It’s time for sensible gun control. A requirement to pass a test and score a minimum score with a pistol and a rifle to graduate from high school. The government to start to regulate the militia, with training and a yearly camp. You can’t just ban guns because prohibition doesn’t work except in reverse. You can live in a society where no one can shoot twenty kids before someone shoots him. Get sensible and control weapons by being sure that everyone knows them, and every member of the militia has one.
Or pass another ‘feel good’ ban, and hope the next nutball doesn’t target your kid’s school.
Richard Russell
Tempe
Cerulean posted at 7:10 pm on Thu, Dec 20, 2012.
Richard, You start your letter with a sentence that makes sense, and most agree.
But then your mind wanders off into some strange territory.
Required marksmen scores to graduate form high school.
A government militia?
We have never lived in a society that prohibited guns. We have had bans on assault weapons (Republicans removed the ban) and we can limit access to guns that can fire more than 5 rounds in rapid succession.
You do not have to let violent young men control your mind and your life, you only need to try and make their violence less dangerous.
Abstract01 posted at 11:26 pm on Thu, Dec 20, 2012.
Cerulean, violent young men do not want to control your mind, but only the last few moments of your life.
I suspect what Mr. Russell means by gun control is that when a person develops a skill, such as dribbling a basketball, he is truly in control while using that skill. In a similar sense, requiring all people to become familiar with firearms, and with operating the same, might reduce the aura of "special-ness" or power/authority that having guns lends to those who may be emotionally disturbed (because "everyone else does it too").
Required marksmanship (and military service) works quite well in at least one other country.
Mr. Russell's comment that "prohibiting something doesn't work" has a ring of truth. Witness that we have in our society various prohibitions yet they do not reduce the incidents of uncontrolled drug usage, uncontrolled underage drinking, or uncontrolled sexual activity (the list could be endless).
The only true control is self-control. The best way to help a person "feel good about their self" is to help them develop a useful set of skills that he can call his own. That is how a person gains a positive self-regard.
Cerulean posted at 8:05 am on Fri, Dec 21, 2012.
Mr. Russell needs to study American History:
When the battle of Wabash was lost because the militia defected and those that remained were hard to organize, Congress passed the First and Second Militia Acts of 1792.
The Acts outline who the militia is a what they will have – “free able-bodied white male citizen between the ages of 18 and 45 into a local militia company. Militia members were to arm themselves with a musket, bayonet and belt, two spare flints, a cartridge box with 24 bullets, and a knapsack. Men owning rifles were required to provide a powder horn, 1/4 pound of gun powder, 20 rifle balls, a shooting pouch, and a knapsack.[5] Some occupations were exempt, such as congressmen, stagecoach drivers, and ferryboatmen. Otherwise, men were required to report for training twice a year, usually in the Spring and Fall.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Militia_Acts_of_1792
Rich posted at 8:52 am on Fri, Dec 21, 2012.
Every time someone says something sensible Cerulean wades in with reams of irrelevant trivia hoping to tip the argument with it. If you look closely, he's posted twice here without addressing the argument presented, except to denigrate it and go on to tell us about such things as the battle of Wabash and the 200 year old plus Militia Acts. This has nothing whatsoever to do with what the letter writer posited. Mike McClellan does the same thing. Prompting one to ask whether a Liberal engages in a dialectic to learn or merely to force his agenda on others?
This solution works well in Switzerland and, in fact leads to lower crime rates and much lower violent crimes rates, especially when compared to countries which tightly control guns. And it was pretty much what the founders of the country envisioned see: Cerulean's post. The reason it fell by the wayside is that politicians have sought to dismantle any mechanization that threatened their power and increasing it. Therefore, instead of regulating the militia as they were charged by the second amendment, they opted for the creation of gun free killing fields to start a long slow descent into disarming everyone.
Cerulean posted at 10:31 am on Fri, Dec 21, 2012.
Rich, reread the letter and then sit in the front of the room with your dunce cap on.
The militia has not fallen to the wayside.
The ‘militia’ transformed into private and public enterprise. The Pinkertons were a private militia for hire. Blackwater is a private militia hired by the Bush administration to fight and protect US civilians in Iraq et el. And is still being used btw.
The National Guard became the public militia formed by the militia act of 1903.
Handguns with large cartridge capacity is not constitutional, should not be legal and they are not necessary for private citizens who hunt game animals or for use as protection.
Slabside posted at 3:11 pm on Fri, Dec 21, 2012.
Cerulean and Dale... one and the same.
Mike McClellan posted at 4:03 pm on Fri, Dec 21, 2012.
So armed guards are the answer, whether police or "militia."
And that helped at Columbine how?
Two armed guards at the school, one of them a highly-trained deputy.
And how many were killed that day?
Despite those two, one of whom exchanged fire with the killers?
And at the Aurora Mall, an armed security guard was present, but couldn't get to the theater quickly enough.
And at the Portland Mall, yet another armed security guard who couldn't get to the food court quickly enough.
Been to a public high school these days? How many armed security folks/militia should we have at each school.
Take Mtn. View High School, for example, in north Mesa. Or Desert Vista in Ahwautukee. Or Mtn. Ridge in Glendale. All schools with huge physical plants, meaning that unless you have multiple armed security/militia across the campuses, there are huge areas of vulnerability.
And will this militia be in every school building across the country, including every college building? What about dorms? What about malls, since we've had two mass shootings there recently? And what about coffee shops? How about gyms?
Concert halls? Gas stations? Bars? Restaurants? Toy stores? Parks? School buses? Commercial buses?
Mr. Russell's plan also would require constant practice in crowd shooting, since these shooters are often among a group of people. I guess that would happen at his "yearly camp." Good luck with that.
Mike McClellan posted at 4:26 pm on Fri, Dec 21, 2012.
And before someone trots out the "Look at Switzerland, a country armed almost as much as we are and with a much lower death-by-gun rate," they should look more carefully at their argument.
Because if you examine countries' death-by-gun rates, you find that those countries with stricter gun laws have lower death rates than places like Switzerland.
England, Spain, Japan, France, Chile, Romania, Australia, Austria, and many others, all with strict controls, have much lower gun death rates than does Switzerland.
Rich posted at 6:16 pm on Fri, Dec 21, 2012.
Mike you keep redefining an argument to argue with it. Two armed guards in a large campus don't do much. An armed militia, every man on campus between 18 and 46, makes a major difference, and that is what is being advocated. You have decided to push your agenda, no matter how far you have to travel, how far off topic and illogical you have to get to make an argument. The countries you mention do have a lower death by firearm rate, but a higher rate of violent crime, it's sort of like arguing that it's fine to kill someone with a knife, since I want to win an argument about guns. And with each post you get further from the topic and more fanatical. Your viewpoint turned our schools into killing fields, how much evidence do you need of that? Gun free zones don't work. Columbine through Connecticut they have proven to be more dangerous than the guns themselves. If you do something, and it kills people, doesn't it make sense to stop? You advocated those zones, you failed to see the unintended consequences. Perhaps now, that they are fairly clear, you should re-examine your position a bit, before you add your voice to those who would rather be thought right than save children's lives. Because people thought that disarming was a good idea, we have corpses, and, perhaps they should just back off and try something else, something with a prayer of working, not something that they know doesn't.
Cerulean posted at 7:10 pm on Fri, Dec 21, 2012.
The National Rifle Association responded Friday with a chorus of voices calling for more guns in school; Rich being one of those voices.
Fabulous, lets just have a shoot-em-up gun party – like they do in Iraq.
http://youtu.be/V8_lSXdip70
Rich posted at 9:26 am on Sat, Dec 22, 2012.
Way to go there Cerulean,
When the party line fails and you can't change the prospective by going off topic, you create a big, nasty bogie man organization and say everyone who disagrees with you is a member. What's your next trick, and do you care that you're helping to kill? People like you and McClellan helped create the bans, the gun free zones that people die in because they are left without a chance, without recourse because of people like you. The danger isn't guns, it's the ignorance and unreasoning fear people like you invest them with that turns them deadly. You can't come up with a single proposal that hasn't been discredited by history? The old Prohibition argument, ban it. It never works, always makes the situation worse, and does what you're doing now, blocking any attempt at a new direction, a new idea that might work and save lives. We've tried it it has cost us children, adults, airplanes, buildings, you're a very expensive fellow to listen to. Mr. Russell gave you an avenue that needs exploring, investigating, and this is your answer: "My way or the highway?" Your way doesn't work, we know that, the bodies of the children confirm it. We really have to get sensible and find something that does work and you're not even looking.
Mike McClellan posted at 9:53 am on Sat, Dec 22, 2012.
Besides you're factually incorrect about the "more guns = safer people" in country comparisons, it's you with the feelgood solution.
We have more guns per capita than any other country in the world, by far, almost one for every man,woman and child in America.
And with all that, no "good guy" has ever stopped a mass murderer. Ever.
Could your militia give us a better chance of stopping a madman? Yep. Unless, of course, he's better armed, better armored, and a better shot than the militia. Who are at an additional disadvantage -- the shooter's indiscriminate; the militia must not only be precise but so precise in a chaotic situation as to avoid killing others.
NYPD officer recently confronted a shooter on the streets -- they killed him; they also shot 9 bystanders.
Ready for your militia to be trained as well as SWAT teams?
And are you ready to station them in churches? Restaurants? Bars? Grocery stores? Drug stores? Malls? Parks? Playgrounds? Everywhere large groups gather?
Oh, I forgot -- in your fantasy, every able bodied man and woman would be packing heat, right?
Sorry. My bad.
Cerulean posted at 11:30 am on Sat, Dec 22, 2012.
I disagree with Mr Russell. I believe, though I am not certain, that all of the recent killings in schools have been committed by young men who had access to guns, and grew up in a culture of gun use in the home. I disagree strongly with marksmen tests for all high school students. Students who feel a kinship with the military can join those organizations that foster that kind of regimen.
It is sad, I am heart broken by the violence.
Thank you for your thoughts Rich. I wish you and Mike McClellan a good and safe holiday season.
Poorman posted at 3:19 pm on Sat, Dec 22, 2012.
What a shame this tragedy was,whats even worse is how many braindead people we have that don't have any idea of what they are talking about.. I just saw a ad on tv by some celeberties that are calling for a ban on al illegal weapons etc. Someone needs to tell them weapons that have been deemed by our leaders?, are already banned and have been for along time. We have politicos spouting off who don't even knowq the difference between a clip and a magazine,don.t know the difference between a revolver and a pistol. and they make our laws,my god,we do ned help.
bobunf posted at 12:16 am on Sun, Dec 23, 2012.
Guns make killing cheap, fast and convenient. It's not surprising that the country with the highest per capita gun ratio in the world also has the highest homicide rate amongst all developed countries.
Canada, for instance, has much stricter gun control laws than the US, and a homicide rate only a third that of the US. That's an extra 8,000 murdered in the US each year.
When we have a couple of massacres every month, maybe it's time to try something that's worked for everybody else. Unlimited access to guns of all types has been tried in the US for decades; it has not worked for us for decades.
Poorman posted at 9:49 am on Sun, Dec 23, 2012.
Depends what was used for a weapon, i think if you do some checkng you will find there are some other places with more.At least i think that wasmentioned on one of the Expert?? news shows this am.
Poorman posted at 9:59 am on Sun, Dec 23, 2012.
On one of the Sunday talk shows one of the Experts??,mentioned that there are other cities and countries that have more homicides,it depends on what was used for a weapon.
Masterrogue666 posted at 9:40 pm on Thu, Dec 27, 2012.
bobunf: You are welcome to move to Canada anytime you wish....