpose, to shoot something.

Again, I don't have an answer, but status quo is not doing the job. The current laws, in fact, are inadequate. I'd rather have the gun lobby working with the solution than stonewalling and threatening anyone who tries to do anything. If we don't set up controls, it may result in it being done to us.

By the way, I am a firearm owner myself. However, with a replica 1850s enfield my rate of fire on a good day is about three rounds a minute. Not much of a threat unless my cartridge box catches fire. The guys at the range seem to thing the EPA doesn't like me either. Enjoy, BUT

We have to defend ourselves from over control by being reasonable. Being unreasonable should only be left to the Tea Baggers.

[Atypical Liberal]

5. Some comments.

However the Supreme Court was just as right with District of Columbia vs Heller as they were with Citizens United.

Of course, I disagree.

DC vs. Heller empowers the common man, while CU disenfranchises him.

Every illegal weapon started life out as legal purchase. We MUST break the chain somewhere.

I would support universal licensing, so long as it was an opt-out process and not opt-in. This will preserve firearm ownership anonymity. Additionally, if I am licensed, it means I've already had a background check, which means I should not need an FFL middle man to run a background check when I buy firearms through the mail. This means that I should be able to buy firearms through the mail again.

Self defense. When the founding fathers were talking about it, indian raids were still a real possibility in every state.

Though it continues to decline, every year in the United States about a million people are victims of violent crime. People deserve the right to the best tools for self-defense.

Militias were needed because we inherited a dislike for standing armies from the British (they never did have a large standing army, that is why they were hiring mercenaries for the Revolutionary War. The only founding father that thought an armed citizenry was important as a defense against the government was Thomas Jefferson, and he was really an anarchist who disliked any government larger than a township.

The fact remains, however, that what all the founders adopted was a constitution which protects the right of the people to own military weapons so that they can function as infantry if necessary. Moreover, they adopted a decentralized state-controlled military over a centralized military.

Also look at the contemporary constitutions of places like PA.

2011 was the first year that more Americans died from gunfire than automobiles.

I doubt this, unless you are including suicide. Now WISQARS data only goes through 2009, but violent crime has been in decline. Every year there are about 30,000 firearm-related deaths of all causes. About 16,000 of these are suicides, which leaves about 14,000 firearm-related deaths due to other causes. In 2009 there were some 36,000 deaths due to motor vehicles. It seems unlikely, given how violent crime has been in decline for decades, that in two years there was such a massive reduction in motor vehicle related deaths.

Now, before we trot out the stupid arguments, cars are designed to transport people. Baseball bats are for baseball. Kitchen knives are generally intended for the Turkey (fowl as opposed to spouse). Firearms have one purpose, to shoot something.

Yes, cars, baseball bats, and kitchen knives can be used for good things and for bad things. They are usually used for good things. Same thing goes for firearms.

Again, I don't have an answer, but status quo is not doing the job. The current laws, in fact, are inadequate.

Well what would constitute "doing the job"? What would constitute "adequate"? Violent crime continues to decline.

[oldsarge54]

8. Counter arguments and a thank you

we're talking. That is hard to get these days.

In Texas, in 1916 the law specifically turned the function of militias over to the National Guard. Groups calling themselves militias in their mission statements include the usual phrases about war, insurrection, or national emergency, but they also pledge themselves to "protect the constitution." However, they respect no command authority and who decides when the constitution is threatened. They obvious move about with mil-grade weaponry, uniforms. They are they only reason I wish I had a more up to date firearm. M-16A1 is what I actually trained on mumble mumble years ago. If they want to impose their will against rule of law, I'd come out of retirement and rumble against them libertarian fascists.

You are focusing on violent crime, while my number are total deaths, yes suicide is included. Two deaths in my rural neighborhood were merely stupid. A man was showing a girlfriend how to shoot, shoots her in the chest. A kid was on a trampoline in his own back yard, gets shot and killed by a knucklehead who doesn't think about where the round fired will eventually land.

A firearm has such an attraction to a depressed person as a way out of troubles. Sure, if they Really want to commit suicide, they will find a way. But a gun, so quick and easy. To damn quick and easy. One possible maneuver is a gun safe law where you can park your weapons in a secure facility rather than you home. Deters gun theft, which I understand is the main way firearms enter the black market, and a prevents a quick way out of trouble.

I disagree. I think a BI is necessary for every firearm transaction (not ammo, the weapon itself). I mean, voter ID? Gun owner ID. The point is that flea markets and gun shows seem to have a lot of untraceable. Inconvenient, yes. But it may slow down the flow of legal firearms into the gray/black market.

Starting points, not laying down a demand. Discussion, otherwise the real anti gun people may get control.

[Atypical Liberal]

9. Likewise. More comments.

In Texas, in 1916 the law specifically turned the function of militias over to the National Guard. Groups calling themselves militias in their mission statements include the usual phrases about war, insurrection, or national emergency, but they also pledge themselves to "protect the constitution." However, they respect no command authority and who decides when the constitution is threatened. They obvious move about with mil-grade weaponry, uniforms. They are they only reason I wish I had a more up to date firearm. M-16A1 is what I actually trained on mumble mumble years ago. If they want to impose their will against rule of law, I'd come out of retirement and rumble against them libertarian fascists.

Yes, I am aware of the Dick Act. Ostensibly, the state militias were federalized because many states were not very strict about maintaining their militias and many militia training exercises had become little more than social gatherings.

However, when this happened, it completely undermined the founders' intent of having a decentralized military system. Now the state militias became adjuncts to federal military power rather than counters to it.

I believe the founders anticipated this possibility and that is why the second amendment reserves the right to keep and bear arms to the people, and not to the states, nor the militias.

The question of "who gets to decide what is really a revolution" is one that history usually answers by whoever wins. All revolutions seem to follow a bell curve, whereby some critical mass is needed to be achieved before it will progress. On one end of the curve you have extremists who jump on board immediately, on the other end you have people who refuse to join no matter what. In the middle is when you reach a popular uprising.

And of course the Dick Act also created the Unorganized Militia, all able-bodied men aged 17-45 not otherwise in the Organized Militia (National Guard). Ageist and sexist, to be sure, but there it is.

You are focusing on violent crime, while my number are total deaths, yes suicide is included.

I thought so. I do not subscribe to using suicide deaths as part of any argument for gun control. If you are serious enough about suicide to use a gun, you'll find another way to succeed. In any case, I'm not willing to have my firearm rights curtailed because some people wish to kill themselves with firearms.

Two deaths in my rural neighborhood were merely stupid. A man was showing a girlfriend how to shoot, shoots her in the chest. A kid was on a trampoline in his own back yard, gets shot and killed by a knucklehead who doesn't think about where the round fired will eventually land.

Yes, some people will be careless with firearms. I don't know of any law that will prevent this. There are hunting accidents every year, and in many states all hunters born after around 1970 have to take a hunter safety training class.

A firearm has such an attraction to a depressed person as a way out of troubles. Sure, if they Really want to commit suicide, they will find a way. But a gun, so quick and easy. To damn quick and easy. One possible maneuver is a gun safe law where you can park your weapons in a secure facility rather than you home. Deters gun theft, which I understand is the main way firearms enter the black market, and a prevents a quick way out of trouble.

People can already choose to store their firearms in vaults outside their home if they choose. But I would not make this a requirement, as it negates the ability to defend yourself and your property in your home. Yes, firearms offer a quick and easy way to kill yourself. A far easier and painless way is to simply wrap a bit of cord around your neck and a doorknob and sit down on the floor. You will pass out within seconds and death follows shortly thereafter. It is called a carotid artery choke and I can tell you from first hand experience you are out like a light before you know it.

I disagree. I think a BI is necessary for every firearm transaction (not ammo, the weapon itself). I mean, voter ID? Gun owner ID. The point is that flea markets and gun shows seem to have a lot of untraceable. Inconvenient, yes. But it may slow down the flow of legal firearms into the gray/black market.

I don't know what you mean by "BI". Background check?

Yes, today private sales are completely unregulated. Forget flea markets and gun shows - just open your local penny saver. It seems unlikely to me that criminals will be paying market prices for firearms, but yes, they can do so and without a background check.

I don't have a problem with universal licensing, so long as it is an opt-out and not an opt-in basis. Basically everyone who applies for a state-issued ID would automatically be issued an FOID after a background check, unless they chose to opt out. Then all sellers of firearms will be required to record the FOID of the buyer and keep the record for some number of years. This is the way it works in Illinois, except, of course, the program is opt-in, which means it creates a registry of firearm owners. Opt-out preserves anonymous firearm ownership.

But if I have to have a license to own a gun, then I should be able to buy firearms though the mail again, since the only reason we have FFL middlemen today is to run a background check. If I've already had a background check, there is no need for the middleman.

[oldsarge54]

10. We agree to partially disagree

Forgive the short hand. I'm retired AF and to me BI means background investigation. I don't see the need for anonymous gun ownership. I really don't. I do not see this country busting down doors to confiscate firearms (one of the Texas "Militias show a picture they say are UN forces confiscating arms). They so called militias in Texas claim that with the National Guard replacing militias, that organizing militias have devolved to a local level. Local government, maybe, but not as private clubs, sorry. They are sick puppies. I am too much a historian to accept the misstatements attributed to the founding fathers, and a weak argument make defending gun rights actually harder.

We do have some points of agreement, and some areas that seem to be moving toward each other. Now why can the freaking politicians and NRA do the same (heart felt expletive deleted) thing?

[Atypical Liberal]

11. Anonymous firearm ownership.

I don't see the need for anonymous gun ownership. I really don't.

If you agree that the second amendment is intended to protect the ability of the people to keep and bear military arms so that they can function as military troops if necessary, and that the reason a decentralized military was preferred over a centralized one was so that they could counter federal power if necessary, then it should be obvious why anonymous firearm ownership is important. If the government has a list of firearm owners, it greatly harms their ability to counter federal power.

Moreover, the only way you will ever have a shot at universal licensing is if you guarantee anonymity.

Any licensing program that is part of a registration effort is a non-starter. Having he carrot of being able to buy through the mail also gives it a shot at passing.

I do not see this country busting down doors to confiscate firearms (one of the Texas "Militias show a picture they say are UN forces confiscating arms).

There is certainly precedent for it. California. Australia. But it is definitely harder to confiscate firearms without a list of who owns them.

Now why can the freaking politicians and NRA do the same (heart felt expletive deleted) thing?

Fear of incremental gun control.

[GreenStormCloud]

15. What would registration accomplish?

First, for those for whom it is illegal for them to have a gun, registration can not be required. Fifth Amendment forbids being required to give evidence against yourself. So the only people who would be able to register their guns would be the law-abiding and they aren't a signifigant danger.

Registration lists of firearms are almost never able to help in solving a crime. Criminals are smart enough no to leave the gun behind. They know that if they fire a shot with it then the gun needs to be thrown away, preferably in a river or lake. About the only time that you will get a criminal's gun is when you capture the criminal. (There are rare exceptions.) At that time you don't need the gun's registration.

Why does the government need to know that I own guns?

The only thing that registration would accomplish is to be a pain-in-the-ass for legal gun owners and discourage legal gun ownership. That, of course, is the real reason why gun controllers push it.

[rl6214]

12. Well done, you hit all of the points I would have

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

7. I find it interesting that...

...there are those who would like to have had Holmes prove his sanity before his gun purchases were allowed. This in a state that requires prosecutors prove that you're sane to counter an insanity defense. It seems that in Colorado the preference is for folks to be presumed insane until proven otherwise.

I personally would like to see these standards applied to those setting these standards.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

6. Just one reason...

...over-active imagination, an answer with simple elegance.

I guess I'm both perspicacious and modest.

[Remmah2]

13. Everyone is getting their underwear in a knot over a student newspaper?

I guess they're training their young rookie journalist the value of irrational fear and hype.

[Clames]

16. Sad state of our education system.

Subject aside, that was just painful to read.

[former-republican]

14. I'm beginning to see a trend with the OP

[ProgressiveProfessor]

17. I gather you mean his Google Dumping proclivities?

[SecularMotion]

19. Hi stalker

[Tuesday Afternoon]

22. cute. Not.

It IS Offensive to those of Us who have truly been stalked both on the Net and In Real Life.

[SecularMotion]

23. IBTSD

[Tuesday Afternoon]

24. Fooled ya!

[PavePusher]

18. Is it just me or is it impossible to leave a comment there?

So much for the free exchange of ideas in academia....

[Tuesday Afternoon]

25. You can leave a comment - just don't expect an intelligent reply to follow.

[PavePusher]

28. I did try.

It keeps telling me to check off the box saying I'm a human... but there is no such box.

Either they are disabling the comment feature, or perhaps their website doesn't like my browser...

[Tuesday Afternoon]

29. lol

are you human?

That article reads like a Seventh Grader wrote it. A misinformed Seventh Grader, at that.

[PavePusher]

31. Human...?

[aikoaiko]

20. Have you really been reduced to posting articles like that.

Violent crimes are at significant lows.

[ileus]

21. It's not.

[orpupilofnature57]

26. MSM is partially responsible for Misanthropes Success

as far as captivating us for 15 minutes.

[Simo 1939_1940]

27. Why have gun control advocates been reduced to hysterical lies?

A: Desperation.

[Loudly]

30. Too many guns. Too much ammunition.

http://readersupportednews.org/news-section2/335-156/12554-58-murders-a-year-by-firearms-in-britain-8775-in-us