A Word About Guns...from a Professional...

[Chalkperson]

This is from my Dear Friend Colonel Bob...he's one of the good guys and certainly sums up my feelings...

Name: Lt. Col. Bob Bateman
Hometown: Capitol Hill, Washington DC

I am sick of stories about guns, and how the blessed Founding Fathers wanted every little patriot baby to grow up with a Kentucky long-rifle over the mantle. It is a lie. It is a myth. The very idea is a concoction by people who want to believe something, regardless of the facts, and the fact that the lie has deep roots does not make it any more accurate.

I am sick of stories about people who claim that "guns don't kill people, people kill people." bull crap. You do not see 70+ people, or even 40, or 20 ... or, (you get the picture) randomly gunned down in any of the countries where the tools of violence are confined to the authorities.

I am sick of idiots with an agenda pretending that what happened at Virginia Tech is not because we have too many damned guns in this country. Muzzle-loading blackpowder rifles, single-shot breech-loading hunting rifles, and single-barrel breech-loading shotguns, and that is about it, are all that should be allowed. Those tools can be used, legitimately, to hunt. You want more, move. Leave the United States to those who know the difference between something that is useful for hunting, and something that replaces the manhood you never attained. If you want more, join the Army. If you can't do that, and if you still want something that reloads quickly and gives you plenty of shots, BUY A DAMNED BOW!

But what really puts me over the top is one particular brand of NRA stupidity. That is the myth of the Wild West. In other words, if I hear one more stupid gun-loving sonuvabitch talk about how, "Well, if they just had allowed all those students to have guns, this lunatic at Virginia Tech wouldn'ta got far," I am going to slap his dumb ass on the first plane smokin' for Iraq, where I would like to personally drop him off, with as many guns as he would like, in Dora (that's a particularly nasty South Baghdad neighborhood with which I am familiar).

Yes, Dora would be perfect. In my mind's eye I am imagining plopping said gun nut off outside the blue-painted major police sub-station, just about six or seven blocks from another walled-in compound which is now a police barracks (or, at least it was, last year.). As a microcosm, Dora should be the NRA's dream town, as it perfectly matches the NRA "Wild West" theory of what is needed in a society: honor is important to the individual; the family is the most important part of society; all of the inhabitants are very religious (except for when they are not); and absolutely everyone has at least one gun.

In fact, I would very much like to personally place the CEO of the NRA, Mr. Wayne LaPierre, there right now. What'ya say, Wayne? Want to experience a world where everyone has a gun? C'mon, buddy, I'll even let you hump the pig.

(That means, "Carry the M-240 7.62 mm machine gun," people. Get your minds out of the gutter.)

OK, I'm calmer now.

he posts occasionally on this excellent blogsite...

http://mediamatters.org/altercation/

[Harvested Sorrow]

One long ignorant ad hominem attack does not make for an 'expert' on the issue simply because he's in the military, sorry. And from a trained professional, I'd certainly expect a real argument instead of multiple claims being made with no proof of them being provided.

[Chalkperson]

One long ignorant ad hominem attack does not make for an 'expert' on the issue simply because he's in the military, sorry. And from a trained professional, I'd certainly expect a real argument instead of multiple claims being made with no proof of them being provided.

He has three Teenage girls, maybe he's speaking as a parent as well...

[RebLem]

Another thing I am sick and tired of hearing people say:

"You can kill as many people with a knife. Should we outlaw knives?" Then they get this idiotic, self satisfied, drooling smirk on their faces, like, wow, they've really got you this time.

HEY, IDIOT !!! LISSEN UP !!!

If what you have is a bunch of knives, you can't kill people by firing through doors, as the gunman at VT did.

If Charles Whitman had gone to the top of the Texas Tower armed only with knives, how many people do you think he would have killed? Hey, loudmouth, don't be so bashful, we want an answer, dumbass !!! And would he have been able, as Whitman did, to kill people two blocks away if he had been armed only with knives?

If you can't understand that, you shouldn't be allowed to possess a metal dinner fork, much less a firearm.

[Chalkperson]

If what you have is a bunch of knives, you can't kill people by firing through doors, as the gunman at VT did.

RebLem...I come from the UK where we don't have guns but you may have seen in the News all the stabbing deaths of young kids over there, Knives Kill too...also there is a homeboy clothing store there making Hoodies that are lined with Kevlar as protection againts stabbings...what a f***ed up world we all live in..

[keaggy220]

Basically a rant with no logic applied...

Outlaw guns and only outlaws will have them...

[Harvested Sorrow]

Another thing I am sick and tired of hearing people say:

"You can kill as many people with a knife. Should we outlaw knives?" Then they get this idiotic, self satisfied, drooling smirk on their faces, like, wow, they've really got you this time.

If what you have is a bunch of knives, you can't kill people by firing through doors, as the gunman at VT did.

If Charles Whitman had gone to the top of the Texas Tower armed only with knives, how many people do you think he would have killed? Hey, loudmouth, don't be so bashful, we want an answer, dumbass !!! And would he have been able, as Whitman did, to kill people two blocks away if he had been armed only with knives?

If you can't understand that, you shouldn't be allowed to possess a metal dinner fork, much less a firearm.

If the argument was used was ever 'guns are easier to kill with than knives' this would be valid, unfortunately, it's not. It's 'guns make it possible to kill, so they need to be banned' which is of course stupid since knives can be used for that purpose, too, even though they wouldn't be as effective in a non-close range situation.

Oh, and I find the comment about the sniper in the town being a particularly stupid suggestion. Obviously, if he was planning on killing use short range weapons he wouldn't have been in the tower in the first place.

That aside, if your argument is 'we need to ban them because they can be used at a long distance whereas other weapons can't' then we also need to ban crossbows and bow and arrows. A skilled bowman can shoot a fairly long distance and hit someone with it. A crossbow makes it even easier.

[Harvested Sorrow]

One long ignorant ad hominem attack does not make for an 'expert' on the issue simply because he's in the military, sorry. And from a trained professional, I'd certainly expect a real argument instead of multiple claims being made with no proof of them being provided.

He has three Teenage girls, maybe he's speaking as a parent as well...

Speaking as a father doesn't mean you have to make a long series of ridiculous claims that equate to "I think it's stupid that people support the right for my children to defend themselves or for myself to defend them before they grow up". Perhaps he's simply speaking as someone from the military who would have the right to carry his pistol when others couldn't if it was banned. I could see that giving him an unfair bias on the issue.

"Well, I'M responsible enough to use it for self defense...but the general public isn't so they should leave it to me and the police".

[Chalkperson]

Maybe I made a mistake posting this because it may have misrepresented him, he is an Army Historian and author of three books amongst many other things, and he's just pi**ed off like the rest of us...I was using it because it also represented my views as well...sorry Harvested Sorrow I will keep out of your way in the future...oh well, back to the Classical forum...

[Werner]

Don't go, Chalkie - I happen to be of the opinion that your friend's comments are the only ones on this thread that make any sense - the rest is just regurgitation of the same old stale NRA stuff that's been around for years and years - they'll never learn, will they?

[jbuck919]

Chalkie, all your friend has done is have the courage to state bluntly what most of the rest of us dance around because we just don't have a thick enough skin to deal with the armies of descending harpies (actually I guess harpies are an air force) that through their sheer, brutal, and relentless determination have pushed the level of discourse so far in their direction that the good Colonel's statements, which should be obvious, seem in the context of current political discourse extreme. Some people don't seem like lunatics on this matter only because their opinion in the US is sheltered by an unprincipled, hugely monied and implacable lobby.


I for one found your post refreshing.

[Corlyss_D]

Professional what?

[Chalkperson]

Professional what?

Well a lot of things actually...

[Chalkperson]

I for one found your post refreshing.

thanks...

[Corlyss_D]

Professional what?

Well a lot of things actually...

I am sick of stories about people who claim that "guns don't kill people, people kill people." mistaken ideas. You do not see 70+ people, or even 40, or 20 ... or, (you get the picture) randomly gunned down in any of the countries where the tools of violence are confined to the authorities.

Got a point there: only the state can murder large numbers of people. I can understand his frustration if he lives on Capitol Hill: since the DC gun ban went into effect 30+ years ago, the state-enabled criminals have made DC the murder capital of the country several times, and they recently declared their forth "crime emergency" since 1998. Way to go, DC.

Meanwhile, I'm still waiting for you, or John or anybody to produce statistics that demonstrate gun bans reduce violent crime.

[Brendan]

I for one am constantly amazed at how Americans can regard their constitution as sacred and yet mistrust the government created by it so much that they need to arm themselves against it or need to have automatic weapons because the society created by such a constitution is so dangerous one needs an Uzi to walk down the street.

An amazing nation! Interesting to observe from a distance. But no gun control measures are likely for awhile yet. The more it resembles Dora, without any confidence that any other legal path can possibly be, the more Americans I expect to welcome to Australia. We get heaps of migrants at the moment - whose chief complaint is our lack of Mexicans.

[anasazi]

Professional what?

Well a lot of things actually...

I am sick of stories about people who claim that "guns don't kill people, people kill people." mistaken ideas. You do not see 70+ people, or even 40, or 20 ... or, (you get the picture) randomly gunned down in any of the countries where the tools of violence are confined to the authorities.

Got a point there: only the state can murder large numbers of people. I can understand his frustration if he lives on Capitol Hill: since the DC gun ban went into effect 30+ years ago, the state-enabled criminals have made DC the murder capital of the country several times, and they recently declared their forth "crime emergency" since 1998. Way to go, DC.

Meanwhile, I'm still waiting for you, or John or anybody to produce statistics that demonstrate gun bans reduce violent crime.

So do we have to do ALL the research? Just go back to the year 1960, or even 1970 or even later, but before everyone had a gun, and look at the PER CAPITA deaths due to firearms in the U.S.A. Revolvers are made for just one purpose - shooting people. A claim that perhaps cannot be made for hunting rifles, even though people have indeed been shot with them as well.

[Corlyss_D]

So do we have to do ALL the research?

Yes, you do. Liberals are massively ignorant of the facts on most of their most cherished beliefs, including gun control. That's what makes them liberals. There are no statistics to prove that gun control reduces violent crime; hell, it doesn't even reduce gun crime. However, there are ample statistics to prove that violent crime increases in areas that have strict gun control.

[Holden Fourth]

As I see it the problem lies not with the guns themselves or the people but the law of the land. If you allow people to legally carry firearms with them in public then let's face it, they are going to be used!

I've just spent the last week with my brother here in Perth, Western Australia. He is a registered member of a club and the last two weekends I've spent at cllub shoots. It's obvious to me that the members of the shooting fraternity here are very responsible citizens - they'd be weeded out very quickly if they weren't. Before they can own and use a gun, they have to go through a training and educational process, using 'club' firearms. Once they have passed that program they can then legally purchase and own a firearm. They are then licenced to use a firearm for the purpose of their sport. They can not carry it on their person in public - loaded or otherwise - and when transporting their firearms to competitons/practices there are stringent carrying regulations which, if breached, will mean a loss of their licence.

Juxtaposing that, the 'second amendment' seems to be the stumbling block for the US as regards to firearms control. To alter would be a hard task as US citizens have carried firearms for centuries. To be fair to the NRA, the majority of their members are people who like to compete in shooting competitions and I can understand why they are fighting hard to protect their right to do so. Unfortunately they also have their lunatic fringe which doesn't do their cause much good in the eyes of the anti-firearms lobby.

Let's face it, Virginia Tech will not be the last firearms massacre you see in the US but what can you do about it?

[Werner]

I came across another problem in watching "60 Minutes" today - not a habit of mine, but they do offer interesting stuff. While the main draw tonight was the interview with George Tenet, which will doubtless be discussed at length here, I was aldo struck by the last segment, which covered the Virginia Tech shooting, as so many programs have.

This segment oncerned the difficulty the law has keeping weapons out of the hands of mentally ill people because this involves the issue of patients' privacy. So it appears that such dangerous people as Cho and several other cases cited can't be prevented from buying guns because of this issue. A representative of the mentally ill made the case for this, - totally theoretical and unrelated to the actual threat, as I saw it.

To my surprise, it was Wayne LaPierre,the head of the NRA - which I have always seen as a big obstacle in the way of sensible gun control, who made the most sense by saying that he and the NRA are in agreement with preventing such people from buying weapons. With the power the NRA wields in legislstive places, I wonder if they can get this done.

[jbuck919]

To my surprise, it was Wayne LaPierre,the head of the NRA - which I have always seen as a big obstacle in the way of sensible gun control, who made the most sense by saying that he and the NRA are in agreement with preventing such people from buying weapons. With the power the NRA wields in legislstive places, I wonder if they can get this done.

I also watched 60 Minutes tonight, Werner (it was one of the most difficult episodes to watch that I can remember).

Desiring to make only one point rather than rant all over the place, I would not place any reliance whatsoever on anything a representative of the NRA says in the matter of keeping guns out of people's hands. They will latch onto any extreme case which cannot possibly impinge on gun sales but might play in Peoria to make themselves look north of Hell. You will also note that CBS made a point of stating that the NRA did not in fact support the legislation proposed by the Congresswoman from Long Island.

Since name calling seems to be in vogue here recently: devils, fiends, unprincipled curs, trash, useless vermin, and may a pox be on them and maledictions on everything they stand for.

[Werner]

John, I can'tgree with you on this one, extreme as I've found the NRA's political position and tactics through the decades.

From their early years, they have had, as far as I know, programs and policies in place to instruct people in the safe handling of weapons - the one positive thing among all the aggressive and vituperative ways of promoting their cause.

Whatever is done by way of entitling people to own these deadly gadgets, safe handling is a prerequisite, as, for instance Pizza and Corlyss have mentioned repeatedly in the process of advocating whatever pro-gun POVs they were thinking of.

And if we find Mr. LaPierre on our side of the argument in this case, I see no harm in welcoming him, and hoping that in time he will get to see te light in other matters of common concern - for instance, that sportsmen are entitled to the safe enjoyment of their sport, and innocnt civilians are entitled to be protected from the untrammeled use of weapons by, as our President so eloquemtly calls them, "evildoers" of any stripe.

[jbuck919]

And if we find Mr. LaPierre on our side of the argument in this case, I see no harm in welcoming him, and hoping that in time he will get to see te light in other matters of common concern - for instance, that sportsmen are entitled to the safe enjoyment of their sport, and innocnt civilians are entitled to be protected from the untrammeled use of weapons by, as our President so eloquemtly calls them, "evildoers" of any stripe.

Sorry, old frirend, but if you find Mr. LaPierre (there's the unintentionally appropriate name of all time) to be on "our side," then, as the Brits, say, the more fool you.

[jack stowaway]

A representative of the mentally ill made the case for this...