Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Dr. Allan H. Clark on February 4, 2013 at 1:55pm

Not at all. It is not legislation per se that is effective, but laws combined with good enforcement. The experience of other countries with more restrictive laws is both relevant and convincing. The sources of violence are hard to root out, but limiting the means available is certainly one way that appears to be effective in reducing it.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Tom Sarbeck on February 4, 2013 at 6:44pm

"Reasonable."  Therein lies the problem.

Arguing that nothing can be done is more than a mistake; it's evidence of feelings of powerlessness.

BTW, feelings of powerlessness are fatal to democracy.

They are not fatal in the US of A because the US of A is not, and has never been, a democracy.

In your preferred major dictionary, look up the words "oligarchy" and "plutocracy".

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by atuanui on February 4, 2013 at 10:08pm

The country where I came from [NZ] even the police don't carry guns. There are no mass everyday shootings.

I find it quite amusing that usa has no health care. The first time I ever saw a beggar was when I went to USA.

There is no necessity for the public to own guns.

The gun loonies quote the silly amendment, but forget the " A well regulated Militia" part.

America represents the worst of western culture

The only country that has more guns per capita than USA is Yemen.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Tom Sarbeck on February 5, 2013 at 2:41am

Hi, atuanui,

I once read of a Pacific Island whose people had little more than yams to eat. Medical exams revealed them to be malnourished.

Here in the US of A, something in our diet facilitates the growth of a violence hormone.

More seriously, about health care and beggars. The more you read of the USA's founders, the more certain you can be that they intended these and similar outcomes. Alexander Hamilton said he wanted the "rich and well born" to govern. Among James Madison's writings is this jewel: he wanted the government to protect "the opulent minority from the majority".

A Committee on Style wrote our Constitution's final draft and one history said a man who liked ambiguity chaired the committee. He prevailed. He might have intended to provide for lawyers.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Dr. Allan H. Clark on February 5, 2013 at 2:56pm

Alexander Hamilton said he wanted the "rich and well born" to govern. Among James Madison's writings is this jewel: he wanted the government to protect "the opulent minority from the majority".

A very British idea—that only landowners could be trusted with governing as they had natural interests to preserve along with the education to know how to govern. Pure democracy was equated with mob rule.

This seems strange to us now, but it was the rule throughout most of history and continued to be the case in Britain up through World War I. Barbara Tuchmann begins her book "The Proud Tower" with a recital of the ranks and qualifications of the Salisbury cabinet of 1895. All were peers and held extensive land. It is only in modern times in the United States that an impoverished background has been considered advantageous in politics. At present it seems that lack of education is also helpful in getting elected.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Russell Pangborn on February 6, 2013 at 8:27pm

A love letter from the Chigago Tribune mentions our low gun crime.

The Chicago Tribune has written a love letter to Canada, suggesting that we have taken that city by storm.

In an editorial this week, the Tribune called out to our country for us t...

Land of the north, Chicago is calling to you. Calling your sesame bagels, smoked meat and Tim Hortons double-doubles. Calling your low rates of gun crime, and universal health care. Calling your oil, especially your oil. We hope some of that Canadian good fortune rubs off on our city.

I doubt if a city newspaper in Texas would see us in the same light.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Tom Sarbeck on February 21, 2013 at 1:20pm

Fact-checking the NRA's Wayne LaPierre (by Politi-Fact, a project of the St. Petersburg, Florida, Times):

"After a quiet period following the shootings in Newtown, Conn., the National Rifle Association has been making a case for armed guards at schools and other measures rather than restrictions on guns.

"We've fact-checked many claims about gun control -- you can find them on our guns subject page -- and this week checked three that Wayne LaPierre, the group's executive vice president, made in an op-ed in the Daily Caller:

"To make the case that major cities were unsafe, LaPierre made a claim we've checked many times, that Phoenix "is already one of the kidnapping capitals of the world." We rated that False.

"He said President Barack Obama " flagrantly defies the 2006 federal law ordering the construction of a secure border fence along the entire Mexican border." We rated that Mostly False.

"LaPierre claimed that after Hurricane Sandy, New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg "refused to allow the National Guard into the city to restore civil order because Guardsmen carry guns!" That earned a Mostly False."

(I'm one of the NRA members who say LaPierre isn't speaking for us.)

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Russell Pangborn on March 27, 2013 at 7:15am

Couldn't resist including this perceived deport-able offense for a fellow Canadian - funny bit called Cold Dead Hands

• ▶ Reply

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• …
• 22
• 23
• 24
• Next ›
• Page