NARP Goes Anti-Gun

[frj1983]

Rather than enter into the discussion as it has gone so far,

I'd like to bring one thing up...when NARP first sent this message out, I read it and laughed. Then I asked myself why would they send this out...there's gotta be a reason???

I attempted to read between the lines and I may be way off here, but the idea popped into my head that the TSA might (notice I said "Might") require Amtrak to do a more stringent inspection of bags at each stop (to make sure guns are locked, dis-assembled, whatever). This of course would require more employees and add more time(and of course by extension spend more MONEY) to each stop! It's the only thing that made sense to me.

Does anyone think that it would be worthwhile to invite one of NARP's higher-ups to come here and address the "Why?"

 

[sunchaser]

Was the orignal post that Sen. Wicker was proposing to alter Amtrak's funding unless they permitted firearms to be carried in checked baggage?or was it about whether guns were a good thing?

My own view is that it is a bit like wanting to be a male boy scout leader.. The very wish to be one (or own a gun) should be grounds for doubt !

Ed B)

It was about permitting firearms in checked baggage.

It has morphed into whether it's good or not.

What I was trying to express is that in the US it is a right, not a privilege. US law has changed to make it a privilege.

In the past, there was only a few places you would not carry a weapon. Because of the fear of criminals, we limit the locations that are acceptable. But that also limits those who may be able to assist as well. IMHO, it should not matter why or where you carry the firearm, it is the how & who that's important. Other than illegal activies of course. Although I do admit some people would be nervous if they saw what is perceived as an ordinary citizen carrying a weapon onboard. I know I would wonder about it myself.

 

[VentureForth]

Was the orignal post that Sen. Wicker was proposing to alter Amtrak's funding unless they permitted firearms to be carried in checked baggage?or was it about whether guns were a good thing?

My own view is that it is a bit like wanting to be a male boy scout leader.. The very wish to be one (or own a gun) should be grounds for doubt !

Ed B)

As a scout leader and a gun owner, I take offense to that comment.

 

[Ryan]

Was the orignal post that Sen. Wicker was proposing to alter Amtrak's funding unless they permitted firearms to be carried in checked baggage?or was it about whether guns were a good thing?

My own view is that it is a bit like wanting to be a male boy scout leader.. The very wish to be one (or own a gun) should be grounds for doubt !

Ed B)

As a scout leader and a gun owner, I take offense to that comment.

I concur (well former Boy Scout, and soon to be leader when the boy hits 1st grade). Who appointed this guy armchair moderator?

 

[ruudkeulers]

Was the orignal post that Sen. Wicker was proposing to alter Amtrak's funding unless they permitted firearms to be carried in checked baggage?or was it about whether guns were a good thing?

My own view is that it is a bit like wanting to be a male boy scout leader.. The very wish to be one (or own a gun) should be grounds for doubt !

Ed B)

As a scout leader and a gun owner, I take offense to that comment.

Ah, another thing a scout leader and a gun owner apparently have in common: a lack of sense of humour!

 

[Ryan]

Was the orignal post that Sen. Wicker was proposing to alter Amtrak's funding unless they permitted firearms to be carried in checked baggage?or was it about whether guns were a good thing?

My own view is that it is a bit like wanting to be a male boy scout leader.. The very wish to be one (or own a gun) should be grounds for doubt !

Ed B)

As a scout leader and a gun owner, I take offense to that comment.

Ah, another thing a scout leader and a gun owner apparently have in common: a lack of sense of humour!

Explain how that's supposed to be a joke and non-insulting.

 

[ruudkeulers]

it is a bit like wanting to be a male boy scout leader.. The very wish to be one (or own a gun) should be grounds for doubt !
Ed B)

Explain how that's supposed to be a joke and non-insulting.

It's all a matter of recognizing a good British joke if you read one. When I close my eyes I can hear John Cleese saying it in a Monty Python episode (or in Fawlty Towers for that matter...)

 

[p&sr]

It's all a matter of recognizing a good British joke if you read one.

Americans never joke about guns. The subject is much too sacred.

Now, Shooting People is different. That we joke about. Very funny.

 

[Neil_M]

Perhaps I'll never understand why the carrying of a firearm would be considered immoral. A gun doesn't have a soul, doesn't speak, doesn't do anything without the influence of one who handles it. It is no different than a samurai sword, poison, or even a nice Mercedes Benz. Though I respect your thoughts and right to express those thoughts, those suggestions that you make, ruudkeulers, are definitions of oppression, not freedom.

A gun is designed to do one thing. Kill someone or something. If you carry a gun you obviously have it to kill someone. Why do you think you have a right to kill someone? That's a definition of 'oppression' and what about the 'freedom' to go to the shopping mall or college without getting shot?

Many civilized countries have not embraced the gun culture like the US and manage to get along in their daily lives without the need to arm bears.

Maybe everyone thinks they are John Wayne. Just buy a big hat and some boots instead. It's safer for all concerned.

 

[Guest]

Perhaps I'll never understand why the carrying of a firearm would be considered immoral. A gun doesn't have a soul, doesn't speak, doesn't do anything without the influence of one who handles it. It is no different than a samurai sword, poison, or even a nice Mercedes Benz. Though I respect your thoughts and right to express those thoughts, those suggestions that you make, ruudkeulers, are definitions of oppression, not freedom.

A gun is designed to do one thing. Kill someone or something. If you carry a gun you obviously have it to kill someone. Why do you think you have a right to kill someone? That's a definition of 'oppression' and what about the 'freedom' to go to the shopping mall or college without getting shot?

Many civilized countries have not embraced the gun culture like the US and manage to get along in their daily lives without the need to arm bears.

Maybe everyone thinks they are John Wayne. Just buy a big hat and some boots instead. It's safer for all concerned.

Perhaps if most other countries embraced the gun culture we wouldn't have to ride "John Wayne" style to their rescue when the nearest bully country ran over them (France, England...) .... (dodging arrows here- since you English/Dutch don't carry bullets). Some of your assumptions are off the wall. I don't carry it to "kill" someone. I would keep/carry it to keep someone/something from killing ME! I would also use it to put a coyote out of business or a bear or any rabid animal. We still have those over here, you know. Our Constitutional framers (if I'm to believe what's on constitution.net) wanted us to be able to defend ourselves by keeping militias armed. Remember we had the English, Spanish, French, etc, making forays over here trying to get territory. Militias were ordinary people who came to the defense of their communities. These militias subsquently became the National Guard which is controlled by the governors of the individual states. Even now, when the Guard is called to active duty there is a voluntary unpaid militia whose responsibility is to guard the armories and probably other things. I can join it if I wanted to. This is a very general version of history (!!!), here, so go read it elsewhere for the full picture. Anyway, I don't believe that any distinction was made between the militia and the individual because they were one and the same. The President cannot (AFAIK) call the Guard to active duty. (Probably some exception out there somewhere.

We take our Constitution seriously and don't change it lightly because it was so hard won. Unfortunately, we can end up with judges who interpret it along their biases which irritates some of us. You guys take your history seriously, too, or you wouldn't be living in such old drafty buildings. I've seen the place. (How's that for generalizations.)

Do you guys live in a gated high- rise with nothing larger than roaches to attack you? What did your parents/grandparents do during WWII?

Jody

FYI, one of my favorite scenes is from a Monty Python movie where the guy's arms and legs have been cut off and he standing there in defiance saying, "come back here you bloody b*****d and fight" spoken like only ya'll can speak.

 

[George Harris]

Perhaps I'll never understand why the carrying of a firearm would be considered immoral. A gun doesn't have a soul, doesn't speak, doesn't do anything without the influence of one who handles it. It is no different than a samurai sword, poison, or even a nice Mercedes Benz. Though I respect your thoughts and right to express those thoughts, those suggestions that you make, ruudkeulers, are definitions of oppression, not freedom.

A gun is designed to do one thing. Kill someone or something. If you carry a gun you obviously have it to kill someone. Why do you think you have a right to kill someone? That's a definition of 'oppression' and what about the 'freedom' to go to the shopping mall or college without getting shot?

Many civilized countries have not embraced the gun culture like the US and manage to get along in their daily lives without the need to arm bears.

Maybe everyone thinks they are John Wayne. Just buy a big hat and some boots instead. It's safer for all concerned.

So far I have stayed away from this one. But Neil, you have definitely gone over the edge here. I don't know when the last time I heard such a run if irrational nonsense.

A gun is designed to shoot a bullet, or slug, or load of pellets. Unless it is a military weapon it is NOT designed for the primary purpose of killing someone. It is normally desiged for hunting, target shooting, maybe carried for self protection if a handgun, and usually with the hope and prayer that it will never be used to kill anyone.

I enjoy target shooting, and have occasionally in the distant past gone hunting. My most recent excercise with guns was going to a shooting range with some friends and murdering a couple of boxes of clay pidgeons. If you don't understand why that is fun, sorry about that. We enjoyed the challenge, and no, the group was not all men, either. I consider a lot of other people's hobbies a waste of time, but that is their business not mine. As to watching pro sports, I would as soon go get my teeth drilled.

Anyone who thinks that outlawing guns will end crime or crime in which guns are used is living in fantasyland, as others here have already said. Notice I did not say "gun crime" because there should be no such thing. There is crime committed with a gun but the gun is not the crime, itself. And that includes if an attempt is made to confiscate guns, as well. Even in countries where guns have been illegal for a long time, those in the criminal element still manage. Maybe not as easily as some other places, but they do manage to get them. Not to mention, any good metalworker with access to the tools can make one. Maybe not to the quality of Remington or S&W, but it can be done. I lived in Taiwan for 17 year and guns were illegal there and have been for a long time, but yet the gangster element still had them. They just knew for sure that no one else did but the police and military, and used that fact to their advantage. It has been very correctly said, "When guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns."

I grew up in a time and place where just about everybody had guns in their house, and frequently with some of them regarded as display pieces, either in glass cases or hanging on a wall, and no one thought twice about it. So far as I am concerned in most cases, "I did not know it was real" is a lie. There is a significant difference between the feel of a real one and a toy. But then my father made sure I understood that when I was about 7. The second is, "I did not know it was loaded." Unless you are a Darwin Award candidate, you always treat a gun like it is loaded unless you are absolutely sure it is not, and even then you do not point it at anybody else.

And then we get back to that pasky Second Ammendment. Regardless of what you might think, having a gun is a constitutional right.

As VentureForth says, I can never understand why carrying a firearm could be considered immoral.

 

[Neil_M]

http://www.ichv.org/Statistics.htm

"In 2004 (the most recent year for which this data has been compiled), handguns murdered:

5 people in New Zealand

37 people in Sweden

56 people in Australia

184 people in Canada

19 people in Japan

73 people in the UK

11,344 people in the United States

- Provided by the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence"

That's an awful lot of people who die to keep the right to follow some stuff written in the 1700s.

What a waste.

 

[sunchaser]

http://www.ichv.org/Statistics.htm
"In 2004 (the most recent year for which this data has been compiled), handguns murdered:

5 people in New Zealand

37 people in Sweden

56 people in Australia

184 people in Canada

19 people in Japan

73 people in the UK

11,344 people in the United States

- Provided by the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence"

That's an awful lot of people who die to keep the right to follow some stuff written in the 1700s.

What a waste.

Please read all of the info listed there. Do not stop with the compilation. You emphasize the point-these deaths are criminal acts. They are listed as homicides. I did not see any info on whether these weapons were legal weapons or not. I did look at all the stats, I didn't see any mention of self defense.

It does list accidental though. It also proves my point about being responsible with a gun. A gun should be secured in a way that only an adult can operate it. And of course, do not handle it when you are depressed or angry.

Whether you think the Constitution should be followed because it is old is odd. There are many founding documents all over the world that are much older like the Magna Carta that are still being followed.

Maybe all dangerous items should be outlawed. Hammers, rope, swords, sharp knives, rat poison etc. Guns can be used to kill people, or to hunt or collected or for target practice. Again, it depends on the person. If you own a gun, it does not guarantee that you will use it the wrong way. Unless that is what you bought it for.

 

[p&sr]

A gun should be secured in a way that only an adult can operate it. And of course, do not handle it when you are depressed or angry.

Isn't that like saying, You should only drive fast if you're not in a hurry?

 

[sunchaser]

A gun should be secured in a way that only an adult can operate it. And of course, do not handle it when you are depressed or angry.

Isn't that like saying, You should only drive fast if you're not in a hurry?

No! (are you trying to be funny?) You should not drive faster than the speed limit!!!!! :lol:

I grew up in a home with 7 weapons, shotguns, pistols & rifles. We used them to shoot man-eating tin cans. We could go out to the Mojave Desert to shoot them, way away from all other people. I knew how to handle them from a young age & feared the consequences if I messed with them without permission. But, I do not have any weapons in my home. For the same reason. I did not feel that we could secure said weapons in a way to prevent our children from messing with them.

I think people are getting too riled up about this subject.

 

[George Harris]

http://www.ichv.org/Statistics.htm
"In 2004 (the most recent year for which this data has been compiled), handguns murdered:

5 people in New Zealand

37 people in Sweden

56 people in Australia

184 people in Canada

19 people in Japan

73 people in the UK

11,344 people in the United States

- Provided by the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence"

That's an awful lot of people who die to keep the right to follow some stuff written in the 1700s.

What a waste.

I would still rather be in the USA than anywhere else on the above list. As the risk of starting another round, my experience working with people from European countries, in general, not all of them, was to gain a great appreciation as to why my ancestors some 300 years ago got on little wooden boats and risked drowning to leave. Given the gangster element that exists in Japan, I have some trouble believing that one, at least.

If we were subtract all those in the US that were done by people that legally should not have been in possession of a gun, what would the numbers look like then? Unless they separate the numbers murdered by legal guns they have not made a point about legal gun ownership at all, but about the propensity of certain elements of the population to violence. There are quite a few countries in the world with murder rates far higher than the US rate, but they are conveniently not listed. Why? Because that would undercut the conclusion they have already selected.

 

[Neil_M]

As the risk of starting another round, my experience working with people from European countries, in general, not all of them, was to gain a great appreciation as to why my ancestors some 300 years ago got on little wooden boats and risked drowning to leave. Given the gangster element that exists in Japan, I have some trouble believing that one, at least.

So you understand how people were 300 years ago because of what you find now? How odd.

Maybe it could be argued that the US has always been a 'gun culture country' and needs to use firearms to sort its business out right from the massacre of the native Americans (or were they "insurgents"? :lol: ) right up to Vietnam and Iraq. Shoot first, don't bother asking questions later.

Sweeping generalisations are never a good thing. Neither is shooting people.

 

[sunchaser]

http://www.ichv.org/Statistics.htm
"In 2004 (the most recent year for which this data has been compiled), handguns murdered:

5 people in New Zealand

37 people in Sweden

56 people in Australia

184 people in Canada

19 people in Japan

73 people in the UK

11,344 people in the United States

- Provided by the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence"

That's an awful lot of people who die to keep the right to follow some stuff written in the 1700s.

What a waste.

I would still rather be in the USA than anywhere else on the above list. As the risk of starting another round, my experience working with people from European countries, in general, not all of them, was to gain a great appreciation as to why my ancestors some 300 years ago got on little wooden boats and risked drowning to leave. Given the gangster element that exists in Japan, I have some trouble believing that one, at least.

If we were subtract all those in the US that were done by people that legally should not have been in possession of a gun, what would the numbers look like then? Unless they separate the numbers murdered by legal guns they have not made a point about legal gun ownership at all, but about the propensity of certain elements of the population to violence. There are quite a few countries in the world with murder rates far higher than the US rate, but they are conveniently not listed. Why? Because that would undercut the conclusion they have already selected.

Also, notice the year 2004. That's over 4 years ago. I'm sure the info would be different now. Notice Mexico is not listed.

There are many countries not on the list that should be. Actually, I thought the numbers would be much higher. Not minimizing those deaths, but as much as people complain about needing more gun control.

 

[George Harris]

As the risk of starting another round, my experience working with people from European countries, in general, not all of them, was to gain a great appreciation as to why my ancestors some 300 years ago got on little wooden boats and risked drowning to leave. Given the gangster element that exists in Japan, I have some trouble believing that one, at least.

So you understand how people were 300 years ago because of what you find now? How odd.

Maybe it could be argued that the US has always been a 'gun culture country' and needs to use firearms to sort its business out right from the massacre of the native Americans (or were they "insurgents"? :lol: ) right up to Vietnam and Iraq. Shoot first, don't bother asking questions later.

Sweeping generalisations are never a good thing. Neither is shooting people.

If sweeping generalizations are never a good thing, why are you making so many?

As far as needing to use firearms to sort things out, the English above all poeple live in a glass house on that one. Remember "The sun never sets on the British Empire?" That certainly did not happen by invitation of the subjected peoples. As one English guy I used to work with said: "Do you know why the sun never sets on the British Empire?" Answer" God does not trust them in the dark.

And working with certain Englishmen in the past helped me understand why there had to be an American Revolution :lol:

But then that is maybe because they determined that I was on no consequence because my English fraction was too small and my Scot, Irish, and Norman fractions to big. Not to mention the few other smaller and even indeterminate fractions. These guys would discuss and judge other Englishmen based on what county they were from.

 

[rogers55]

We are going to San Diego this weekend, hopefully to get to the bottom of this.

I will attempt to find Special Agent Pat, I am confident he will have all the answers.

Maybe he will even pose for a picture if we aren't too threatening.

 

[jackal]

http://www.ichv.org/Statistics.htm
"In 2004 (the most recent year for which this data has been compiled), handguns murdered:

5 people in New Zealand

37 people in Sweden

56 people in Australia

184 people in Canada

19 people in Japan

73 people in the UK

11,344 people in the United States

- Provided by the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence"

That's an awful lot of people who die to keep the right to follow some stuff written in the 1700s.

What a waste.

Statistics can be twisted to appear to support any conclusion.

Those countries all have significantly fewer people (with the exception of Japan and the UK, which are about 40% and 20%, respectively) than the U.S. A better measure should be the per capita rates:

Country Gun Death Rate per 100,000
Japan 0.07

Singapore 0.24

Taiwan 0.27

Kuwait 0.37

England/ Wales 0.4

Scotland 0.49

Netherlands 0.55

Spain 0.74

Ireland 1.24

Germany 1.44

Italy 2.27

Sweden 2.27

Denmark 2.48

Israel 2.56

New Zealand 2.67

Australia 2.94

Belgium 3.32

Canada 3.95

Norway 4.23

Austria 4.48

Northern Ireland 4.72

France 5.48

Switzerland 6.2

Finland 6.65

USA 13.47

(Source: W. Cukier, via Google Answers)

Notably, France, Finland, and Switzerland have rates almost half as high as the US.

The table about a third of the way down this page helps to out the numbers in context.

I am wondering, though, how the number of gun deaths in the U.S. is 13.47 per 100,000 when the number of murders and nonnegligent manslaughters is 5.9 per 100,000. I suppose it really is true that over half are police or people shooting in self defense and suicides.

I don't personally own a gun (yet--someday I'll get around to it), but I know many, many people who own guns not only for sport but also for self defense. They, as others here have indicated, pray that they never have to use them, but I will say that I felt much safer in a friend's car when we stopped and decided to give a lift to a guy stuck on the side of the road who we thought was a bit suspicious but really needed help (it was a remote area late at night). My friend discreetly kept his hand on his gun hidden next to the seat the whole time. I like knowing that I'm safe because a criminal may decide breaking into my house isn't worth the risk that he'll get shot if he threatens me.

 

[Neil_M]

The more guns you have around the more people die by them, murder, suicide, whatever.

The right to pretend to be John Wayne is an important one. Well worth dying for....

 

[Ryan]

it is a bit like wanting to be a male boy scout leader.. The very wish to be one (or own a gun) should be grounds for doubt !
Ed B)

Explain how that's supposed to be a joke and non-insulting.

It's all a matter of recognizing a good British joke if you read one. When I close my eyes I can hear John Cleese saying it in a Monty Python episode (or in Fawlty Towers for that matter...)

I'll admit that I still don't find it amusing, as I've never quite "got" British humor, but can accept that it may have been a flawed attempt at humor.

The more guns you have around the more people die by them, murder, suicide, whatever.The right to pretend to be John Wayne is an important one. Well worth dying for....

Look, I'm not going to waste my time trotting out arguments to explain why we take the second amendment so seriously (along with the rest of the Constitution) since it's going to have absolutely no effect on how you feel about the situation. Instead, how about you show a little basic respect for another country, its laws and its values and just drop this one? We certainly don't try spend time posting about the things that the British empire does/did wrong, so how about you return that common courtesy? Of course America isn't perfect (and I agree with you that our last President did a lot of things to give you folks around the world to complain about), but there isn't anywhere else that I'd rather live.

 

[ruudkeulers]

it is a bit like wanting to be a male boy scout leader.. The very wish to be one (or own a gun) should be grounds for doubt !
Ed B)

Explain how that's supposed to be a joke and non-insulting.

It's all a matter of recognizing a good British joke if you read one. When I close my eyes I can hear John Cleese saying it in a Monty Python episode (or in Fawlty Towers for that matter...)

I'll admit that I still don't find it amusing, as I've never quite "got" British humor, but can accept that it may have been a flawed attempt at humor.

It took me some time to appreciate it too, but since then I'm lost

...there isn't anywhere else that I'd rather live.

That probably goes for all of us. Although, with your new president I'm not so sure about myself anymore. That's why I'm looking forward to our visit this Fall. It won't surprise you we made that decision AFTER Obama was elected. Hope to meet all (or some) of you on Amtrak then (see other topic) to continue this discussion with a good glass of (Californian?) wine and AlanB as chairman!

 

[JayPea]

I wasn't going to toss fat on the fire here as I have no dog in the fight. I don't own a gun save for a pellet gun for which I have no pellets, and have only shot a real gun twice, at beer bottles and tin cans at the dump. I have absolutely no problems whatsoever with anyone who does, however. But, I think it should be noted there are several reasons for shipping guns, whether via Amtrak or by the airlines. There are, at any given moment, any number of gun shows, swap meets, etc. all across this great nation of ours. Not to mention all sorts of shooting competitions as well. Those are good reasons to ship guns. None of those activites, in and of themselves, constitute shooting at people or other living beings, unless someone accidentally shoots some poor unsuspecting bird during a trapshooting competition. :lol: