guns

[paul wheaton]

> This is supposed to be an exact replication of
> National Public Radio
> (NPR) interview between a female broadcaster, and US
> Army General Reinwald
> who was about to sponsor a Boy Scout Troop visiting
> his military
> installation.
>
> FEMALE INTERVIEWER:
> "So, General Reinwald, what things are you going to
> teach these young boys
> when they visit your base?"
>
> GENERAL REINWALD:
> "We're going to teach them climbing, canoeing,
> archery, and shooting."
>
> FEMALE INTERVIEWER:
> "Shooting! That's a bit irresponsible, isn't it?"
>
> GENERAL REINWALD:
> "I don't see why, they'll be properly supervised on
> the rifle range."
>
> FEMALE INTERVIEWER:
> "Don't you admit that this is a terribly dangerous
> activity to be teaching
> children?"
>
> GENERAL REINWALD:
> "I don't see how. We will be teaching them proper
> rifle discipline before
> they even touch a firearm."
>
> FEMALE INTERVIEWER:
> "But you're equipping them to become violent
> killers."
>
> GENERAL REINWALD:
> "Well, you're equipped to be a prostitute, but
> you're not one, are you?"
>
> The radio went silent and the interview ended. All
> one can think of is, Go
> Army!
>
>
>

[Greg Harris]

OUTSTANDING!!! that General should be given a Meritorious Service Medal for what he said!
i was in the Boy Scouts and i earned my Rifle Safety and Archery merit badges... notice it says "safety"! of course, i also earned Life Saving and First Aid... so i suppose if i accidentally shot someone i could have prolonged their life until we got to a hospital. i fully believe that by being exposed to guns in the Boy Scouts that i am far more responsible and prepared that someone who hasn't even picked one up before.
some people (that reporter) are "just chomping at the bit" for a way to ridicule those of us who own guns and know how to protect ourselves if the situation arises... i wonder if she has ever driven over the speed limit, or maybe after a couple drinks...

[Randall Twede]

People like her really get me riled up.I think the general handled it quite well though.

[Greg Harris]

yep, they really get me fired up, too. she took his statement and found the 1 thing she could twist around and make the General (and the Army and Boy Scouts) sound like terrible people.
however, if this is true, i am surprised the General really said that... these days (politically correct days) even an Army General has to kiss a** or his career is over. a comment like that on public radio could really be a problem for his future.

[Dave Vick]

I think what he said is great. Half (if not more) of the 'gun problem' we have is not the fact that there are guns it is the fact that people are not educated in them. There should be some sort of mandatory class you have to take before you can purchase a gun.
I am planning on taking my 8 yr old daughter to a shooting range in the near future to show her what they are, how to use one, make sure it isn't loaded, and how to fire one. That way if she is ever at someones house and they say 'look at daddy's gun' she'll know how to handle herself and hopefully be able to avoid any accidents.
If nothing else it'll scare the heck out of her.
Dave

[Andy Ceponis]

I applaud the general. Way to take some BS and shove it right back in her face.
Education is key. Just like Dave said its not that there are guns out there, its that people are not educated about them. They are not that simplistic. You really do need to be taught how to properly handle and operate one. I hate when people just say they are evil. Thats only one side of the coin.

[Manku Thimma]

BTW, this story's one of those urban legends - it's pure fabrication. Read here.

[David O'Meara]

Hmm, seem to be in the minority here, but isn't it gun related violence that creates the need for gun ownership, or does that sound like a circular argument?
Maybe we live in different worlds
Dave.

[Anonymous]

Originally posted by David O'Meara:
Hmm, seem to be in the minority here, but isn't it gun related violence that creates the need for gun ownership, or does that sound like a circular argument?
Maybe we live in different worlds
Dave.

No. Hunting, sporting and self defense create the DESIRE for gun ownership. It is the constitution that protects gun ownership in the US. That being said not all violence is gun related. Rape, stabbings, beating all occur everyday in the US. States with concealed carry laws have noticed a drop in violent crime.
I know a lot of women think hunting is bad, well until one of them gets a deer through the windshield and it kills her (When did people stop thinking ahead?). As funny as that is when it happens it is also sad in a way. Deer populations are soaring and the number of hunters after years of �Mindless guns are evil� rhetoric is shrinking. Deer are suffering needlessly from starvation, disease and the occasional plummet through the SUV. Though it is funny when supposedly thinking, reasoning humans reap what they sow I do not feel that the animals suffering is justified. OH, well back to those overly simplistic circular arguments you were regurgitating like a mindless mantra�..
Good Boy....Here's a biscuit!

[George Brown]

No problem. Where hunting is concerned, go shoot your deer and other wildlife if you think it's necessary for population control, food or 'sport'. And if your wildlife constitutes a danger to you, use your guns to defend yourselves.
It is the constitution that protects gun ownership in the US.
I would argue that the need for guns when that part of the constitution was originally written was completely justified. However, now that you live in an arguably safer world I would also argue that your need for guns is diminished, although I can see that once guns have been around and legal for a while the need for them becomes self-perpetuating ("Z has access to guns so i need a gun to defend myself against Z"...etc). I don't see why you need to retain the 'right to bear arms' for other reasons besides those already mentioned.
Living in countries where gun ownership is controlled by strict licencing seems to me to make sense. After all, if no-one has them no-one can use them in gun-related crime. But I'm not in the US or from the US so I shouldn't try to speak for the US. However, I still think that your NRA come across as madmen.
[This message has been edited by George Brown (edited August 28, 2001).]

[Dave Vick]

Originally posted by George Brown:

After all, if no-one has them no-one can use them in gun-related crime.

A valid point but I dont think it'll ever work. At the moment there are just too many guns out there to ever be able to get them all from people. And also, people now have the tools and know how to just go ahead an manufacture their own. They would be cruder but no less effective.
What we really need is some sort of pre-requisite like mandatory classes you must take or service in the military before owning a gun.
There are many societies in the world that do not have as many guns in the population but have a larger per capita of guns ion the home than we do. I can t remember exactly but Israel and Norway (could be Sweden or Denmark) come to mind. some of these guns are fully automaitc weapons that members of their military are issued. These places have a far lower percentage of gun related deaths than we do here. It isn't the lack of guns it is the level of education and understanding they have of them.
just my $.02
Dave

[David Weitzman]

There has been some talk about the constitutional right to have guns. I'd just like to note that the original reason for the right to bear arms was so the people could overthrow the government if they felt it necessary.

[Andrew Shafer]

It doesn't say the right to bear guns, it says the right to bear arms. The original basis was a dispute over privately owned cannons, not hunting rifles. Arms are weapons of war.
The right to bear arms was not founded in the citizens protecting themselves from each other, but was considered paramount to enabling citizens to protect their sovereignty from the government.

[Johnson Chong]

Presently I own a Colt King Cobra or M1911.
Am looking forward to having a Glisenti italy pistol.
I have no ammunition.
Pls, just help me, what are the classes I need to go to.
Last time I was shooting camera with birds.
Previously I could hit a small marble with a overhead throw when it is 180 ft away.
But look, things are serious now.

[Anonymous]

<CENTER><H1>Second Amendment to the US Constitution:</H1></CENTER>
<BLOCKQUOTE>
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.
</BLOCKQUOTE>
This doesn't guarantee anybody the right to own a gun. It guarantees the 50 states the right to have their own militias. A natural result of that is that we are guaranteed the right to take our militia guns back to our houses for storage. It doesn't give a 17 year old drug dealer the right to own an UZI, or even for a hobbyist to own a pistol.
Incidentally, I am in favor of people owning guns if they choose to. I'm only stating that the Constitution doesn't guarantee the right to own a gun in the way that people often think. I wonder how many pro-gun activists have even read the second amendment.

[Lance Finney]

Originally posted by Bodie Minster:

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.

Part of the problem with this debate is how horribly this amendment is written. Could anyone diagram this sentence? What's the subject? What's the verb? What shall not be infringed, the right or a Militia?

[This message has been edited by Lance Finney (edited August 30, 2001).]

[Greg Harris]

i think that the 2nd amendment can be interpreted to satisfy either position...
if you read it one way (and speculate) it says that the members of the militia have the right to keep and bear arms...
if you look at it the other way, it simply states that a militia is important to protect the interests of the "little man" and therefore everyone has the right to keep and bear arms in the event a militia becomes necessary (note, if only militia members had guns, how could you recruit new members?)

[Greg Harris]

by the way, i grew up in a city that requires every head of household to own a gun... (Kennesaw, Georgia. about 20 minutes north of Atlanta).

THE 1982 ORDINANCE
Sec. 34-1. Heads of households to maintain firearm
a) In order to provide for the emergency management of the city, and further in order to provide for and protect the safety, security and general welfare of the city and its inhabitants, every head of household residing in the city limits is required to maintain a firearm, together with ammunition therefor.
(b) Exempt from the effect of this section are those heads of households who suffer a physical or mental disability which would prohibit them from using such a firearm. Further exempt from the effect of this section are those heads of households who are paupers or who conscientiously oppose maintaining firearms as a result of beliefs or religious doctrine, or persons convicted of a felony.

[This message has been edited by Greg Harris (edited August 30, 2001).]

[Thomas Paul]

ISTM, that the purpose of the Second Ammedment was to prevent the federal government from taking guns from the people (i.e. the states). So the limitation of the 2nd Ammendment is on the federal government. If the states wish to pass gun control laws then that should be the right of the states.

[Greg Harris]

i just pulled this out of my Political Science book and i think it reads a little different...

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.

this way, with only one comma, it becomes 2 distinct sentances... (1)a militia is necessary to protect the individual states. (2) the people have the right to own guns.
just to make my opinion clear, i think only responsible, trained people should own guns... people who have taken a safety course of some type and who are not felons.
[This message has been edited by Greg Harris (edited August 30, 2001).]

[Pranav Jaidka]

Originally posted by Greg Harris:
i think only responsible, trained people should own guns... people who have taken a safety course of some type and who are not felons.

I cant understand why people need guns .In all countries except the US and now Afganistan(for different reasons though)..gun laws are pretty strict and restrictive. Here guns can be bought with jsut an ID i believe ..legally or illegally.
Even if there are educated and trained people holding guns legally ...is it not natural that the first thing a person with a gun would think of is shooting the other person in front with the slightest threat of danger???
Why is it that there are shootings in schools only in the US.Children have access !! where do they get these from ???

[David O'Meara]

I like to think of it this way:
Everyone who wants a gun is allowed to have one.
From time to time, there is a case where two people with guns will come face to face.
One person will be more likely to pull the trigger than the other and chances are that person will live and the other will die.
Now, I may not be able to argue towards a genetic code for 'firing a gun' and may have difficulty arguing a genetic background for anger or other contributing factors, but I might be safer with cutural or social influences:
I propose that a person who fires a gun to kill is (in general) more likely to do so again and will mix with similar people. (eg police, hunters, gangs?, groups )
(so it'd probably take me a couple of pages to argue this correctly, I hope you understand where I'm coming from)
My point is that if guns are openly available then even with education, the group 'people with guns who are prepared to use them' create a survival of the fittest situtaion where they are more likely to carry on... ie open gun ownership creates a situation in which murder becomes a survival trait
How's that for an anti-gun arguement (with a pinch of salt please, people)

Dave.

[Greg Harris]

I cant understand why people need guns.

well, you are correct, we should not need guns... the problem is that bad people do have guns. if the United States government were to pass a law banning private ownership of guns, who do you think would turn their guns in? only the honest, law-abiding citizens. who would keep their guns? the criminals.
so, if there were a law banning private ownership 100 years ago, we would not need guns today. unfortunately, there was no such law and therefore we (the private citizens) are allowed to keep guns in our homes to protect our families and possessions.
i am not saying that everyone should go out and buy a gun tomorrow... not at all. what i am saying is that if i choose to keep a gun in my home just in case someone decides to break-in and harm my family, i will keep a gun. furthermore, if that someone does break into my home, he (or she) better be a quicker draw than i am.

[David O'Meara]

what i am saying is that if i choose to keep a gun in my home just in case someone decides to break-in and harm my family, i will keep a gun. furthermore, if that someone does break into my home, he (or she) better be a quicker draw than i am.

Once again, gun ownership isn't a cultural thing 'round my parts, but I have a serious problem with this. I accept that its a long term history of gun ownership that makes it difficult to do away with, but I don't equate 'gun in the house' with 'safer family'.
How often do you expect to have someone break into your house? What is the 'expected gain' of having a gun in the house when the down side is that to be available to you it will also be available to your children.
Feel free to argue 'hidden locations' and 'locked cupboards', but if a gun is going to be in your house, in a position where it is handy to you, there is little you can do stop your children eventually getting hold of it if they want to.
Eventually I'm going to agree to disagree, but I don't get gun ownership at all.
Dave.

[Greg Harris]

well, i am single and do not have any children... so that is not a problem at the moment. when i do get married and have children, my opions might change.
however, my dad is a retired Army Colonel, so i grew up with guns in the house. i knew where they were, where the bullets were and i also knew NOT to touch them unless my dad was with me. i even had my own .22 rifle when i turned 12. i was taught from an early age to respect the distructive power of guns and i knew that they were not "toys" to be played with.
and, if you must know, our home was broken into twice when i was younger. i actually came home while they were in the house the 2nd time... they went out the back window and through the woods... the first thing i did was grab my .22, but they were gone before i could get a shot off. i was 13 at the time.
don't get me wrong, though. nervous people should not own guns! period. if someone does not like the idea of guns, then they should not own one.
i am not some paramilitary freek that has twenty guns in the house... as a matter of fact, i do not have a gun at all. i am looking at picking up a 9mm like i carried in the Navy, though. i also happen to have the Navy Expert Pistol medal, so i am a damn good shot... not that i am bragging.

[Shama Khan]

I thought the whole point of the initial poster was to show how irrelevant some people become when they have to defend a belief which is rather UN-defendible. I thought the whole point was to realize that the General was unable to debate on the topic and therefore resorted to insulting the female interviewer.
I am surprised that most responders sidestepped the huge insult and continued the debate.
By the way, I am all for public not having guns as soon as the police in New York City give up theirs. Because they can shoot someone in the back 20 times and get away with it, so when they are shooting someone just because s/he reached for a wallet. Maybe (just maybe) a memeber of the witnessing public can reach for his/er gun in the defense of a fellow member of the public.
Shama

[Greg Harris]

funny, i saw the interview in a completely different way... (even though it is fake).
i saw it as the reporter attacking the General, the Army and the Boy Scouts... she is just the type of liberal, nervous person i was referring to above. if she is afraid of guns, then she should not own one!
people like that (imaginary) reporter are always looking for ways to attack "conservative" institutions such as the military... she can attack us all she wants, but she better remember who is keeping her safe while she sleeps at night. if this interview were real, i would have applauded the General for giving a stupid reply to a stupid comment.

[Jamie Robertson]

Originally posted by Shama Khan:
By the way, I am all for public not having guns as soon as the police in New York City give up theirs. Because they can shoot someone in the back 20 times and get away with it, so when they are shooting someone just because s/he reached for a wallet. Maybe (just maybe) a memeber of the witnessing public can reach for his/er gun in the defense of a fellow member of the public.
Shama

If a cop shouts "stop, don't move or I'll shoot" and the criminal reaches into his pocket what would you do as a cop?
1. Assume he is a nice guy, and probably reaching for a wallet or some gum
2. Yell again, hopefully he won't have a gun to shoot you
3. Shoot him in the leg and hope to God that he is crippled by the bullet so he can't turn around and shoot
4. Shoot him dead, assuming that he is a criminal with a gun and not put your own life in jeopardy(20 bullets is probably in excess!)
5. don't even bother warning him, shoot him dead cause he's a criminal anyways.
My point is that just because he doesn't have a gun in his pocket, doesn't mean that he wasn't a threat to the officer's life. I don't know what specific case you are referring to, but don't be so quick to judge someone that must decide between his life and a criminal's in a split second on a daily basis.
Jamie
[This message has been edited by Jamie Robertson (edited September 04, 2001).]

[Greg Harris]

one of the recent police shootings that got a lot of media attention was with a known criminal... the guy had around 12 or 15 previous arrests. of course, the media "forgot" to mention that part of it.
the cops that shot him knew who he was and that he had a record... they were treating the suspect like a dangerous criminal (one of his arrests was for armed robbery) and proceeding with caution. the guy made a move to his pocket, or his back, and the cops shot.
i don't know about you, but in the Navy i was trained to shoot first, ask questions later. i know that does not apply to police in every day life, but when they are persuing a known criminal, i think it does.
sorry if my opinions are too harsh for you to handle, but life is not always friendly.

[Jamie Robertson]

Originally posted by Greg Harris:
one of the recent police shootings that got a lot of media attention was with a known criminal... the guy had around 12 or 15 previous arrests. of course, the media "forgot" to mention that part of it.
the cops that shot him knew who he was and that he had a record... they were treating the suspect like a dangerous criminal (one of his arrests was for armed robbery) and proceeding with caution. the guy made a move to his pocket, or his back, and the cops shot.

From the way Shama explained it, it sounded like one cop popped 20 bullets into some guys back. Is it a co-incidence that more than one policeman saw fit to shoot at this criminal? Is there more to this story? Sounds like a story that the media tried to make something out of nothing.

[Greg Harris]

i do not think i am referring to the same incident... i do not recall 20 shots being fired... more like 2 or 3.
although, you are right... if 20 cops saw the need to shoot this guy, then i am sure he did something to deserve it.

[Shama Khan]

Sorry it was 41 and the victim had no criminal history. This news may be old but it happens nonetheless. Soon we (even policemen) may be going to jail for killing animals but some humans are not even worth that much though.

In a verdict that stunned and divided New Yorkers, four New York Police Department police officers were recently acquitted of all wrongdoing in the death of Diallo, a black immigrant from Guinea, who was shot in the Bronx by the quartet of police firing no fewer than 41 shots. http://seattlep-i.nwsource.com/opinion/rush091.shtml
To learn more http://search.news.yahoo.com/search/fullcov?n=20&p=%22amadou+diallo%22

[Greg Harris]

yea, i remember that one... that was a horrible story. i can see firing 1 or 2 shots by mistake, but 40+ ? those guys should be fired. period.
however, that has nothing to do with my right to own a gun and protect my home. even if a gun law is passed in the future, cops will still have guns.
remember, guns don't kill people... people kill people.

[Jamie Robertson]

My comments on the story:
1. Author: Salmon Rushdie (didn't he write Satanic Verses??)
2. Topic: "Opinion...etc". I don't think I encountered one piece of evidence except that 41 shots were fired. The rest was crap. I couldn't respect the story with such bias. But then I read that these are only opinions from submissions of the public readers and that explained a lot!
just my opinion on the story coverage.
I found a more reliable story at http://www.nydailynews.com/2000-02-15/News_and_Views/Crime_File/a-56872.asp
Jamie

[Greg Harris]

Originally posted by Sridevi Kovvali:
i felt that the General gave an appropriate answer to her level so that she can understand it.

perfect! i could not have said it better myself. that is the whole point of the interview... it is supposed to show how the media searches for anything that they can twist around to make the other person look bad... whatever that person represents.

I think that the question was stupid and the answer was not stupid. The female interviewer should have been more responsible in asking question with a General and also shouldn't jump to conclusion immediately(Just go through the interview).

the only reason i said the answer was stupid is because if the General had really said it, he would have lost his career on the spot. any General (or Admiral) knows that there are certain things better left unsaid (on camera or tape) and that is one of them.