Boxer cites California gun laws to stop California terrorist attacks


Please consider donating to Behind the Black, by giving either a one-time contribution or a regular subscription, as outlined in the tip jar to the right. Your support will allow me to continue covering science and culture as I have for the past twenty years, independent and free from any outside influence.

The reality-challenged Democratic Party: Today Senator Barbara Boxer (D-California), in demanding new gun control regulations in response to yesterday’s terrorist attack in California, noted that “sensible gun laws work. We’ve proven it in California.”

You can’t make this stuff up. The so-called sensible but very restrictive gun control laws in California did nothing to stop the murderers yesterday, but they did do a good job of making sure the innocent people there were unarmed, helpless, and easy targets. (The attack also took place in a government facility that is a gun-free zone.)

So of course, Boxer and the Democrats want to disarm everyone else, so that these killers won’t have as hard a time at killing us.

Share

37 comments

  • hondo

    I understand her – she has an agenda – and is more than willing to accept collateral damage in pursuit of her agenda. To her – these people are expendable.

    Harsh – yes. But I now believe it to be true. We are expendable.

  • DougSpace

    One of my friends was shot there three times but fortunately is expected to recover. I wonder if there could have been a way to put the dots together beforehand and so could have scrutinized Sayed more before the shooting. In retrospect, there were a number of red flags.

  • Nick P

    “The attack also took place in a government facility that is a gun-free zone”

    When I visit my old home in Santa Cruz California I always see the sign “This is a Nuclear Free Zone”.

    So naturally I leave all my nuclear weapons in the trash can at the side of the road.

    Why can’ terrorists cooperate and leave their weapons outside like the sign says?

    Maybe they just didn’t see the sign…

  • Cotour

    Boxer is theee perfect example of a “moral literalist” with her pronouncement on this attack . She insists that her version of reality based in her personal morality model related to what she believes is reality by her own observation or the agenda that she has decide (for your own good of course) should be promoted as reality.

    Her perception is your reality, the height of arrogance and fantasy. A very dangerous person, Obama is also of the same cloth.

    The rules by which she plays:

    STRATEGY OVER MORALITY / S.O.M. JGL 2011

    EXTREME LEADERSHIP THOUGHT PROCESS AND ACTION WHERE THE ENDS ALWAYS JUSTIFIES THE MEANS, WHERE MORALITY IS ONLY A HUMAN CONCEPT, ADHERED TO BY “OTHERS”.

    How civilizations, governments and wars throughout history are founded, fought and must at their existential core operate.

    EXPLAINATION:
    Strategy Over Morality describes a two-tiered “conversation” between a Public and their Leadership where the Public believes there is only a single, no tiered conversation occurring and that single conversation relates to the Public’s morality model perspective.

    A model in which leadership can choose to formulate an interpretation of their core fiduciary responsibilities which becomes paramount over and above the public’s morality model. Where plausible deniability can be claimed when “immoral” acts or strategies are employed by leadership or by arms length leadership proxies.

    In this “conversation”, leadership steps “down” to the public’s level and presents information, agenda or strategy in a tailored, palatable package the public can believe and comfortably accept. Leadership then steps back to their “higher” level, formulates and executes “necessary” agenda and strategy where the public’s interpretation of morality is not relevant.

    CONCLUSION: The public lives and operates under a moral code perspective which they assume their leadership is constrained by. This is a subjective false perspective conclusion on the part of the public, in fact leaderships core fiduciary responsibility requires that leadership is or can be selectively or necessarily void of “morality”.

    TERM DEFINITIONS:

    PUBLIC: The individual citizens of any civilization, society or country.

    LEADERSHIP: Any macro governing body concerned with the formulation and implementation of laws, strategies and policies, both civil and military.

    LEADERSHIPS CORE FIDUCIARY RESPONSIBILITIES: Above all else the promotion and survival of the society, culture, boundaries, power and treasure.

    Related questions:

    1. Who’s benevolence and self interest model would you rather live under, yours or your enemies ?

    2. What steps will you not undertake in order for your benevolence and self interest model to prevail ?

    3. When does morality trump power and treasure ?

    4. What influences leadership and agenda ?

    Answers and Rules of operation:

    1. You never want to live under an enemies benevolence and self interest model.

    2. You will take any steps in order to live under your benevolence and self interest model.

    3. In order for “morality” to be implemented it is initially trumped by survival and power. “First we eat, then civilization”

    4. The possessors of power and treasure always influence leadership and agenda.

    5. Leadership never willingly gives up power.

  • Cotour

    Part of the shaping of your reality:

    http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/syed-farook-wife-tashfeen-radicalized-report-article-1.2455213

    This American young man Farouk was radicalized by his wife? How pathetic, they are plainly blaming a woman from Arabia for the actions of them both. This is how the powers that be, and make no mistake about it the Daily News is an extension of the government and its policies, shapes and distorts your reality. I say again embarrassing, although this goes much further than merely being embarrassed.

  • Edward

    Interesting that Boxer declares that a mass murder demonstrates that gun laws work. That would imply that 14 dead and 21 injured or maimed is the intention of these laws.

    Or perhaps hondo is correct, the intention is for murderers to go after the unarmed “soft targets” (the rest of us) and leave the guarded “hard targets” (the politicians) safe.

    Nick P has a good point. Santa Cruz (as well as Nuclear-Free Zone Berkeley) certainly have nuclear sources generating the x-rays in dentist offices and hospitals. It isn’t as though some enemy would read the “Nuclear-Free Zone” signs and realize that they cannot target areas around those “zones” for nuclear attack. Just as the bad guys ignore (or prefer) that they are “gun-free zones” when they attack the defenseless, unarmed occupants.

    It is no coincidence that Pamela Geller chose a gun-allowed zone for her comic contest. She thought that there could be bad guys who might want to spoil the event and shut people up, and she turned out to be right. If only Californians were allowed to protect themselves, then the Farouks would be discouraged from executing their evil schemes, just as Geller discouraged her would-be attackers. Only then would Boxer have been right. Instead, she is Grubering us.

  • Cotour

    Barbara Boxers next project?

    https://youtu.be/jL-h5GA8tKc

    She can sell anything to anyone (some any way) and some will believe.

  • Nick

    Robert, I’d be interested in your thoughts on the horrendous level of gun related deaths in the USA vs countries with strong laws against ownership and carrying same – such as in Australia? I see your point re stopping the crazies, but my experience of travelling in the USA is that fear of others carrying guns encourages highly defensive attitudes – to the point of paranoia and social isolation. Cheers, nick.

  • Cotour

    Nick:

    America is not Australia, America is America, it is unique (exceptional). Our Constitution mandates that the people be armed for a very specific reason. Is life more dangerous because of it? That’s a matter of opinion based on what an individual thinks is more important.

  • Edward

    Nick,

    You may be interested in the following 7-minute video:
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pELwCqz2JfE (“Number One with a Bullet”)

    It demonstrates that neither the guns nor gun ownership are the problem. America is, by far, number one for the number of guns per 100 people (with 50% more guns per person than the next country on the list, Serbia), but is in the middle of the list for murders per 100,000 people.

    The number would be lower, but we have a plague of gangs in certain urban areas — gangs that have intent to fight each other to the death, as glorified in the movie “West Side Story.”

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Number_of_guns_per_capita_by_country
    As the above list shows, Australia’s gun ownership rate of 21.7 per hundred 1/5th that of the United States at 112.6. However, the “By Country” chart, below, shows that Australia’s homicide rate (line# 201) of 1.1 per 100,000 is about 1/3 of the USA’s (line# 91) of 3.8.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_intentional_homicide_rate

    Australia is more murderous per gun than the USA.

    I am not sure where you traveled in America, Nick, but my experience living here is very different. I write this from a “gun-free zone” — the kind of place where most of the newsworthy horrendous violence takes place in America — and no one looks the least bit fearful, defensive, paranoid, or isolated. Just over there are three people studying together. There are conversations all around me (oops, I guess that I am the one who is isolated, here). And there is a guy who has fallen asleep in his chair — hardly a sign of fearfulness (I guess he, too, is isolated).

    Maybe you traveled in some of those “gun-free zone” urban cities where gangs rule the streets. (Do they really? Well, maybe they do in Baltimore, these days, now that the city’s mayor has declared its police force as the enemy, and the police now seem less willing to risk their lives for such an ungrateful city.)

    I occasionally go to Berkeley, California, where homeless crazy-people literally walk the streets shouting at themselves. Now that is something to get paranoid about. Perhaps that is one of the places that you visited, although even in Berkeley no one seems fearful or paranoid that someone else might be carrying a gun.

    Or have I misinterpreted your meaning, that those who fear that others are carrying is because they cannot legally carry a gun themselves? People may say such a thing in conversations about gun violence, such as this one, but I do not think that we Americans live in daily fear and paranoia, due to being disarmed by our government (but then again, I do not live in a “gun-free zone” city, I just visit some).

    On the original topic of Senator Boxer:
    There is another possible explanation for her to suggest that California has proved that “sensible” gun laws work. Perhaps she is so reality-challenged that she denies that Wednesday’s attack even occurred. Thus, the gun laws worked by saving all those people from attack, death, and injury.

    DougSpace: I hope that your friend is recovering. I am sorry that such a bad thing happened to him. From what I am hearing, at least one of those red flags you mentioned was not reported because the person noticing it was fearful of being politically incorrect.

    It seems that the phrase “if you see something, say something” has not turned out well for some of those who said something, as they were later labelled “racist” for saying something.

    Hmm. Maybe we Americans are paranoid, after all — not so much about the guns, but about being unfairly accused of the worst crime in America, today: racism.

  • Nick

    Cotour,
    Are you saying that the USA has such unique demographics – ie characteristics of segments or the whole population – that are so inheritantly violent that the rest of the population has to exercise their right to carry arms? If so, can that be ‘fixed’? Cheers nick

  • Nick P

    Nick –

    The Right of the People to keep and bear arms is a check on Government.

    Nick P.

    Note: Nick P is not Nick

  • Cotour

    I am not saying anything about demographics. What to you is more important, individual freedom or safety? Life in general is a dangerous proposition.

    The discussion becomes about numbers and numbers becomes the metric, I say that is incorrect. Yes we all want to live in safety but safety is not the metric, freedom is the metric. And the foundation of American type freedom is based in the second amendment as per the founding fathers. It was true 238 years ago and it is true today, for America and Americans that is. I am not concerned what any other country does, if someone finds a better model than the American model I suggest they move there instead of trying to create their imagined utopia here.

    Freedom does not mean that there are no reasonable steps that can be taken to make things “safe”, but again, when the metric is turned around and it becomes about safety over and above everything else and and not about freedom, then things are turned around.

    In answer specifically to your question about specific segments of populations and if and when they may become violent.

    A: Yes, if and when necessary, hopefully its never necessary. Conversely without the inherent right there is only one answer so the inherent right must always be primary.

    Can it be “fixed”?

    A: The “fix” is related to culture, our culture has been allowed to absorb other cultures without requiring those absorbed cultures to assimilate and become “American”, instead there has been political pandering. So can it be “fixed” (what ever that actually means)? Yes, in time with the correct leadership IMO. And the only reason that I will optimistically say that is because of the existence of one thing, The U.S. Constitution in its entirety.

  • Nick

    Responders, thanks for your considered and polite responses – I do like this forum!
    With forebearance, some of the answers make sense, and some I really do struggle with – but I am interested in trying to see your side of the argument.
    Cotour, I had watched the video… interesting but very one-sided in that it uses what I see as dubious arguments – such as the USA is ok because its better than some really dodgy places – some current war zones. On the small Texas country town argument – most farms in Australia have a vast range of guns / knives too – and like the Texas town, very low crime rates. I’ve only been to a few places in the US – San Francisco, Chicago, Detroit – and areas outside them.
    Nick P, are you saying that the population needs guns to rise up against their elected officials and the bureaucracy? Not sure I’d agree with based on my experience with North Americans – and is the very very low probability of that worth the greatly increased risk of gun homicides / suicides / wounds to society? That is a personal judgement thing, and I guess we’ve been lucky in Australia with fairly stable governments and peaceful transitions.
    cheers nick

  • Cotour

    Nick:

    I now better understand your position and questions, you are an Australian.

    I have a friend who moved from England to the United States, he came here with his wife and both of them have become citizens. We have gotten into discussions about politics and what I realized is that although he moved here and became an “American” he still thinks like a European. He moved here to quite frankly to get away from England and what it is being turned into but his mistake is that he as a function of his natural thinking process endeavors to recreate here what he has run away from there. He must think like an American as offensive as that might be.

    America is different, it does not strive to become what it rejects, it is designed to set a standard for the rest of the world and to drag them with it to it, more or less. And I am not implying in any way that America is by no means angelic and squeeky clean, we are talking about the dirtiest, filthiest games ever played by human beings.

    The people who designed our Constitution understood the over all nature of man. What is the nature of man (all men, all men who inhabit government) ? The nature of man is to abuse power (tyranny is where all government ends up if there is nothing put in its way). What is the one document of governance that is the counter balance to the nature of man? The American Constitution. Contained in the document is the second amendment, it recognizes and ensures that the individual citizens of our country have an individual right to defend themselves specifically from the abuses of the government. (all government in time will abuse the rights of the people) And this right is not given to them by government but upon birth and by natural rights that predates any government. Therefore if the government has not given any rights to the people than by pure logic they are unable to relive them of those same rights.

    This is the primary thing that must be understood by EVERYONE when discussing the second amendment, after that is understood and is recognized as being primary then a conversation about certain details about reasonable local controls can be had.

    America is different and for everyone’s sake it needs to remain different and not the same. The same is what everyone is running away from.

    In addition, as Churchill has said, “Democracy is the worst form of governance. Except for all others”. The American Constitution is the best way to ensure that this worst form of governance except for all others continues to lead the world. Or you can look at it that we are the cleanest dirtiest shirt.

    Please attempt to understand the primary reasons the second amendment exists before attempting intellectualize all of the reasons that it should not exist.

  • Nick P

    Cotour

    How beautifully stated!

  • Cotour

    Thank you, I take both comments as very high compliments.

  • Edward

    Nick asked Cotour: “Are you saying that the USA has such unique demographics – ie characteristics of segments or the whole population – that are so inheritantly violent that the rest of the population has to exercise their right to carry arms?”

    To add to Cotour’s eloquent reply:
    With a third of a billion people, we should expect all kinds. Not all are angels, and some are downright criminal or even evil. The police are not here to stop crimes or murders that are in process, they are just too far away during a time where immediacy and proximity count. During such times, we are individually responsible for our own (and our family’s) safety. The authors of the US Constitution understood this as a virtue of the individual and a limit of the government.

    Nick asked Nick P: “Nick P, are you saying that the population needs guns to rise up against their elected officials and the bureaucracy?”

    We already did that, so it *can* happen, and those who did it predicted (correctly, as Cotour pointed out) that any government would drift toward a transformation into of tyranny. Such a fundamental transformation is occurring in the United States. This may be difficult to see from a country which limits the freedoms of the individual, but our freedoms have been eroding for the past century, and the rate of erosion is increasing.

    Is the probability of doing it again low? Only if We the People can politically regain control of our government, but if we fail then the only choices are to rise up (not such a very very low probability as you may think, because we Americans are not willing to accept the alternate choice) or to live in governmental slavery. The latter would end the last best hope of earth (as President Lincoln pointed out).

    Nick wrote: “… Not sure I’d agree with based on my experience with North Americans …”

    [NOTE: I am answering a comment out of context. In proper context, Nick’s comment follows the question to Nick P, which I answered above, thus a proper response would be different.]
    Please remember, North Americans are not special or better than everyone else. We come from everywhere else. We *are* everyone else. What makes the United States exceptional is not its people but its governance. Our Founding Fathers created a government based upon individual freedom from tyranny at a time when governments were the rulers over the people. Here, the foundation is that the people rule over the government.

    We did not have to fear saying what we thought. We could try new ways. We impressed Alexis de Tocqueville into writing two volumes on how well it worked, compared with other systems. It worked very well for two centuries, but now that we are moving back toward a dictatorial government that is removing our freedoms, things here seem less exceptional and more average.

    Your experiences here were in liberal cities run by the political party that strongly advocates less freedom for the individual and more power to the government. These are areas where one can be rebuffed or shunned for saying or doing a “politically incorrect” thing; the most common punishment is to be called fascist or racist (or even “denier”), and who wants to be called either of those. “Conform or be punished!” This could easily cause someone to feel fearful, defensive, paranoid, or isolated (I watch my tongue when visiting Berkeley).

    Nick wrote: “Responders, thanks for your considered and polite responses – I do like this forum!”

    You are welcome. I think that the rest of us also appreciate how well Robert moderates these discussions.

  • Nick

    Guys, thanks for the considered comments – much appreciated.
    If you have any more time to respond, I’d like to understand the link between democracy and the feeling that violent rebellion could still occur – or is it seen that the threat of armed violence by individuals (? presumably) would lead to the government being more democratic – ie the physical threat to a ranger attempting to close a national park when the federal govt wanted them shut down?
    I’m also very interested in the perception of freedom in Australia – am I seen as less free than a US citizen? Has anybody seen any quantitative research on this area?
    My perception of Oz is most citizens feel our federal govt is fairly representative and democracy is delivering reasonable outcomes with peaceful transitions – the only major riots I recall were some argy-bargy by some muslim kids and a response by locals – and a major to-do when a popular pub (hotel) was closed by the local police.
    Cheers nick

  • Cotour

    Nick:

    You are choosing to intellectualize and analyze minutia, a million different dangerous scenarios instead of absorbing the fundamental foundation concepts of the American Constitution. I am sure that Australia is a fine and safe place to live, filled with fine, respectful and wonderful people (anyone that I have ever met from there has been a fine person), America is different. Maybe its is difficult to “think like and American”, but to really understand you are going to have to give it a shot.

    The metric is not safety, the metric is freedom.

  • “The physical threat to a ranger attempting to close a national park when the federal govt wanted them shut down?”

    Except for the fact that no physical threat ever occurred (or would have), your reference here reminds me of my posts two years ago during the last government shutdown:

    If you read these posts, in order above, you will I think get a sense of at least one American’s perspective on the concept of freedom.

  • Cotour

    I came across and commented on this video the other day produced by some young Australians:

    https://youtu.be/j198bMXYJvs

    What strikes me is that these young people who have grown up in the relative peace, freedom and prosperity of the modern world (thank you America, its Constitution and capitalism), and that peace and freedom is a direct result of what they seem to not be able to understand, the American Constitution.

    We all live in a modern fantasy of relative peace and relative freedom and relative prosperity that can be directly traced back to the concepts and application of the Constitution and to be sooo anesthetized by its success is a testament to that success. That being said, its success does not mean that we are able to cast aside and forget the true nature of man as it relates to power.

  • Edward

    Nick wrote: “I’d like to understand the link between democracy and the feeling that violent rebellion could still occur”

    “Eternal vigilance is the price of freedom.” This is drummed into Americans’s heads as we grow up. It means that governments trend toward tyranny, and we have the duty to control our government and steer it away from tyranny. If, however, we cannot, then the Declaration of Independence warns that force may be used to free ourselves from the tyrannical government, and the Constitution ensures that we have the right to possess the means to free ourselves.

    Nick wrote: “I’m also very interested in the perception of freedom in Australia – am I seen as less free than a US citizen? Has anybody seen any quantitative research on this area?”

    Are there any opinions or statements that you can utter that could get you punished by the Australian government? I do not mean shouting “fire!” in a crowded theatre, but something more opinionated, such as denying that global warming will cause the death of most of us. Although Richard Parncutt is not the government, this Australian advocated death for global warming deniers:
    http://www.webcitation.org/6D8yy8NUJ

    As Mark Steyn pointed out in Australia:
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qrNcIaWrnq0#t=145
    “The withering of liberty is real, and one reason we don’t notice it as much as we should is because increasingly we are not free to talk about it.”

    “Unlike Andrew [Bolt], I beat the rap. Maclean’s Magazine and I were acquitted of quote flagrant Islamophobia for essentially political reasons.” — This occurred in Canada, not Australia, but does Australia have any similar cases?

    If you do not have half and hour to listen to the entire speech:
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qrNcIaWrnq0#t=916
    “What a fabulous country! In Canada, according to the Canadian-Islamic Congress, freedom of speech doesn’t extend to my book. In Australia, according to the courts, freedom of speech does not extend to The Herald Sun. But in America, Senator Craig’s men’s room semaphore is covered by the First Amendment.”

    In case you have forgotten the case:
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andrew_Bolt#Racial_Discrimination_case
    The court ruled that free speech violated Australia’s Racial Discrimination Act.

    If you may not freely speak your mind, then you are not as free as you think that you are. Americans are undergoing this loss of freedom (and many others). When governments threaten to jail you for speaking freely, or Muslims threaten to kill you for speaking your mind, you tend to remain silent — because you know that they will.

    Steyn had more thoughts on the Andrew Bolt case with additional examples of squelched free speech, even in Australia:
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XH70VHZ857M (10 minutes)

    As Steyn points out with many examples, people and governments around the world are silencing free speech. Do not fall for it. Whatever you do, don’t shut up:
    http://behindtheblack.com/behind-the-black/points-of-information/advice-for-phil-robertson-of-duck-dynasty/ (5 minutes)

    Cotour’s video is cute, but the Australians in it mislead us. America has been creating more and more gun-control laws and creating more and more gun-free zones (and limiting our freedoms more and more), but instead of gun violence and mass shootings being reduced, they have increased. The Australians were kind enough to point out that *after* Sandy Hook, there were 994 mass shootings in a 1004-day period. Gun control does the opposite of what it is said to do.

    Conservatives have noticed, but liberals (modern American liberals, not the classic liberal types — this may or may not confuse non-Americans) fail to question the authority that tells them untruths — which flies in the face of their cry half a century ago: “question authority!” Maybe it is because liberals *are* the authority in America, now, and they have difficulty answering questions.

  • Nick

    Robert, I had read those posts at the time and was very p’d off at the politicisation of the parks service (and it has happened here too). The reason I raised it were the posts that it was necessary to arm oneself to protect one from a non-constitutional government – so I was just trying to find an example of where it might have been applied… if you have another that would help me understand that’d be good.
    A key reason I am so interested is that I have US in-laws who feel as you do re the need to arm and I am trying to understand them. My son-in-law seems ambivalent about gun ownership, but his dad is very adamant it is essential.
    Cotour, that is a patronising cringe-worthy Youtube I agree… per the comments to Robert, I am trying to understand the practical linkage between your Constitution and the owning or carrying of firearms.
    I understand Robert’s perspective of armed people being able to subdue a nutter – and there are examples of where that has worked spectacularly well – but I would also like to see real analysis of where it hasn’t and the cost to society of having people adequately armed to perform those roles in emergency.
    Incidentally, Australia has had violent rebellion in the past – the Rothbury riots, Eureka stockade and others – which saw large changes in government policy.
    All the best – thanks for the considered responses. If this is getting tiresome I apologise – its very interesting for me, nick.

  • Edward

    Nick wrote: “The reason I raised it were the posts that it was necessary to arm oneself to protect one from a non-constitutional government.”

    The problem is not necessarily a non-constitutional government; it is a tyrannical government. A tyranny can operate with a constitution.

    The example of where it has been applied is the American Revolution from the constitutionally-bound King George. The United Kingdom has had a constitution since at least 1688.

    You are under the misapprehension that the sole reason for gun ownership is self protection. That is only one of many reasons. Do not create a red herring out of that issue.

    If we were to ban all items that could be used to kill people, then knives would have to go (Britain is discussing banning pointy knives, but ISIS and others make a show of using the sharp edge to decapitate their victims), cars would have to go, and copper polish would have to go. Add to that any blunt object, such as rocks, and any ropes or strings. We may have to ban hands and maybe feet, too. Fire, water, sticks, and any poisonous berries, mushrooms, or other plants.

    Banning something just because it can be used in an unsafe manner is rather silly. This is why we have education and morals. However, no matter what we do, we cannot guarantee that all people will at all times use all things in a safe manner. Bad guys use all kinds of things to commit murder or mayhem, and good people may accidentally cause harm, too.

    Nick wrote: “but I would also like to see real analysis of where it hasn’t and the cost to society of having people adequately armed to perform those roles in emergency.”

    The usual case is that a shooting continues until an armed person arrives at the scene. I know of no cases in which an armed defender became disabled and a mass shooting continued despite his original presence. I know of two cases in which armed mass murderers initiated an escape before armed persons arrived: Aurora Colorado (shooter was captured by observant police officer as shooter walked away from the scene) and San Bernardino (shooters escaped as police arrived and were tracked down a few hours later). In those two cases, good police work resulted in finding the bad guys.

    The cost to society for having people adequately armed to perform the role of stopping a shooter in an emergency is that the governing body has less control over its citizens, and the citizens enjoy more freedom. This means that the citizenry may not do as the government wishes, but that is the price government must pay for its people to be free.

    As for the issue getting tiresome, do not think it. This is an issue that we Americans have discussed for decades, and we will have to discuss it for many more. It is part of eternal vigilance.

  • Cotour

    Nick:

    Instead of being concerned with all of the details and real world examples to convince and validate what is contained in the Constitution along with the minutia about safety lets look at it from this more fundamental point of view, It is healthy for any government to fear the people who empower it.

    Boiled down that simply was really the intent of the people who wrote the Constitution.

    Fear is a good and healthy thing, it makes for mutual respect, and nothing good can come from a government that does not fear and respect the people who empower it.

    All of those details that you are concerned about, they all take care of themselves.

  • Nick

    Edward, Cotour, thanks for the quick response – must be late over there!
    Edward, I accept your point on self-protection not being the sole reason – but what do you see as others? Ultimately isn’t that what its all about – whether from an out-of-control shooter or from a more abstract fear of government? Re your point about the cost to society – that’s an interesting difference in point of view… I would have said the cost was the gun-related deaths, and capital and training costs – as well as fear engendered (I am not personally comfortable around armed civilians or heavily armed military – but no issue at all with armed police).
    Cotour, not sure what you meant by “All of those details that you are concerned about, they all take care of themselves” sorry. Re fear – yes and no – all government is an exercise in violence – its just the degree, same for the level of fear. Fear of not being re-elected seems to motivate most pollies.
    In terms of real-world examples… still very interested in where being armed has impacted a tyrannical govt in more recent years.
    all the best, nick

  • Cotour

    “All of those details that you are concerned about, they all take care of themselves”

    You seem very worried about all of the examples of “danger” that accompanies someone with a firearm. You must understand the foundation concept behind the intent of the Constitution in order to understand it. Your uncomfortability with the subject forces you to the details, the minutia, the what ifs? After you grasp the intent then you can move on to the messy details, safety concerns etc.

    Those concerns about safety however solve themselves because for the vast, vast majority of individuals in America who choose to own a firearm in general are reasonably well trained and familiar with them and their proper and safe operation.

    PS: There are Im sure well over 350 million firearms in the hands of the public in America, more firearms than people. Owning a firearm entails certain responsibilities by responsible adults.

    Its not perfect, there are dangers, but those dangers on balance are an equitable trade off, safety for freedom.

  • Nick

    Thanks for the responses… i just noted the post on andrew bolt and have no argument at all on the points made… i am familiar with the case and am a fan of andrew’s work. The use of the courts to silence andrew has angered alot of aussies and is part of why that govt was kicked out last election.
    Having said that, I haven’t heard any linkages or analysis between the constitution, the need to arm and the consequent costs to freedom of same – as before, your thoughts are received with thanks.. cheers nick

  • Cotour

    My post answering a question from what I assume is a young Australian about the second amendment.

    You either recognize that the individual has a naturally born right to defend themselves from government and all of the other “nuts” in the world or you do not. And what ever complications that arise from that model arise and you manage them. If you do not then you say that the government is the keeper of the individuals freedoms in all of its aspects (they are kind of like your owner, your government owns you).

    Q: When the government begins to turn fascistic and begins to tell people and business what they WILL be doing or will not be doing, then what? And when that government turns communistic or Nazi like and begin to round up the people that THEY do not like (because they have the power) and begin to dispose of them, then what? And when they decide that they do not like YOU, then what?

    I will assume that you are a young and idealistic Australian who has grown up in the nice, safe and prosperous island continent that is Australia, separated by a nice big ocean from most of the offensive things that the human animal can imagine. If you were to study history and the nature of man related to power you would come to understand the relative fantasy life you have experienced so far in your life is just that, a relative fantasy. America is different and its best if it stays that way, at least until the human animal can be redesigned and its nature to abuse power can be genetically bred out of it. Until then I think it best that you study history because the rule is that it will repeat itself. Be prepared.

  • Nick

    Cotour, thanks… its been many years since i’ve been called either young or idealistic. I fully support the concept of the right to defend myself from both govt and nutters… its how that right is exercised that i’m interested in. The comlications and management as referred to.
    Given the close nature of our countrys’ military alliances, and our long history of fighting together – together with the usa’s isolationist stance up to and including a large part of ww2, i am puzzled by your last paragraph.
    Cheers Nick

  • Cotour

    The Chinese are building a nice big, new blue water navy (they are not doing that just to kill time and spend hundreds of billions of dollars) , maybe they like Australia as a nice getaway place, maybe they like the fact that you all have been conveniently disarmed by your government.

    Maybe they stop by for a visit one day. And stay.

    (Do you really have confidence in the American government to come to your rescue? Think about the general direction our leaders have been steering our country. WW11 was 70 years ago, the Chinese own a lot of our debt and we may not be so anxious to sail our air craft carriers down under. Watch what goes on with Taiwan, the Chinese will not have to fire a shot they will in time just walk right in. But if they need the big stick they will have it, they like I said, are building right now)

  • Nick

    Cotour, v v aware of china inc. Under current us administration i have no expectations of support. Did you see this story? http://breakingdefense.com/2015/11/us-steadily-retreating-in-south-china-sea-dispute/?utm_campaign=Breaking+Defense+Daily+Digest&utm_source=hs_email&utm_medium=email&utm_content=24132609&_hsenc=p2ANqtz–XXSwcdJ7Ob4hAKesL-uqjQZMi38EumBIFusTxG2DrtWOY1VXtr36pTL-A6jqTTOEHwD04jnX2OGJUV2EduBg87WG09w&_hsmi=24132609

    I have not seen the story corroborated… if true i whttp://breakingdefense.com/2015/11/us-steadily-retreating-in-south-china-sea-dispute/?utm_campaign=Breaking+Defense+Daily+Digest&utm_source=hs_email&utm_medium=email&utm_content=24132609&_hsenc=p2ANqtz–XXSwcdJ7Ob4hAKesL-uqjQZMi38EumBIFusTxG2DrtWOY1VXtr36pTL-A6jqTTOEHwD04jnX2OGJUV2EduBg87WG09w&_hsmi=24132609

    If true i withdraw my post i made to our key national newspaper when i first read of transit – ‘bravo USA’.
    I am also aware of studies of the UK’s dads army in ww2 which found they could have repelled a nazi invasion – obsolete equipment and limited training not withstanding.
    However if china develops a true blue water navy and associated logistics, i suspect oz would last about 5 minutes if an invasion happened, given the disparity in populations.

    More times than i can count i have heard stories of the usa’s staggering firepower over-match… i imagine it’d be like that.
    Cheers Nick

  • Nick

    Cotour, v v aware of china inc. Under current us administration i have no expectations of support. Did you see this story? http://breakingdefense.com/2015/11/us-steadily-retreating-in-south-china-sea-dispute/?utm_campaign=Breaking+Defense+Daily+Digest&utm_source=hs_email&utm_medium=email&utm_content=24132609&_hsenc=p2ANqtz–XXSwcdJ7Ob4hAKesL-uqjQZMi38EumBIFusTxG2DrtWOY1VXtr36pTL-A6jqTTOEHwD04jnX2OGJUV2EduBg87WG09w&_hsmi=24132609

    I have not seen the story corroborated… if true i question my post to our key national newspaper when i first read of transit – ‘bravo USA’.
    I am also aware of studies of the UK’s dads army in ww2 which found they could have repelled a nazi invasion – obsolete equipment and limited training not withstanding.
    However if china develops a true blue water navy and associated logistics, i suspect oz would last about 5 minutes if an invasion happened, given the disparity in populations.

    More times than i can count i have heard stories of the usa’s staggering firepower over-match… i imagine it’d be like that.
    Cheers Nick

  • Edward

    Nick wrote: “Edward, I accept your point on self-protection not being the sole reason – but what do you see as others? Ultimately isn’t that what its all about”

    If by “isn’t that what it is all about” you mean the purpose for the invention, then you could be correct. However several of the other reasons for gun ownership have little to do with self-protection or overthrow of tyranny.

    Guns, bows and arrows, and slings are traditional hunting weapons, and it is still legitimate to hunt. Hunting for food is less necessary today, as we have farmers and ranchers who are all too happy to sell meat to those who used to depend upon hunting for protein, but many people still hunt.

    Controlling feral animals is not the same as hunting, but many people think of it that way.

    Target shooting, skeet shooting and other forms of sport shooting are enjoyed by many. Just because some people do not enjoy a sport or cannot see a reason for it does not invalidate the sport. My brother enjoys black powder shooting (noise, smoke, flames; what’s not to like?), but would never jump out of a perfectly good airplane, yet he does not think that skydiving should be banned. (BTW: if at first you don’t succeed, skydiving is not for you.)

    Collecting guns, or weapons of any sort, is perfectly acceptable. People collect a variety of things and enjoy their collections without using them for their original purpose. Indeed, to use some of them would be to destroy the collection; coin and stamp collecting come to mind. If we were to ban all collectibles that could be harmful, we would also have to ban swords. In San Bernardino, today, there is a guy in trouble for chasing a neighbor with a sword – a weapon not used for hunting, security, or any sport other than the attack of/defense from another person. Now there is something to ban before banning the gun.

    Someone may inherit a family heirloom. Even if it is a gun, it is good to keep it in the family. To this day, I am upset that my grandmother sold the family heritage (real estate, not weaponry). Such a family heirloom could even have real historical value, not just family historical value; ‘this is the gun So-and-so used in that famous duel.’ Putting it on loan to a museum for display is yet another legitimate reason to own a weapon.

    Security work is another reason for guns. Not just personal security, but protection of sites that may need deadly force to prevent tragedy or catastrophe. Many security guards in America are unarmed and call the police to take care of trouble, but a few guards are armed because the bad guys would likely be armed. A shoplifter is likely harmless, but a bank robber may not be (on the other hand, it is a bad idea for a shootout or hostage situation to happen inside a bank).

    Nick wrote: “ – whether from an out-of-control shooter or from a more abstract fear of government?”

    Fear of government is not so abstract. There are plenty of existing tyrannies around the world that rule through fear and intimidation. Mao described this form of government when he said, “Power flows from the barrel of a gun.” A few years later, Tiananmen Square happened. Clearly, governments are willing to use guns against their own citizens in order to gain or retain power. People go hungry in North Korea; why? China and the Soviet Union both starved tens of millions to death, but the people did not rise up in revolt; why? It may seem so to you now, in Australia, but for many around the world the fear of government is not so abstract. You showed that you have an inkling of understanding this yourself, when you wrote: “all government is an exercise in violence – its just the degree, same for the level of fear.”

    Nick wrote: “I am not personally comfortable around armed civilians or heavily armed military – but no issue at all with armed police”

    In America, most of the armed civilians are almost as well educated in the safe use of firearms as the military and the police. There may be gang members who do not consider gun safety as necessary as the rest of us do, but then again, there is a reason that they are the bad guys.

    Are you comfortable around civilians who have pocket knives? I carry a Swiss Army Knife. You, your friends, or your neighbors may also carry similar potentially-harmful tools.

    Are you also uncomfortable around people who drive cars? Those puppies can seriously cause harm, even death! I like to call them “heavy machinery” just to remind everyone that when the label on the medicine bottle warns against operating heavy machinery, it means cars. More harm comes from cars than from guns, in America, and there are probably fewer cars than guns.

    Nick wrote: “Fear of not being re-elected seems to motivate most pollies.”

    Such a fear depends upon the country. In some places, the politician is the only one on the ballot, and his fear is non-existent. In other places, incumbent politicians are reelected so often (e.g. 97% in the US in the 1990s) that their fear is also low. However, they still know that they have to work hard for reelection. I don’t know of a country where the turnover rate is so high that politicians actually *fear* not being reelected. Do you have an example? The Australia election you mentioned, in which the “shut up” crowd was tossed out of office, is not a good example, as they did not fear that they would lose their elections while they were in favor of silencing their constituents.

    Nick wrote: “very interested in where being armed has impacted a tyrannical govt in more recent years.”

    Syria, Libya, Egypt are three places that come to mind immediately. Unfortunately, Egypt and Libya seem to have resulted in even worse tyrannies coming to power, which is why Egypt had a second revolution – though through the ballot box, that time. If you want more examples, I can spend some time looking it up, but I think that you get the idea.

    Nick wrote: “I haven’t heard any linkages or analysis between the constitution, the need to arm and the consequent costs to freedom of same … [different post] its how that right is exercised that i’m interested in”

    Apparently, I do not fully understand this request. To repeat myself, the link between the US Constitution and the need to arm is the First Amendment and the Declaration of Independence. I do not see any costs to freedom for being armed, I only see a cost to the government (its own power) for allowing its citizenry to be armed.

    What also confuses me is that my understanding is that gun ownership in Australia is still legal, but is frowned upon, like drunk driving. Is the right to being armed exercised differently in Australia? Just as in the United States, gun violence in Australia was uncommon until the 1980s, when it became a political issue (also as in America). It is also my understanding that in Australia, as in the United States, gun violence increased with the increase in gun laws, since the 1980s. I had not believed that the exercising of the right of gun ownership is any different in Australia than it is in the United States, but I have not visited there, so I have no first-hand experience with the laws or with any gun owners, gun clubs, or shooting ranges there.

    How that right is exercised: with freedoms come responsibilities and duties, such as the responsibility to educate yourself (there are plenty of classes available, and gun clubs and shooting ranges reinforce the education) in the safe storage, handling, and use of firearms (or swords) and the duty to be safe and follow applicable laws. If there is another meaning behind your request, you have to make it clearer to me.

  • Cotour

    Nick:

    Obama will be out of office in a bout 11 months, the world power structure will be tenuous until that time, his weakness and leftist ways makes the world a much more dangerous place to live.

    Did you ever hear of the Warsaw ghetto? Filled with 300,000 polish Jews, when the Nazi’s came to round them up in order to apply the final solution to them, how many of them do you imagine were able to get in the way of the Nazi plans because they were armed? Gave them a very hard time.

    10,000?, 20,000? The answer is about 500. Imagine if 10,00 or 20,000 were armed? The Nazi’s might not have even considered moving on them at all if they were all strapped.

    If the Chinese were to fancy your resources (and your beautiful women) do you think that they might be less inclined to just sail down there and install themselves if they knew a majority of the population were armed? (Trained and responsibly armed of course.) Why does no European country want to invade Switzerland? Because they are “neutral” ? No, 29% of the population are militarily trained and armed with high powered weapons in their homes, along with cannons hidden in the mountains.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *