dandelion:

I called up a local paper once, ''The Chicago Sun-Times'', and talked to City Crime Desk girl at night, and asked her about who decides what particular news items go into the paper, considering that there are so many killings. Abductions, kidnappings, (hundreds ...with an 's'...a week), car jackings (100 plus a week in Los Angeles alone) add up to numbers that boggle the brain.

But this isn't a 'War' waged by countries fighting for freedom, or whatever you may think it is, WMD or oil, etc...

It's about family fights,

'gang'- battles in neighborhood streets,

someone needing a car to use to get across town in a hurry and willing to kill the driver,

the need for money to get a fix at noon and it's 10 till 12, and you are the target with money in your pocket.

Fathers 'kidnapping' sons from divorced mothers

Mothers 'kidnapping' daughters from divorced fathers

This goes on all across America.

And the answer is simple: The editor decides.

If something comes across the 'wire' that fires up the editors across a few big papers, all the rest of the editors seem to follow suit.

[This message has been edited by Nard Kordell (edited 05-31-2004).]

Dandelion,
the issue here is the availability of guns to the public, not the method of their transportation. If a person is to kill another, they will eventually use the gun whether it was concealed or not. The question is should the public have at their fingertips the means to kill a large number of people in a short period of time. Think of the guns as mini WMD's. By having them freely available, you are inviting disaster. There are quite a number of things that may make people kill people - drugs, alcohol, crimes of passion, anger, racsim, surprise, accidents, etc. To kill people with knives it is a bit more difficult. Guns are simply poin-and-shoot devices.

Why indeed were the news casts preoccupied with that one incident? Maybe they wanted to turn your attention away from something? Nothing like a ersonal stroy to preoccupy the mind.

Cheers, Translator

Translator, yup.
Having personal hand guns is not working out the way Chuck Heston and Teddy Nugent would have you think. On average ACCIDENTAL shootings of innocent family members or friend where there are guns in the house are in the hundreds per year per state. The number of justifiable, killings in self defense are usually around one per year, per state. A little more in some states and zero in others.

I'm glad you see things this way as well.
Cheers, Translator

I can't argue the specific, statistical social merits of when and where to draw the line on gun control; but am a fan of the second amendment in theory. The idea was to provide a counter-balance to the power of government. The founding fathers were leery of the natural spread of the power of government, and felt that giving the citizens access to guns would provide one more "check and balance" on the ability of government to wrest control of individual liberties fromt he hands of individual citizens.

The idea of a militia was not to support the fringe groups that exist today; but to avoid the idea of a standing army -- which meant the government owned the weapons. In a militia, citizens owned the guns. In the early days, this made perfect sense, as firepower was restricted to muskets, swords and pistols. With the kind of firepower that exists today, do we really want citizens to have a balance of power with the standing armies required today?

I don't mind the guy next door having a pistol or 30.06 rifle; but I'm pretty sure I don't want a tank in the hands of my alcoholic, short tempered next door neighbor.

The second amendment figured heavily into the checks and balances created by the founding fathers. I am not ready to chuck it; but would love to see a debate about it in a calm manner, free of political heavy-handedness, where the changed state of arms and the need to have a control on government power are balanced.

When Clinton said hunters need have no fear under his administration, he was being dis-ingenuous. The second amendment was not written to protect hunters.

Outside of hunting rifles, guns are completely unnecessary. Half the people who own them for "protection" don't know how to use them, and those who do are more likely to have them stolen or accidentally used by a young family member than to use them for the intended purpose of protection.

If you take away the ability to purchase or own a handgun (an item created solely for the purpose of killing other people...You don't see hunters picking off deer with laser-scope automatics or pistols), anyone found with one could be arrested and charged, thus lowering the crime rate by lowering the number of guns and imposing stiffer penalties on those found in possession of them.

The only drawback is that illegal sales of guns would skyrocket, as did illegal sales of alcohol during Prohibition...though perhaps this would be a temporary trend. However, in the long run gun control is a step in the right direction. It HAS to be. Five miles from my home two children were killed last week -- both shot in the head in two separate incidents -- due to gang warfare -- and in an area that was thought to be relatively safe. Two children were caught in crossfire, one, apparently, because her boyfriend (15 years old) was wearing his hat in a way that denoted an allegiance to a certain "gang."

It makes my blood boil.

Two thing would have to happen for gun control to be sucessful. First (obviously) a comprehensive resolution would have to pass through Congress. That's about as far away from happening as it could possibly be, but we can hope. Second, the resolution, once passed, would have to be ACTIVELY and STRENUOUSLY upheld and enforced, otherwise the resulting problems will outweigh the benefits.

I hope it happens someday...in our lifetimes, ideally.

Cooger&Dark

Wow,
I'm kinda wary of saying this, but I agree with Cooger...
Mr Dark,
if the second amendment served a resonable purpose, which purpose was to limit the scope of governmental power, then it was a fine and dandy amendment. However, 200 years later, the amendment is no longer serving its intended purpose. The firepower is most definitley in the hands of the military, and owning hand guns does not in any way lessen the great armistical monopoly that the army has in American society today. But by still being valid and effective, the second amendemnt gives the right to own very advanced killing devices to the general public. A public which is uneducated, comprised of gangs and druggies, children, and frightful old men who shoot anything that moves on their yard. This all leads me to believe that, as much as the second amendment was historically mandated, and served a fine purpose, it is not so today, and should be amended.

Cheers, Translator

Is the pen still mightier that the sword -gun?

I liked Chris Rock's "Knives for Guns" sketch. I can't seem to find a transcript online, but if you guys don't mind downloading video, it's pretty easy to find.

"A public which is uneducated, comprised of gangs and druggies, children, and frightful old men who shoot anything that moves on their yard."

Your lack of faith in the basic good in people is always sad to me. I see many, many good people every day. People who are excited about life. Who love others. Who have faith in the future. People who try to help, not hinder. Students working in good faith to build a future -- not just for themselves, but for others. People struggling with dignity through adversity. I know that there are uneducated, drugged out and cruel persons out there; but I refuse to define society by this sub-group.

I am 100% behind the theory of the second amendment. But I also recognize that the scope of arms has changed things. I am VERY leery of Constitutional amendments. Efforts at them are often knee-jerk, short-term reactions to societal fluctuations that risk messing with a document that has created one of the marvels of human history -- a free society that recognizes that government receives its power from the people, rather than that people have to beg to receive power from the government.

It takes but one drugged up person with a gun to create havoc; all the goodness of other people has nothing to do with this. I don;t lack faith in people as a whole, I lack faith in individuals. But, as these individuals are the most prone to acquiring and using guns, I have no faith in a law that allows them to do so.

Changes to the constitution are obviously very touchy issues, but if there is a need to do so, and not a short-term need but something that is of longer duration (I don;t suppose the military will want to simply give up its Harrier jets and its Nuclear bombs), then it should be done. Having a historical custom impact on current decision making is very dangerous - remember that it used to be a custom to posess slaves in the US. Some things, especially ones that have such a great impact on society, should be especially decided upon not based on customs, but rather on reason and a careful weighing of these benefits and drawbacks. It's not about limiting the government's power here, it is about saving the pople from other people. The governemnt will not gain siginifcanlty more power than it already has, but the people will become more secure by a ban on hand guns and non-hunting firing weapons.

Cheers, Translator

One drugged up person?

Are you talking about prozac? He He, probably not. That stuff messes you up a lot worse then any illegal drug I've done. I saw the effects on my brother, not pretty.

Just have them all smoke lots of Marijuana, with the exception of George Washington, most people that do that drug don't care much for fighting.

Did Prozac make your brother violent? Supposedly a couple of murders have been committed under the influence of Zoloft, which I find hard to believe.

When you're in need of cash for heroin your perception of right and wrong changes for the worst, I was told.
Weed is not really a drug; I enjoy smoking up once in a while myself, and I don't think I've killed anybody yet while under its influence.
Don't get me started on prozac; the practice of prescribing hard core brain-pattern-changing drugs because someone is in the blues is downright criminal (I don't know your brother's case, so I can;t say anything about it).

Cheers, Translator

I will say: READ AND FOLLOW THE INSTRUCTIONS ON PRESCRIPTION DRUG LABELS!

NOT ALL PRESCRIPTION DRUGS ARE RIGHT FOR EVERYONE!

NEVER TAKE ANYONE ELSE'S PRESCRIPTION!

Mind-altering chemicals such as Prozac should not be handed out like candy, but are miraculous when used right.