Gun Policy Discussion

[J Reed Brundage]

I am starting this new Discussion stream on gun policy in order to
separate out this line of discussion from the one on the Drug
discussion stream. I started with the two issues in one discussion
because the two are so closely linked in the drug war here in Mexico.

I am copying into this stream the previous discussions about guns that
are on the drug discussion stream.

[J Reed Brundage]

My statements about guns from my original post:

....In the same press conference, President Obama acknowledged, “…we
have
responsibilities... We have to do our part. ... We have to stem the
southbound flow
of guns and cash.” ... While speaking of stemming “the southbound flow
of guns….,” he sidestepped
the press’ questions about any efforts to control the sale of assault
weapons.
I believe that the President’s statements point to a paradox in
United
States policy and law that lies at the root of the United States’
role
in the Mexican drug war. On one hand, the drug criminalization laws
of
the “War on Drugs” give rise to the black market which supplies the
profits at stake in the war.... On the other hand, the lack of laws
adequately regulating the sale of assault weapons makes available
these weapons of war.
This is the paradox: drugs are illegal to sell or use, but the sale
of
assault weapons is legal. What then, can I, a US citizen living in
Mexico, do to address what strikes me as a basic contradiction?

I can do nothing here is Mexico. But in the U. S., I can explore and
understand U.S. policies and laws and then support changes to:
....
2. Gun control laws that, while respecting the rights of citizens
to own guns for protection of their homes or recreational use,
removes
from all markets weapons such as semi-automatic assault and high
caliber rifles and implements background checks on all purchasers to
prevent criminal purchases.

[J Reed Brundage]

From: Doug, Aug. 14:
As for gun control laws, here's an overview of gun control
historically, and most recently Australia's "success" (source:
http://forum.prisonplanet.com/index.php?topic=63564.0)
In 1929, the Soviet Union established gun control and from 1929 to
1953,
about 20 million dissidents, unable to defend themselves, were
rounded
up and exterminated.
------------------------------
In 1911, Turkey established gun control and from 1915 to 1917,
1.5 million
Armenians, unable to defend themselves, were r ounded up and
exterminated.
------------------------------
Germany established gun control in 1938 and from 1939 to 1945, a
total of
13 million Jews and others who were unable to defend themselves
were
rounded up and exterminated.
------------------------------
China established gun control in 1935 and from 1948 to 1952, 20
million political
dissidents, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and
exterminated.
------------------------------
Guatemala established gun control in 1964 and from 1964 to 1981,
100,000
Mayan Indians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and
exterminated.
------------------------------
Uganda established gun control in 1970 and from 1971 to 1979,
300,000
Christians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and
exterminated.
------------------------------
Cambodia established gun control in 1956 and from 1975 to 1977,
one million
educated' people, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up
and
exterminated.
------------------------------
Defenseless people rounded up and exterminated in the 20th
Century
because of gun control: 56 million.
--------- ---------------------
It has now been 2 years since gun owners in Australia were
forced
by new
law to surrender 640,381 personal firearms to be destroyed by
their own
government, a program costing Australia taxpayers more than $500
million
dollars. The first year results are now in:
List of 7 items: Australia-wide, homicides are up 3.2 percent
Australia-wide, assaults are up 8.6 percent
Australia-wide, armed robberies are up 44 percent (yes, 44
percent)!
In the state of Victoria alone, homicides with firearms are now
up 300
percent. Note that while the law-abiding citizens turned them
in,
the
criminals did not, and criminals still possess their guns!
While figures over the previous 25 years showed a steady
decrease
in
armed robbery with firearms, this has changed drastically upward
in the past
12 months, since criminals now are guaranteed that their prey is
unarmed.
There has also been a dramatic increase in break- ins and
assaults of the
ELDERLY. Australian politicians are at a loss to explain how
public safety
has decreased, after such monumental effort and expense
was expended in successfully ridding Australian society of guns.
The Australian experience and the other historical facts above
prove it.
You won't see this data on the US evening news, or hear
politicians
disseminating this information.
Guns in the hands of honest citizens save lives and property
and,
yes,
gun-control laws adversely affect only the law-abiding citizens.
Take note my fellow Americans, before it's too late!
======================================================
In case I was too subtle above: The definition of insanity is doing
the same thing and expecting different results. The real reason for
citizens to bear arms is to defend themselves from 'their'
government,
should it come to that. "Respecting the rights of citizens"
historically has not been a function of government. Turning them into
subjects has been.
Further (damn this is getting long ;-), I have to take issue with
your
generalization about 'assault weapons.' Watch this 11-minute video
and
see if you don't view the 'assault weapon' issue a little
differently:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YjM9fcEzSJ0.
(Not meaning to divert the subject, I'd also add that many of the
public shooting tragedies seem timed to benefit the agenda of gun
control, and some have government connections and anomalies that
don't
require a tinfoil hat to see. Before bemoaning another "sh*t happens"
tragedy, ask "who benefits?" The mother of them all (so far), 9-11
curiously benefited the agenda of the Project for a New American
Century, and really nobody else except perhaps the failing Israeli
computer industry in the wake of the tech crash, which magically rose
like a phoenix to become the world's predominant security industry.
The Port Arthur massacre occurred just before Australia's gun ban. "A
New South Wales police report indicates that 29 shots were fired at
the Broad Arrow, 19 ending as fatal head shots, 1 other fatal shot,
and 12 wounded. In about 90 seconds..." by a intellectually impaired
young man with no shooting or military experience. 19 fatal head
shots
in 90 seconds? Think about it. The Columbine shootings equally exist
in a cloud of confusion, and I expect one could find holes in almost
any well-publicized shooting story.)
Cui bono? Who benefits?

[J Reed Brundage]

From Reed, Aug. 14.

To: Doug,
It looks like we agree about changing the drug laws in the US. ...
As for guns, we see it differently. As you can see in my original
statement, I am not proposing taking guns away from law-abiding
citizens, only "remov(ing) from all markets weapons such as semi-
automatic assault and high caliber rifles and implement(ing)

background checks on all purchasers to prevent criminal purchases. "

Many of the guns entering Mexico from the US are purchased at gun
shows or from private dealers, so there are no background checks.
(See
the posted article regarding this).
Reed

[J Reed Brundage]

From: Gary, Much of the US discussion of gun control sounds very
strange to most
other people in the world I am sure.
a. Not all gun control is the same - some is good and some is
ineffective. One has to sort the wheat from the chaff. I think
Reed
has begun to provide some material to discuss.
b. Dealing with violence is a very complicated matter and as in most
other areas we should strive not to be reductionist. Nothing can be
reduced to a single explanation. For this reason I found Doug’s
comments quite offensive (I’m sorry I can’t find a softer term). If
there is indeed a correlation between the events he lists, this does
not mean there is any causal relationship. If I were a Jew or any
of
the other groups listed I would feel quite offended to hear a complex
historical and cultural matter reduced to the number of guns. It is
equally offensive to hear that classroom shootings can become swept
up
in conspiracy theory. This prevents us from really trying to figure
out what is going on with a nation.
c. So much of our thinking about guns and crime is built on a
foundation of there being good guys and bad guys. What if we
eliminated that dichotomy from our thinking, after all bad guys were
once good guys. And as we know, at one time good guy can one day
pick
up an available firearm and shoot a spouse, becoming one of the bad
guys.

[J Reed Brundage]

From: Doug,, Aug. 26.

> b. Dealing with violence is a very complicated matter and as in most
> other areas we should strive not to be reductionist. Nothing can be
> reduced to a single explanation. For this reason I found Doug’s
> comments quite offensive (I’m sorry I can’t find a softer term). If
> there is indeed a correlation between the events he lists, this does
> not mean there is any causal relationship. If I were a Jew or any of
> the other groups listed I would feel quite offended to hear a complex
> historical and cultural matter reduced to the number of guns.

I think a member of those groups exterminated by 'their' governments
would find incredibly offensive your assertion that there's no
causality between their extermination and the fact that they were
unable to defend themselves, especially after being disarmed by the
government that killed them. Poor folks probably just couldn't
understand the 'the complex historical and cultural' aspects of being
rounded up and shot? Sorry, you poor dupes, better luck next time.
Extra credit: name a successful State-sponsored genocide where the
target population was well-armed and able to defend itself?
In any event, Gp, the subject here is not 'dealing with
violence' (again,this 'focus' thing).

> equally offensive to hear that classroom shootings can become swept up
> in conspiracy theory. This prevents us from really trying to figure
> out what is going on with a nation.

[We'll be back with the latest about Paris Hilton after this
commercial break]: this non-sequitur reflects the mainstream media/
pundit's way of sweeping under the rug any anomalies that don't fit
the official story. Why question the official story with facts, when
we can babble about generalities? (And better yet, be 'patriotic!')
Again, when it comes to seeing what's in front of one's face and
connecting dots, as opposed to bobble-headed parroting of talking
heads, the 9-11 comparison offers lessons, unless one is still
wearing
rose-colored glasses on planet Coinkydink.
A connection between staged terror attacks and a government agenda?
Nah, surely not possible? (Google 'Operation Northwoods.')

> c. So much of our thinking about guns and crime is built on a
> foundation of there being good guys and bad guys. What if we
> eliminated that dichotomy from our thinking, after all bad guys were
> once good guys. And as we know, at one time good guy can one day pick
> up an available firearm and shoot a spouse, becoming one of the bad
> guys.

As 'Drugs - America's Holy War' posits (very effectively), the 'War
on
Drugs' is based on morality, and the simplistic notion that 'drugs
are
bad and we're good,' which as you suggest, doesn;t lead to clear
thinking. As for 'bad guys were once good guys,' I challenge you to
do
a little research into psychopaths/sociopaths - as in the people who
seek and gain power - and tell me when they were 'good guys.' When
was
Dick Cheney a 'good guy?' Henry Kissinger? Donald Rumsfeld - back in
the good ol' days when he used all his political clout to force
'legalization' of the poison aspartame?

[Rich Montoya]

First of all I would like to make a observation. Gun control here in
Mexico appears to be directly tied to importation of arms from abroad,
that is mostly from the USA. Once they enter the country there is no
telling where such might reside or how they might be used. In Patzcuaro,
where I live, I am not sure if I can distinguish the sounds of
firecrackers from those of bullet flying! By the previous comment you
might be able to tell that I would like to see some controls come into
effect.

Because the USA is the biggest exporter of weapons to Mexico this is
where that control might be implemented. The first step would be to
separate the politics from the real issues. The NRA fears that if you
take away assault weapons from their cache of favorite arm then the
whole armory might be dismantled. There is not much that one can do to
change that mentality! But President Obama and other high officials need
to acknowledge the problem and take strong measures to deal with it. It
will not just go away if it is not dealt with in a strong positive way.

There some positive things that are being done on the Mexican side of
the border to address the lack of gun control. One very good one is
getting rid of crossing inspectors and replacing them with trained
better qualified ones. Bette detection equipment is also starting to be
put into place. I feel sure that some of this has come about with the
help of funding from the USA but more needs to be done. Politicians
should not be allow to hamper more funds being made available for this
purpose.