|
|
|
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
![[Masthead]](http://www.marshallnews.com/images/nameplate.png)
|
|
Fair ~ High: 86°F ~ Low: 67°F Thursday, June 20, 2013 |
|
Weapons of Mass DestructionPosted Thursday, February 19, 2009, at 4:57 PM
Except for two extended trips abroad, I have lived in Missouri my entire life: Tipton, Springfield, Branson, Columbia, Nixa and now Marshall. I suppose I have always known people with guns, or perhaps just known of them; but I have never had such close interaction with the gun culture of the Midwest as I do now.
Having only seen (and fired) a gun for the first time a couple of years ago, I am very uncomfortable around them. The risk factor truly terrifies me. I understand that hunting is an enjoyable, and sometimes necessary, sport. But playing games with deadly weapons doesn't sound that fun, or wise, to me. On multiple occasions, I have been told that, when other countries outlawed guns or made their laws stricter, crime increased. But, after living in two major international cities with few or no guns, I just don't think that is true. On several occasions over the course of a semester, I walked alone in downtown Sydney, Australia, at night. I also rode the public transportation alone, both day and night. Never once did I feel threatened or unsafe in that city of over 4 million people. At my internship there, I was actually ridiculed for being from America where guns are beloved. This past summer in Beijing, I again explored the city alone at all hours. My friends and I even ventured into some poor neighborhoods called "hutongs," basically ghettos, and the Chinese people only looked at us in wonder. I think the only threat to my safety in Beijing, a city of 17 million and counting, came from cars and bicyclists -- they are crazy drivers over there! Taking another human life is something I cannot comprehend, and I hope I never have to. I know that wars are sometimes necessary, and for those, we need guns. But I also know that the United States has the highest prison rate in the world, 714 of 100,000, along with widespread gun ownership, about 35 percent. Consider this shocking statistic I found at www.bradycampaign.org/issues/gvstats/fir.... "In 2004, firearms were used to murder 56 people in Australia, 184 people in Canada, 73 people in England and Wales, 5 people in New Zealand and 37 people in Sweden. In comparison, firearms were used to murder 11,344 in the United States." These numbers just don't add up, or perhaps they add up too well. In all likelihood, the second amendment will never be repealed, and I don't think that it should be. However, limits on one's rights are just part of Rousseau's "social contract" that is modern society; and something must be done to stop this violence that sets our nation apart from all other developed countries of the world. Comments Showing comments in chronological order [Show most recent comments first] |
Little Town Blues Goes to China  - Archives - Blog RSS feed ![[Feed icon]](http://www.marshallnews.com/images/icons/feed-icon-14x14.png){kind=icon} - Comments RSS feed - Send email to SYDNEY STONNER - Login Something about music. Something about small towns. Something about Hong Kong. Or maybe something else entirely.
Sydney is a former staff writer for the Democrat-News. She received degrees from University of Missouri in both music and magazine journalism. She played oboe with the Marshall Philharmonic Orchestra and the Marshall Municipal Band while she was in Marshall. Hot topics What a Difference a Year Makes(0 ~ 5:40 AM, May 22)
No Room for Shyness
Yes We Can (go to Japan)
The Doorman Always Rings Twice
The Disaster in Japan, as seen from Hong Kong
|
Email link
Read comments (11)
Blog archive
WOW...Eric you had to scrape deep into the left side of the barrel for this one. Especially with the state of terrorism as it is today. and this one wants to take our guns.Surely this was written in jest just to stir up the readers. this just serves to remind me why i send off that check to the NRA every year. And btw if you are serious.good luck with that in central missouri
To begin with, I do not own a gun. This is because I am not yet of the required age. I'm always interested when this subject comes up, because I am from mid-Missouri, and I do know many people who own guns and do some hunting. (I might add that none of them have ever killed anyone, accidentally or otherwise.)
I checked those figures you cited from bradycampaign.org, Sydney, and found something slightly different on nationmaster.com:
America is the number 5 leading country in murders worldwide, behind 1. India; 2. Russia; 3. Columbia; and 4. South Africa. Most recent statistics show 16,204 people are killed yearly, compared to 9,369 people murdered by a firearm. "Murdered," mind you -- this does not include accidental gun deaths, which I couldn't find a number for on nationmaster. So percentage-wise, about 57.8 percent of all murders in the U.S. are gun-related.
However, it is also noteworthy to say suicides typically make up 56.5 percent of all gun deaths according to the Bureau Of Justice Statistics. And in fact, drugs and suicides account for more than 2 out of every 3 gun deaths in the U.S.
Therefore, if all the drugs in the world magically disappeared and everybody who considered suicide didn't go though with it, the number of gun deaths in America would be cut by over two-thirds. This isn't going to happen, but it is a lot more than I had originally thought.
Then again, even though the U.S. if 5th in the world in yearly murders, we are 4th leading in murders with guns, following 1. South Africa; 2. Colombia; 3. Thailand.
One thing that is deceiving on bradycampaign.org is that with those countries listed in comparison to the U.S., the total number of murders should have been listed as well, or else the picture is skewed:
In Australia there were 59 gun murders (most recently on nationmaster) compared to 302 total murders, which is 19.53 percent.
In Canada there were 144 gun murders compared to 523 total murders, which is 27.53 percent.
In United Kingdom there were 14 gun murders compared to 1,201 total murders, which is only 1.16 percent.
In New Zealand there were 10 gun murders compared to 51 total murders, which is 19.6 percent.
In Sweden there were 58 gun murders compared to 219 total murders, which is 26.48 percent.
That's just for a little perspective, I'm not going to say America doesn't have an overactive violent tendency, or that 9,369 people killed yearly is by any means a drop in the bucket. It's a tragedy is what it is.
But think about it, if guns were outlawed and murder by baseball bat numbers soared to the top, would we really consider outlawing baseball bats? I think not.
It all comes down to that age-old saying, "Guns don't kill people -- people do." Tragedy or not, as long as poison, knives, rope, blunt objects and tall buildings exist, people will find a way to kill other people, with or without guns. The total might be decreased for a while, but only until the next best alternative is found.
You can check these stats at http://www.nationmaster.com/red/pie/cri_...
(Whoa! This post is a lost longer than I thought it would be!)
Well said music
GOCHIEFS:
Sydney said, "In all likelihood, the second amendment will never be repealed, and I don't think that it should be."
You said "this one wants to take our guns."
Where does she say she wants to "take our guns?"
Sydney, stories abounded worldwide about America and the "Wild West." Stories about guns and America's heroes, villains and everyday life were told, printed in newspapers and published in dime novels and sold all over the world. The United States is known more for it's cowboys than millions of people who live quiet ordinary lives. You might note that Hollywood doesn't make movies about quiet ordinary people living quiet ordinary lives. Sensationalism outweighs ordinary every time.
The vast majority of Americans who own guns use them for hunting for sport or home and self protection without a hint of a problem. We do and have always lived in a violent world. To think that without guns our lives would be somehow safer is unrealistic.
Secretary Brady was an unfortunate victim bystander when John Hinkley tried to assassinate President Reagen. The Brady Foundation was founded as a result of his injuries from an insane person trying to kill the President.
You say, "I am very uncomfortable around them. The risk factor truly terrifies me." You are not alone in your feelings. The respect or fear of a firearm is the first lesson taught in the proper use of a firearm.
During the 60' California led the way in developing the romanticism of the car culture.
We except cars as a necessity, a way of life. In America, each year, there are over 40,000 lives lost in automobile accidents. Because we all own cars there is no concerted effort to ban them or restrict owning and using them beyond title, license and registration.
Crime is a very real problem in America. A determined criminal will use whatever means necessary to commit a crime and to try to evade capture. The gun just seems to be the weapon of choice in committing crimes. I try to not let the actions of criminals and the reactions of others determine the realities and fate of millions of law abiding citizens in America. Just one man's opinion.
I am a strong supporter of responsible gun ownership. The biggest part of the problem is that both sides are too enmeshed in having their way, winning at all costs, that niether can see how ridiculous their own sides are being.
First and foremost, we must look at the definitions of categories that guns fall into. Semi automatic and automic weapons cover too broad a scope(no pun intended). This is what the NRA is fighting over. They are not fighting for every hunter to own an AK-47. They all know that that much ammo will ruin the meat. However, the definitions are too broad and some models of truly "hunting" rifles are included in the list of banned weapons. This is what the fight is. But no one is willing to come to the table and truly discuss these issues. It's way too much of my way or the highway.
I also can't see why anyone who wants a hunting rifle, or a handgun for protection, is not willing to submit to a background check and a reasonable waiting period, required gun safety courses or mandatory gun safes or lock boxes. It makes no sense that if you want your gun for legal purposes that you can't follow procedures that guarantee yours and everyone elses rights and safety.
Nana Dot, I don't find it so odd that pro-lifers support the NRA, unless the implication is that the NRA only wants people to have guns to commit murder. What I do find odd is that pro-lifers support the death penalty, and vice-versa, opponents of the death penalty support abortion rights.
Reader101, my response is to your third paragraph.
Gun Safety Training
In reference to gun safety courses, even with my military guns safety instructions in the use of the M16 Full Automatic Assault Rifle, C-4 fragmentation grenades and the M60 machine gun; and the fact that I am a former policeman I can't go and buy a pistol unless I pay some person for a course.
Mandatory gun safes or lock boxes.
I don't know if this is a requirement or a suggestion. I've don't own one and I've never used one. I can think of several reasons why I will not have my firearms locked up.
Everyone's rights.
It makes no sense that if you want your gun for legal purposes that you can't follow procedures that guarantee yours and everyone elses rights and safety.
When does everyone else have a right or say in what or why I own a firearm?
John Q,
This is what I'm trying to get at. There has to be common sense inserted into the gun debate. Espcially with HR45.
For example: You should not have to pay someone for gun safety courses for every gun you purchase. Can you imagine having to pay for drivers ed every time you purchased a new car? No. You should be be required to have a class in gun safety and issued a certificate or some other form of proof that you can then use for all future transactions.
Licensing and registration fees. While I see nothing wrong with registering your gun, it should not be $25.00 per gun every three years or face up to 5 years in prison. Again, going overboard. And no authority should have the right to come into your home to see if your guns are registered.
Surely we can come up with some way that is as fair as possible to all parties.
As far as gun safes. I grew up with guns in the house, but only hunting rifles, not hand guns, so maybe my view is not the same as handgun owners. Guns were locked away, as was the ammo-different place, different lock, different key. This kept the guns out of sight of visitors and out of the hands of those who shouldn't have their hands on them. Of course, we did also learn to respect the guns and proper use, they were never curiosities to us.
And for rights. I do strongly believe the in the second amendment, and that this right carries with it a responsiblity. Each of us also has the right to not be harmed or killed by someone's gun, or careless treatment of their gun resulting in someone else getting their hands on it and using it to harm or kill another person.
Rifles are for killing deer and handguns are for people. The only people who should be allowed to carry handguns are cops. The only people who should have automatic or semi-automatic weapons are military. I can fully protect my child and my property with my husbands hunting rifles. You should only have to pay a fee on a gun once, yes.
I do think however that the unemployment rates and the bad state of our education system, especially in larger urban areas, are more to blame for the thousands killed, though, than less strict gun laws.
Why discriminate against hand guns? Automatic weapons are illegal. Semi autos are used for hunting appropriately. The GUN is not the cause of crime and to constantly punish the gun is foolish and does not address the problem.
Law abiding people who purchase guns and ammo legally are not the people who commit violent crime with guns.
The second amendmant is not to protect gun ownership, but is actually to protect the citizenry from the governement. A government that is NOT fearful of its citizens is a government that can run afoul of its purpose.