Jump to content

A Bit Of Wisdom From The Scots


Razors Edge

Recommended Posts

...that folks might finally be willing to heed.

The best quote is from near the end. It is absolutely true, but one that folks ignore:

Alice Dougherty:  We got rid of guns, and there were people who would have liked guns before. But their lives haven’t changed that much. Nobody walks around miserable because they don’t own a gun.

Tom

  • Heart 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

We often hear of the success of Australia, where privately-owned guns were confiscated by the government.

 

Yet we never hear of the 'success' of Mexico's strict gun laws; where those laws are so 'successful' in preventing gun violence that Mexico is considered one of the most dangerous countries in the world to live.

 

:dontknow:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Thaddeus Kosciuszko said:

We often hear of the success of Australia, where privately-owned guns were confiscated by the government.

 

Yet we never hear of the 'success' of Mexico's strict gun laws; where those laws are so 'successful' in preventing gun violence that Mexico is considered one of the most dangerous countries in the world to live.

 

:dontknow:

Hmm. Textbook "first world" countries vs a still developing country? There is an enormous - nearly incalculable - difference between the US, Australia, or Scotland and Mexico.  

Tom

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Razors Edge said:

Hmm. Textbook "first world" countries vs a still developing country? There is an enormous - nearly incalculable - difference between the US, Australia, or Scotland and Mexico.  

Tom

That's a distinct possibility, and we're in agreement about the enormous differences between the countries you named.  But I'd like to suggest an answer that applies across cultures, political systems, and time:

When people believe there will be no consequences, or

when they don't care about the consequences,

a law of itself is powerless to stop them.

And I think it applies no matter what the topic - gun violence, spousal violence, child abuse, stealing people's investments, etc. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

41 minutes ago, Longjohn said:

Alternate facts!  The data may be sort of correct but as per the attached snippet, the rates per capita may be close but look at the number of deaths by firearms..

 

Screen Shot 2018-02-22 at 8.35.24 PM.png

604 in Canada vs 15696 in the US.   The claim is that there are 34% deaths by gun in Canada vs the US.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 hours ago, Thaddeus Kosciuszko said:

We often hear of the success of Australia, where privately-owned guns were confiscated by the government.

 

Yet we never hear of the 'success' of Mexico's strict gun laws; where those laws are so 'successful' in preventing gun violence that Mexico is considered one of the most dangerous countries in the world to live.

 

:dontknow:

Australia is successful with guns because it doesn't have a long border with the USA.

Remember that the Mexican drug cartels couldn't get guns in Mexico, Central or South America: so they've been getting their guns from the USA, mainly Texas.  Remember when the federal government was onto one crime group doing it but continued to let them do it under G W Bush and then Obama so they could "track" what was going on, but it turned into a big fiasco?

Yes, Mexico is one of the most dangerous countries in the world, but I was in the Yucatan Peninsula last Summer and felt a lot safer than if I were in downtown Baltimore, New York, the South Side of Chicago (where I lived during college), etc.  How many school kids and teachers are killed in Mexico each year?  We've had shootings at 19 different school in 2018 alone!  Remember that the French Professor who was killed in the Virginia Tech massacre almost didn't come to the USA from France for fear of the huge amount of gun violence we have compared to France and other advanced countries.  We are recognized as a dangerous place worldwide.  If you watch modern British TV shows, when someone says something like, "I just got back from New York!" the reply is something like, "Were you mugged?"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, MickinMD said:

Australia is successful with guns because it doesn't have a long border with the USA.

Remember that the Mexican drug cartels couldn't get guns in Mexico, Central or South America: so they've been getting their guns from the USA, mainly Texas.  Remember when the federal government was onto one crime group doing it but continued to let them do it under G W Bush and then Obama so they could "track" what was going on, but it turned into a big fiasco?

Yes, Mexico is one of the most dangerous countries in the world, but I was in the Yucatan Peninsula last Summer and felt a lot safer than if I were in downtown Baltimore, New York, the South Side of Chicago (where I lived during college), etc.  How many school kids and teachers are killed in Mexico each year?  We've had shootings at 19 different school in 2018 alone!  Remember that the French Professor who was killed in the Virginia Tech massacre almost didn't come to the USA from France for fear of the huge amount of gun violence we have compared to France and other advanced countries.  We are recognized as a dangerous place worldwide.  If you watch modern British TV shows, when someone says something like, "I just got back from New York!" the reply is something like, "Were you mugged?"

True here in Canada as well.  I haven't looked up stats lately but the US is a major supplier of black market weapons to Canada. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, MickinMD said:

Remember that the Mexican drug cartels couldn't get guns in Mexico, Central or South America: so they've been getting their guns from the USA

 

3 hours ago, Wilbur said:

the US is a major supplier of black market weapons to Canada

Which I think supports my contention that the laws aren't stopping the crime.  If having the laws alone stopped the crime, the Mexican drug cartels would not be able to get any guns from the US, and there would be no black market for weapons in Canada.

Adding new laws atop of what's already in effect when the existing laws are not enforced will only make criminals and terrorists scoff and laugh.  Such people don't care about the laws now, so why would their behavior change simply because a new law is passed?  New laws do, however, make a good portion of the public feel  safer because 'something' was done, and provides an easy accomplishment for which politicians can declare victory and move on to the next issue trending on Facebook.

In order to truly stop the Mexican drug cartels from getting guns and to close the Canadian black market, those who illegally buy and use the guns need to believe that they will be caught and punished, and/or that the risks of illegally buying and using a gun far outweigh the profits and benefits.  Convince people of that, and you can manufacture as many guns as you like; nobody would buy them for illegal use.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Thaddeus Kosciuszko said:

 

Which I think supports my contention that the laws aren't stopping the crime.  If having the laws alone stopped the crime, the Mexican drug cartels would not be able to get any guns from the US, and there would be no black market for weapons in Canada.

Adding new laws atop of what's already in effect when the existing laws are not enforced will only make criminals and terrorists scoff and laugh.  Such people don't care about the laws now, so why would their behavior change simply because a new law is passed?  New laws do, however, make a good portion of the public feel  safer because 'something' was done, and provides an easy accomplishment for which politicians can declare victory and move on to the next issue trending on Facebook.

In order to truly stop the Mexican drug cartels from getting guns and to close the Canadian black market, those who illegally buy and use the guns need to believe that they will be caught and punished, and/or that the risks of illegally buying and using a gun far outweigh the profits and benefits.  Convince people of that, and you can manufacture as many guns as you like; nobody would buy them for illegal use.

I still prefer our gun controls.  We don't have the mass random shootings the US does.  The thugs possess them illegally and use them but primarily on each other.  No loss there. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

44 minutes ago, Thaddeus Kosciuszko said:

Which I think supports my contention that the laws aren't stopping the crime.  If having the laws alone stopped the crime, the Mexican drug cartels would not be able to get any guns from the US, and there would be no black market for weapons in Canada.

So, the Scottish-massacre inspired (UK) law would work, I guess. Ban the guns, and you don't need all the other dopey laws that seem to be ineffective.

Ban the guns NOW, and the dividends will accrue for our kids, grand kids, and beyond.

Tom

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Razors Edge said:

Ban the guns, and you don't need all the other dopey laws that seem to be ineffective.

That would seem to a solution, on the assumption that banning guns would be effective because across the nation virtually everybody would turn in their guns.  While it may have worked elsewhere, I doubt (respectfully) it would be effective here.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 hours ago, Thaddeus Kosciuszko said:

That would seem to a solution, on the assumption that banning guns would be effective because across the nation virtually everybody would turn in their guns.  While it may have worked elsewhere, I doubt (respectfully) it would be effective here.

A journey of a thousand miles begins with a single step.

If handguns are banned, there will be no gray area, and the laws on handguns can be dramatically simplified. Ratchet it up for each type of gun, until we are left with shotguns and hunting rifles.

Tom

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In nearly every country in the world, the government allows the citizens to possess firearms, and has the power to take them away by passing or revoking laws as the government deems.

In the US, the Constitution states the right to possess firearms is one of the inherent rights of the people; those rights are not given or granted by the government, they do not come from or derive from the government, and they are not the government's to take away.

This is what I think a good number of people either don't understand or elect to look past when discussions of 'banning' guns arise.  The US government is forbidden by the Constitution from outright 'banning' guns - if I may express the effect so crassly and coarsely.  The Constitution isn't about what rights the government magnanimously grants to the people - it delineates the rights the people have, no matter what form of government exists or even if no government exists, and places restrictions and boundaries on how much power the Federal government has in acting to limit those rights.

Unless, of course, the people choose to amend the Constitution through the various means given them.  Passing a Constitutional amendment is a long and tortuous process, and purposely intended to be so.  But as you say, RE, journeys begin with a single step.  I don't expect we will ever see an overall ban on firearms, nor an amendment to the Constitution revoking the second amendment.  What I do expect are attempts that amount to a steady chip, chip, chip, away at the second amendment until enough chips are knocked off that what's left preserves no rights at all.

If that is accomplished, look well toward what other rights remain to you, for the same process will be used to chip them away to nothing too.

  • Heart 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, Chris... said:

Things could have turned out a lot different if the Scots had kept their guns

 

 

MV5BODg4NzA0MTktOGU5ZS00ODlkLWE3ZmQtYjAzNjNmM2E3NmEzL2ltYWdlL2ltYWdlXkEyXkFqcGdeQXVyNjU0OTQ0OTY@._V1_SY1000_SX675_AL_.jpg

I was in Glen Nevis when that was being shot there. It turned out your Braveheart couldn’t even cope with the midges, they decamped to Ireland to compleat the movie.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, Thaddeus Kosciuszko said:

In nearly every country in the world, the government allows the citizens to possess firearms, and has the power to take them away by passing or revoking laws as the government deems.

In the US, the Constitution states the right to possess firearms is one of the inherent rights of the people; those rights are not given or granted by the government, they do not come from or derive from the government, and they are not the government's to take away.

This is what I think a good number of people either don't understand or elect to look past when discussions of 'banning' guns arise.  The US government is forbidden by the Constitution from outright 'banning' guns - if I may express the effect so crassly and coarsely.  The Constitution isn't about what rights the government magnanimously grants to the people - it delineates the rights the people have, no matter what form of government exists or even if no government exists, and places restrictions and boundaries on how much power the Federal government has in acting to limit those rights.

Unless, of course, the people choose to amend the Constitution through the various means given them.  Passing a Constitutional amendment is a long and tortuous process, and purposely intended to be so.  But as you say, RE, journeys begin with a single step.  I don't expect we will ever see an overall ban on firearms, nor an amendment to the Constitution revoking the second amendment.  What I do expect are attempts that amount to a steady chip, chip, chip, away at the second amendment until enough chips are knocked off that what's left preserves no rights at all.

If that is accomplished, look well toward what other rights remain to you, for the same process will be used to chip them away to nothing too.

Who gave that right?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Actually, I thought the best wisdom of the Scots was in the two Bobby Burns companion poems (Anglicized):

To A Mouse: The best laid schemes of mice and men oft go astray, and leave us naught but pain and grief for promised joy.

To A Louse (where a woman in church with lice on her hat thought people were looking at it admiringly): If only we could see ourselves as others see us.

  • Heart 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, Thaddeus Kosciuszko said:

In nearly every country in the world, the government allows the citizens to possess firearms, and has the power to take them away by passing or revoking laws as the government deems.

In the US, the Constitution states the right to possess firearms is one of the inherent rights of the people; those rights are not given or granted by the government, they do not come from or derive from the government, and they are not the government's to take away.

The U.S. Constitution doesn't say that at all.  It says: " A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

The 1700's word "regulated" means "trained" in 2000's American English.

It says the people have the right to bear arms for the purpose of comprising a well-trained militia.

In the 1700's, we didn't have armories for every state militia unit, so the people kept the guns at home.

Today, our National Guards and State Militias have guns in armories.  So the people have a right to keep arms in armories, not necessarily their homes.

And ONLY the people who are well-trained in terms of serving in a militia unit.

The Constitution says nothing more.

  • Heart 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

57 minutes ago, MickinMD said:

The U.S. Constitution doesn't say that at all.  It says: " A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

The 1700's word "regulated" means "trained" in 2000's American English.

It says the people have the right to bear arms for the purpose of comprising a well-trained militia.

In the 1700's, we didn't have armories for every state militia unit, so the people kept the guns at home.

Today, our National Guards and State Militias have guns in armories.  So the people have a right to keep arms in armories, not necessarily their homes.

And ONLY the people who are well-trained in terms of serving in a militia unit.

The Constitution says nothing more.

Federal law gives us an Organized and an Unorganized militia. The Organized militia is the male members of the National Guard, and the Naval militia, while the Unorganized militia is the female members of the National Guard and all 17-45 year old able bodied males. If we adjust for equality, we are back to pretty much the definition that Madison used, the whole body of the people. Also, well regulated does not have to mean so much as trained, but familiar with the use of their weapons. I used to have a well regulated watch. It was not trained.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, MickinMD said:

It says: " A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

Mick, you've made some fair points, and I think they go to some of the reasons for the vast discussion on this issue which is the interpretation of the wording above.

You're correct that there weren't many armories at the time the Constitution was written, so people kept the guns at home.

Their own guns, not the state's guns, nor the Federal government's guns, because neither the states nor the Federal government had the funds to buy them to supply the militia with arms.  The states and the Federal government depended on the militias because they also did not have the funds to support a large standing army and because the Founding Fathers - and the people - rightly distrusted the formation of large standing armies after the experiences with Britain's armies during the Revolution and the way the British government used them.

And so we come to the interpretation.  Many interpret the second amendment as you have stated, reading it as (again if I may be so crass and coarse) "A well-organized militia is essential for security of the country, therefore the people have the right to keep and bear arms for this purpose."  Others look at it from the interpretation of "Since a well-organized militia is essential for the security of the county, the people have the right to keep and bear arms of their own, so they can be called if needed to form these militias."

That the states and the Federal government over time have become wealthy enough to build armories, purchase arms, and provide for standing armies does not change the fact the original militias were formed from the people, people using weapons that they owned, and does not impinge on the Constitution stating the people's right to keep and bear arms.  Time has not changed that in the very unlikely event that the Federal government's forces found themselves overwhelmed, even with the able assistance of the National Guard and the State Guard units, that the Federal government and the states would resort to calling up able-bodied people who own guns to assist in the the country's defense.

But which interpretation?  And, of course, there are other interpretations I've neglected to mention.  Here is, I think, one of the major sources (if not the heart) of the issue.  Getting to that heart is difficult enough, with the Founding Fathers' written views for including the second amendment now compounded by court cases, state and Federal laws, occasions where guns are used illegally to great harm, people's emotions not tempered with reason, and more.

It may be the best we can hope for is a respectful discussion of others' views, with a firm grounding in the Founding Fathers' intentions considered with the decisions made by the judicial branch of the government.

(And my thanks for SW for allowing this discussion to remain in the general Forum, as to permit a wider participation.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, Wilbur said:

Have never seen Scott and wisdom used in the same sentence before. :) This is entertaining.  As a handgun owning, opponent of hand and assault guns , I will bow out. :) 

No, don’t do that, leaving us hanging, please resolve for us why a gun opponent is gun owner, too.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...