Enter your username and password below to sign in to your PewterReport account.
Quote from: Durango 95 on January 11, 2013, 06:56:50 PMYou want to know how I know when Durango has no legitimate, cohesive, or thoughtful rebuttals left in his arsenal? When he starts posting stuff like ^this^.
Another article for consumptionConnecticut killings: it's the shooter, not the gunsHere is an edited version of my column from Monday's Irish Daily Mail:Last Friday 20-year old Adam Lanza murdered his mother then murdered 26 women and children at a school in Connecticut and then killed himself. The first question that ought to come to mind is: what sort of person does that? Was he insane, criminal, or morally void? What sort of person starts with the murder of his mother and then just doesn’t stop killing?It can’t simply be that Lanza had access to a gun so he used it. As of December 31st last year, the state of Connecticut had issued 165,000 permits for privately-held firearms. One of those holding a permit was Lanza’s mother, Nancy. You can assume that tens of thousands of other Connecticut citizens who hold permits also have sons.So the next question has to be, why did this son amongst all those tens of thousands of sons take his mother’s firearms illegally – Connecticut has the fourth toughest gun control laws in the US, and any 20-year old is banned from buying or carrying pistols – and turn into a mass murderer?News reports say he had a history of mental instability. At least one report mentioned ‘mood altering drugs.’ That is likely. The presence of legal drugs, the kind prescribed by psychiatrists, in the blood of the killers has been a feature of mass murders in America.Both of the Columbine High School killers, Eric Harris (described as ‘a classic psychopath’) and Dylan Klebold, were on psychotropic drugs.So was 17-year old Jeff Weise, the 2005 Red Lake High School killer in Minnesota who killed nine people then committed suicide.So was 19-year old Robert Hawkins who murdered eight people then killed himself in Nebraska in 2007.And on the list goes. What drugs 20-year old Lanza might have used on top of any drugs prescribed by a psychiatrist is something we will only learn from a coroner’s report.Yet the answer to the question, ‘What kind of person carries out such a crime as this?’ the answer may be as simple as: ‘The kind of young man who would murder his mother would murder just about anyone, and in any quantity.’Strange facts come to mind when one tries to figure out such a killer. In the biography of Hermann Goering, the Nazi war criminal recalled that his earliest memory was beating his mother’s face with his fists. Hate your mother with enough violence, and maybe there may be no limit to the violence. I don’t know.I do know this: there is a reason this one young man among the population of 3.6m in Connecticut turned into a killer. That reason can’t be the existence of guns in his home, any more than the existence of drugs in his blood. Among 165,000 permits, there was one mass killer. The state is on the edge of New York, so you can bet there are plenty of drugs, too. Yet the other 164,999 permits to own a gun in Connecticut produced no mass killers.You would have to – if you were rational – be open to the argument that having access to a gun and killing people are not cause and effect.And you would be right, despite the emotional surge in Britain, Ireland and other countries that insists that the huge numbers of privately-held guns in American must lead to huge numbers of murders. They don’t.Check, for example, the Guardian newspaper’s Datablog. Earlier this year it gathered statistics from the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime, and from the Small Arms Survey, an independent research project located at the Graduate Institute of International and Development Studies in Geneva.Here are the headline facts: ‘The US has the highest gun ownership rate in the world… but the US does not have the worst firearm murder rate – that prize belongs to Honduras, El Salvador and Jamaica. In fact, the US is number 28, with a rate of 2.97 per 100,000 people. Puerto Rico tops the world’s table for firearms murders as a percentage of all homicides – 94.8 percent. It’s followed by Sierra Leone in Africa and Saint Kitts and Nevis in the Caribbean.’More guns don’t mean more crime. In fact, as the BBC reported from America at the weekend, ‘Public support for stricter gun legislation has been on a downward trend in recent years, along with overall levels of violent crime.’Yet during the same period, gun ownership has increased.According to the most recent complete figures in the Small Arms Survey, in 2007 American civilians held 270m firearms, a rate of 89 guns per 100 population. However, in a recent footnote the survey added that the ‘ATF [US Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives] and other sources suggest that the total private ownership in the United States in 2010 was closer to 270m-314m firearms, for an average of 290m firearms or 96 per 100 residents that year.’What the survey doesn’t mention is one reason for the jump: the 2008 election of Barack Obama. Since his re-election this year, there has been another surge in gun sales. Yet violent crime has continued to fall. What is happening is that millions of Americans are afraid President Obama may have an opportunity in his second term to add leftwing justices to the US Supreme Court who would interfere with their Second Amendment rights. So they are stocking up. They intend to go on being able to defend themselves, their families, their property, and their liberty.For that has always been the foundation of the Americans’ determination to prevent the Federal government from taking away their Second Amendment right to bear arms. The amendment has always been misunderstood or wilfully misinterpreted abroad (though of course that is true of the entire US Constitution: so in passing I will say yet again that the US Constitution includes no right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, nor does it state that all men are created equal, nor does it say anything about government of the people, by the people for the people. But that is for another column.)The Second Amendment limits only the powers of the US Congress to interfere with the right to carry weapons. The sovereign states remain free to regulate the possession and carrying of weapons in accordance with their own constitutions. Any state in the union could, for example, legislate for gun control very like the gun control in Britain or Ireland. They just don’t want to.Even so, the right to bear arms is not absolute. The federal courts have upheld federal laws that limit the sale, possession and transportation of certain kinds of weapons such as machine-guns and sawn-off shotguns.But it is the states which have the power to limit possession and carrying of firearms, and they do. As I said, Connecticut is rated fourth-toughest in gun control among the 50 states. The three tougher are California, New Jersey, and Massachusetts. The rankings come from a report by the Washington DC anti-gun Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence. Much less tough degrees of gun control exist in, for example, Vermont, South Dakota and Arizona.There are as many different regimes of gun control in America as there are states in America, and Americans intend to keep it that way for many reasons. Here is one. The amendment protects the rights of the states to maintain their own militia, or ‘armed citizenry,’ independent of federal forces. This was established as a safeguard against oppression, either domestic or foreign.If you think this is a peculiar idea of Americans, look at the list of which other countries besides America have citizens who intend to remain armed. Number three on the global list of civilian gun ownership is Switzerland, a country with an historical understanding of the importance of an armed citizenry. The Swiss have 46 firearms per 100 of population. Yet there the rate of homicide by firearm per 100,000 of population is just 0.77 percent.Fourth on the list is Finland with 45 firearms per 100 population. The rate of homicide by firearm in Finland is 0.45 per 100,000 of population.Fifth on the list is Cyprus with 36 firearms per 100 of population. Homicide by firearm in Cyprus is 0.46 per 100,000 people. (For contrast, in Venezuela, the homicide by firearm rate is 39 per 100,000 population.)Number 13 in global terms of private gun ownership is Canada with 31 firearms per hundred people, then Austria, Iceland and Germany with 30 guns per hundred of population. These are all amongst the most safe and orderly countries on earth. The fact that that they also have high concentrations of privately-held guns may be connected.December 16, 2012
Illuminator is a good poster. He sticks to his guns and makes good points. Some don\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\'t like that.
Presenting facts isn't the problem. It's the false premises, politically driven presentation, and skewed cherry picking of sed facts that is the issue.
He's a Dembot.Then he's Completely Brain Washed. Which explains why he goes by the acronym CBW.
He's a Dembot.
Laughable that all of you are echoing the same right wing talking points on this issue, yet all of you claim to be "free thinkers" and are labeling me as brain washed. Typical right wing horse crap. "Either you think just like me, or you are incapable of thinking for yourself."Here's a question for you free thinkers, what does Honduras, El Salvador, Jamaica, Puerto Rico, Sierra Leone, Saint Kitts, and Nevis have in common with the United States? If your answer is, "hardly anything", you would be correct. They have a lot in common with each other, though. High unemployment, underdeveloped economies, high poverty rates, insufficient legal infrustructures, unstable governments, etc. But not very much with the United States. So one would wonder, what could be learned by comparing the murder rate or rate of firearm violence between these countries and the US? Not a damn thing, is the correct answer.To that end, how similar is the US to Switzerland? Do they have a similar rate of gun ownership? Do they have similar gun laws? Do they have a similar demographic makeup? The answer to each of these questions is also, a resounding, "no". So one would wonder, what could be learned by comparing the murder rate or rate of firearm violence between these two countries? Not a damn thing, is again, the correct answer.But I'm sure you have no issue with these specious comparisons.Why would you? It gives you all the ammunition you need (no pun intended) to continue to decieve yourself into thinking you are in the right. Fortunately, you are also in the minority. The common theme of all of your arguments? "There is just no easy answer to why people shoot people so much in this country". "Because they have easy access to guns", just isn't an answer any of you are willing to see the resounding logic in. I suppose the angle is, if you make change seem too hard, then people will give up on change. It's not working.