TargetTalk

jhmartin wrote:

Ray Odle wrote:Crimes committed by the mentally ill are statistically extremely low.

Ray ... read this article. While "statistically low", these crimes are the ones the media focuses the attention on.

"The giant, gaping hole in Sandy Hook reporting"
http://www.wnd.com/2013/01/the-giant-ga ... reporting/

That's an excellent article and it has a valuable aim; to stimulate the discussion of mental health care today. And I certainly agree that any drugs being given to such people as these killers need to be front and centre in the discussion, part of the whole conversation around a violent, dysfunctional culture. Blaming the drugs alone isn't enough though. They're a symptom as much as are the violent video games and horror/slasher films such as have been prominently mentioned by the CEO of the NRA recently. And gun availability is another element. Money is a big factor, as it distances people further and further from a sense of empathetic interaction and towards an ultimately competitive drive to win at all costs. And on and on, there are so many factors which need to be looked at and included in a grand re-design of our misguided culture. Merely following in the footsteps of our forebears isn't good enough. We have been wakened by this tragedy in Connecticut to the need for change. Let's not waste this opportunity in bickering, but rather in promoting a series of useful ideas for the repair of a broken society.

Ray Odle wrote:

Richard H wrote:Morals don't come from an old book.

You are right. They come from it's author.

At least according to that book's fans. Others tend to take it a lot less seriously, and usually draw their morality from a rather obvious source, namely that a family and a community function better in harmony than in conflict. One doesn't need an old book nor even a set of laws to see that simple truth. All you need is caring parents and teachers who don't mislead or abuse the children in their charge. And therein lies the rub. Family is going down the toilet, monetized media consumption and the urgency of acquisitive enterprises has made family and community seem like irrelevancies. And no amount of religion has a prayer of fixing this. The system needs to change at a deeper and better enlightened level.

And we can start by banning any gun that you don't use or see a need for, right Gerard?

Richard H wrote:And we can start by banning any gun that you don't use or see a need for, right Gerard?

I'd rather not know what orifice you pulled that out of. When have I said we need to ban everything but air pistols? I did once suggest that if an outright ban on all guns would fix the problems I'd have no problem with that... but think for a moment. Is that at all similar to advocating a gun ban? Try not to let your paranoia get out of hand Richard.

Actually saying to ban all guns if it would fix all the problems is exactly that. That's what the gun ban proponents say, " if it saves one life".

You seem intent on rubbing everyone the wrong way.

Not at all. Just don't much appreciate being wholesale lumped in with the simpletons of the anti- crowd.

Not at all. Just don't much appreciate being wholesale lumped in with the simpletons of the anti- crowd.

Simple, don't act like one.

Richard H wrote:Actually saying to ban all guns if it would fix all the problems is exactly that. That's what the gun ban proponents say, " if it saves one life".

You seem intent on rubbing everyone the wrong way.

I disagree rather strongly with Gerard in some of what he says. The particular comment you allude to is a shining example.

It doesn't, however, rub me the wrong way. I'd prefer to think of it as an opening to discuss why I think it's wrong. Since those arguments are well known to both sides of this, there's no need for me to regurgitate them here on a web forum where great walls of text tend to be ignored in favor of a tl;dr line at the beginning or end.

Just for the record, I'd like to reiterate some of the comments that restarted this subject on this board: The conversation here has been more informative, more civil, more enlightened than pretty much any other place I've seen.

Here's hoping it stays that way.

BenEnglishTX wrote: Just for the record, I'd like to reiterate some of the comments that restarted this subject on this board: The conversation here has been more informative, more civil, more enlightened than pretty much any other place I've seen.

Here's hoping it stays that way.

Me too, Ben, but you know how those Canadians bicker with each other.

Here are 3 more interesting articles I ran across:

The first was published in the Washington Post and appeared in my local newspaper, both of which never met a gun-ban proposal that they didn't like. So I was quite surprised by the reasonable tone, even if I don't agree with everything in the article.
https://ssl1.washingtonpost.com/opinion ... story.html

The second brings up an aspect of mass killings that I had never thought of as potentially important
http://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2 ... s/1566084/

And the third shows those pesky facts raising their heads again, in the state that ranks first in gun control laws (aren't we proud we're Number 1?)
http://www.sacbee.com/2013/01/06/509455 ... risen.html

Peace,
FredB

FredB wrote: The second brings up an aspect of mass killings that I had never thought of as potentially important
http://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2 ... s/1566084/

FredB's quoted USAToday article wrote: There are few things a culture does as important as raising children. We can't continue to fail half of them.

Never thought of as potentially important? Have another look at my post from 6:41pm today, just a few posts up, where I rant about the importance of healthy family and community. Do you just want to take pot shots at me for being a 'bickering Canadian' or will you actually read what I have to contribute and take it at least slightly seriously?

USAToday isn't exactly a shining beacon of journalism, but it is good, I agree, to see the failures to serve our children, perhaps especially our sons well in the USA and I'll add in Canada as well. Too many boys here are still turning to violence against each other and against women. We must do a better job as parents. And that should be a HUGE part of this discussion. Focusing on personal jabs and misleading comments about each other's motives or 'hidden agendas' is not going to help anything.

Even with the declines, California, which would be the world's ninth largest economy if it was a separate nation, has a higher rate of gun-related homicides than almost any industrialized country, United Nations figures show."

Read more here: http://www.sacbee.com/2013/01/06/509455 ... rylink=cpy

as usual, it depends on what you want to see in the article.

588* gunshot deaths since sandy hook. *data from 5jan13

Well, I guess this is a success.

http://www.newkerala.com/news/newsplus/ ... OvfUL-9Kc0

I do hear the faint calls now for the need for the government to control the Internet.

Gerard,
I’m glad to see you back on the forum. Even though I do not agree with most of your posts and have trouble following your logic at times you do make the thread more interesting. Thank you for staying with it.

Yes, welcome back Gerard.

FredB thanks for those links - all were interesting. It's funny how you just accept that the killing is always done by males but you don't take that further. I would not have thought that the suicide rate was so markedly different between young girls and young boys.

Gregor

Gerard wrote:

Richard H wrote:And we can start by banning any gun that you don't use or see a need for, right Gerard?

I'd rather not know what orifice you pulled that out of. When have I said we need to ban everything but air pistols? I did once suggest that if an outright ban on all guns would fix the problems I'd have no problem with that... but think for a moment. Is that at all similar to advocating a gun ban? Try not to let your paranoia get out of hand Richard.

Am I the only person here who is thinking that Gerard can think and say whatever he wants but the last time I checked, he still lives in Canada. I love it when he says "we" need to ban or "I have no problem with an outright ban". Gerard, YOU HAVE NO SAY IN THIS PROCESS. How would you like it if the the rest of the world thought that they knew better than you and were trying to push there agenda onto you. You can say whatever smug thing you want but (in my opinion) the majority of the US could care less what the people from up North think that we should do or say.

I am officially done with this thread and this the last thing that I am going to say, can the rest of the world please let us know when they are done rewriting our constitution?

The two clauses of the second amendment compliment [sic] each other and further strengthen each other. It's [sic] authors made their intent clear in many other writings.

Factually and historically you are wrong. The first clause has been used as the basis for every court decision limiting individual gun ownership, denying the right to non-militia guns or uses. The second clause justifies expanded ownership, carry, use to individuals.

Context is everything, and this is worth noting: the Constitution was written by men who did not want and did not expect the country to have a standing army. "A well regulated militia" was their vision of how the nation or an individual state would defend itself from foreign or domestic threats. The most casual study of Shays' Rebellion shows the distinction between "militia" as raised by the rebels and the "well regulated" variety which went out to arrest them. There is no logical reading of "well regulated militia" that can mean untrained persons, with no responsibility to defend the body politic, walking into a gun shop and walking out with whatever.

william
"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

Am I reading this wrong?

Caveman's text:

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

My text:

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

They appear to agree. What's the point?

TraLfaz wrote:How would you like it if the the rest of the world thought that they knew better than you and were trying to push there agenda onto you... (?)

Ending punctuation changed because I assume you meant this as a rhetorical question.

There is a problem with that, however. The question isn't rhetorical, the answer isn't unimportant, and no one from the USA should ever ask it in a forum with any sizable contingent of international visitors. We really don't have an admirable record when it comes to pushing our agenda on other nations.

I truly hope this topic doesn't get sidetracked into that discussion. That would be not just severely off-topic but a substantial embarrassment to all the U.S. citizens on the board. I'm in no mood to have the near-infinite list of sins committed by my government in this arena read back to me.

To our readers in other nations - Restraint? Please? As a former standup comic, I understand the pain of passing up an opportunity when someone hands you a straight line on a silver platter but...well...just...please, not this time. OK?