Side story on the recent gun spree

[Fuchs]

The prominence of a loud minority which has gone of the rails is not a universal symptom, though.

It's in my opinion a society's essential requirement to keep dangerous people from power (not from voting, of course). Many Western countries are much less about to fail spectacularly in this regard.
Just look at the current firearms regulation debate:
The NRA's leadership which represents a minority of NRA members (in regard to its stance concerning universal background checks, loopholes etc.) who are in turn a minority of the citizens effectively plays the role of representing one half (side) of the debate. It does even so after an obvious record of fearmongering, hypocrisy, inconsistency and distortions.

A society working well would not have paid much attention to the NRA leadership and would instead have moved on with overwhelmingly popular measures such as universal background checks a long time ago.


It's dysfunctionality that dominates, not some supposedly unique "freedom" to be proud of.


Sadly, this dysfunctionality extends to foreign policy and eve the question of war or not war. This is where it becomes important to foreigners.

[J Wolfsberger]

It does even so after an obvious record of fear mongering, hypocrisy, inconsistency and distortions.

On this I agree with you. Despite all of the things you cite coming in a never ending stream from Democrats and other Leftists, the NRA is still a very widely respected organization. Incidentally, part of your confusion is due to the fact that many more millions of people look to the NRA to protect their rights than actually join. (Of which, last I heard, they were getting close to 5 million members [1 million new in the past couple of months]. Hats off to Obama for running such a successful membership drive on their behalf.)

A society working well would not have paid much attention to the NRA leadership and would instead have moved on with overwhelmingly popular measures such as universal background checks a long time ago.

I realize that growing up in the old DDR makes it difficult to understand what a lot of terms mean. A "society working well" does, in fact, pay a lot of attention to the leadership of organizations that represent sizable portions of its membership. What I think confused you is the hard Left definition of "society" as "the properly indoctrinated Leftists" who make noise out of all proportion to their membership in that society.

It's dysfunctional that dominates, not some supposedly unique "freedom" to be proud of.

Likewise with your use of the term "dysfunction." It does NOT mean "refuses to rubber stamp the majority opinion." What dominates in the U.S. is a dynamic tension between different points of view. That does, indeed, make it very difficult for one side to impose its will on the other. Again, given that you grew up in the DDR it's understandable you'd be confused about this.

Incidentally, I read one of those constitutions you recommended as a modern, responsible constitution. They "granted" the citizens the "right" to food, clothing shelter, jobs, health care, etc. (I suspect a right to free puppies was in there somewhere, but I didn't look.) They also "granted" government the "right" to levy taxes. I was underwhelmed.

I think you need to work on understanding the distinction among the concepts of "right," "privilege" and "desires." One thing you could try that might help along those lines would be to put some effort into understanding the 2000+ years of philosophical and theological reasoning that underpins the U.S. Constitution (with particular attention to Plato, Cicero, St. Thomas, Spinoza, and a whole library of English and French philosophers). Another would be to understand why that "modern" constitution looks, to this U.S. citizen, to lie somewhere between infantile and childish.

[Fuchs]

Oh you're wrong. If you get a good gun it can be trusted. If you get a Glock it will go bang when you pull the trigger and it won't go bang if you don't.

There's no reason to trust that a gun is a reliable defence or even protection. Many times, having a gun will not protect you at all.

May I remind you at a certain man who possessed firearms, knew how to handle them, had them with him and still got shot dead recently?


A call for the police is no guarantee, pepper spray is none, a noise tool is none, a central lights switch for the entire house is none ... and guns are none.
________________

I totally skipped this so far:

Again, given that you grew up in the DDR it's understandable you'd be confused about this.

Ridiculous.
For starters, you don't know where I grew up and second, I didn't grow up in the DDR.

It shows how little you care about the difference between knowledge and fantasy, or about reality in general, though. You just didn't care that you were ignorant about my birthplace and simply moved on assuming your fantasy was real.

Now about who's the confused one here...

[J Wolfsberger]

For starters, you don't know where I grew up and second, I didn't grow up in the DDR.

I thought you used to reference a web site where you posted long form essays. I recalled comments about growing up in East Germany, and a few comments on the fall of the Berlin Wall. I tried to check, but couldn't find the link anymore, so went with my recollection. Maybe I had you confused with some other poster from Germany.

It was bad memory, not your accusations.

[Fuchs]

OK, fine. Everybody errs sometimes.
I can indeed figure out how this happened; prejudices.
__________________

regarding warning shots

According to Germany's Der Spiegel, German police shot only 85 bullets in all of 2011, a stark reminder that not every country is as gun-crazy as the U.S. of A. As Boing Boing translates, most of those shots weren't even aimed anyone: "49 warning shots, 36 shots on suspects. 15 persons were injured, 6 were killed."
http://www.theatlanticwire.com/globa...le-2011/52162/

That's competence, not an "invitation to criminally negligent homocide".
Supposing people should go for the kill with the first shot (or salvo) is such a thing instead.

[Stan]

regarding warning shots

According to Germany's Der Spiegel, German police shot only 85 bullets in all of 2011, a stark reminder that not every country is as gun-crazy as the U.S. of A. As Boing Boing translates, most of those shots weren't even aimed anyone: "49 warning shots, 36 shots on suspects. 15 persons were injured, 6 were killed."
http://www.theatlanticwire.com/globa...le-2011/52162/

That's competence, not an "invitation to criminally negligent homocide".
Supposing people should go for the kill with the first shot (or salvo) is such a thing instead.

Just my pesky self from this little corner of the earth

Did you read that link at Boing Boing ? Strange place for supporting information, but then, I have a few too

The only thing I really worry about when it comes to warning shots, is, they generally return to earth nearly as fast as they left. Serving in Africa where everything was a warning shot on full auto, I fear a lot more innocent people were shot than that of those actually being aimed at.

In defense of this post, I will only say that the BPOL as well as the German Border Guard (we work and train with both) are a tough crowd and have never appeared friendly. They mean business and using a firearm is the least of your worries. They do have some sweet looking H&Ks

[jmm99]

Good to see you're reading this thread - buttering you up like brioche.

In this post, Some Chasms are Too Wide to Bridge - pt 2, I linked to two monographs: Dave Kopel and Barbara Frey, to illustrate the gulf between the positions of Kopel and Frey (UN S.R., etc.). I did not discuss them substantively as they bear on genocide issues in Central Africa.

Discussing "gun control" and "gun possession" in Central Africa in this thread would take it far beyond its reasonable limits (HT to Steve Blair). However, your expertise in this area would be appreciated because both Kopel's and Frey's arguments are of interest to me.

So, if you want to, please take a look at the monographs and get back to me in a PM.

My personal view on the UN position (as applied to the US) is obviously negative. I think Dave (despite all his mastery of 2nd Amendment history here; and his being a Michigan Law grad and a Law Review editor ) is playing Pollyanna with respect to genocide (but, perhaps not).

Thanks in advance.

Regards

Mike

[Fuchs]

Just my pesky self from this little corner of the earth

Did you read that link at Boing Boing ? Strange place for supporting information,

I actually read the Spiegel article when it was published. It's citing a official report. The numbers have been similar in earlier years.
We're a nation of 80+ million people for whom needing guns to solve anything is such an exception that it's almost a rounding error. We've found better ways even for dealing with violent criminals.
I consider this a success.

I will only say that the BPOL as well as the German Border Guard (we work and train with both)

Strange. Bundespolizei and Bundesgrenzschutz are the same, for the latter was renamed into the former several years ago. I assume you thought of some state police.

[Dayuhan]

The only thing I really worry about when it comes to warning shots, is, they generally return to earth nearly as fast as they left. Serving in Africa where everything was a warning shot on full auto, I fear a lot more innocent people were shot than that of those actually being aimed at.

The standard script for a Manila coup d'etat used to be that the rebellious soldiers would occupy a piece of urban real estate, the loyal soldiers would surround them, and at some point they would conduct what was called "acoustic warfare", which meant firing vigorously over the heads of the nominal antagonists. The law of gravity being what it is, this was not always a healthy thing for the surrounding neighborhoods.