Well, there's the theme for the day -

[kyburg]

And it's nothing but a damned shame.

Police say Ratzmann walked out of a church meeting two weeks ago, apparently upset about a sermon, reports CBS News Correspondent Kelly Cobiella. They also say he was about to lose his job.

The Milwaukee Journal Sentinel reported Monday the Feb. 26 sermon that upset Ratzmann had made the point that people's problems are of their own making.

According to the paper, police trying to piece together a motive for the rampage are studying encrypted files from Ratzmann's three computers, seized from the home he shared with his mother and sister in New Berlin, Wisconsin.

The newspaper says police also found a .22-caliber rifle and a box of bullets that matched those used in the killings.

What they have not found is a suicide note, or anything else unusual in the house.

I'm not going to state that having a gun is wrong. It's not my preferred method of self-defense, and I think I can support the decision.

Rifles are pretty cool things, actually. There are some pretty impressive handguns out there, but don't ask me to own one. Don't want it.

You can't legislate morality - and that's at the heart of the 'gun control' issue.

You wouldn't need to restrict access if nobody wanted the things, after all. I have much the same opinion about abortion. (Stop demand, and you'll stop the process.)

Add a gun to a volatile situation, and it instantly becomes deadly. A shouting match turns into a fire fight - and what for?

Dead is dead. Dead ain't never coming back again.

I've lived in Southern California ALL my life. Before, during and after all the highway shootings - BOTH of the LA riots - in areas you'd recognize from the papers as the haven for drive-by shootings...and the only shooting I've had any direct knowledge of, was a pellet gun someone discharged through the floor of a condo into the unit below (there were twenty-somethings or younger in both, squatting was an issue) - that's it, folks. No injuries.

Have I dealt with my share? Oh very yes. Let me tell you about the drug dealer I sent up the river. Look Ma, no gun.

And the scariest thing I sense from a lot of gun owners is that false sense of security carrying gives them. I have a gun. I'll be fine no matter what. Then the situation comes up where a gun isn't indicated - but it's used - and the results are tragic, permanent and absurd.

Me, thinking that everyone out there is a potential gun-carrying threat, is something that hasn't been substantiated. Yes, there are some. I read about them all the time.

Most of the time, they're like this poor schmuck. And a gun simply becomes the 'nuclear' option to dealing with what bugs you.

As a culture, if we want to do anything about the issue of 'control', this HAS to be dealt with. Not restricting access. That didn't do diddly.

I keep going back to the Swiss, who have more guns and less problems than anyone I know -

"Small men deal with their problems with handguns." And you never confront someone in anger by using a gun. EVER. It's simply barbaric, and you'd find people horrified at the thought. (That sort of thing is for children and Americans, y'understand.)

They also have a lot less privacy, and far more societal pressures to 'behave' than you do here. But everyone of them has a gun and HAS to be good with it at the same time.

But I think, they're also expected to be thinking, rational adults as well. And get rewarded for it.

A culture is made up of individuals - more so in the USA than anywhere else. I insist on other means to solve violent issues than shooting them. That's my contribution to gun control.

My opinion - that, and five bucks will get you a meal at Starbucks.

Comments

Why gun control is never going to work

[turandot.livejournal.com]

The gun lobby is powerful. They'll brandish the Second Amendment against anyone with the fiercest ferocity possible. I think the only way they'll lose their power is if people stop buying guns, which will leave them with less money to funnel to their special interest reps. It has to be a cultural revolution before it can be a legal one.

Other than that, you're right, I think those who think that a gun is their answer to being protected are actually like children playing with a loaded weapon, in more senses than one. If you're gonna protect your home, you're better off getting a pitbull, frankly: premises liability beats murder (even if in self-defense) anytime.

[lordindra.livejournal.com]

I'm a strong supporter of the right to bear arms- private ownership of firearms gave our own revolution a chance to work. If that option is ever needed again, we'll need privately owned weapons to stand a chance(to those who say a low tech insurgency would never challenge the US military- look at Vietnam and Iraq). Excercising the so-called "ultimate veto" is the whole reason the Second Amendment exists. Hunting, self defense against criminals, shooting competitions... thats all secondary.

But something does need to be done. Licensing requiring you to pass a safety exam, and the NRA backed instant background check system would be good first steps.

To operate a car, which is not specifically designed to kill things, we need to prove we can do so safely. Why not the same with guns which are designed to kill? Such a test could be designed to be done in the gun store, and doesn't take very long at all. It might add ten minutes to the transaction, if that, if the person doesnt' already have a license to give a good indication that they know what to do(whether they will actually do it is another matter, but it doesn't take long to find out if they know what to do).

Background checks would be simple. You dont' even need much information to implement it. You'd need identifying information. Name, date of birth, place of birth and SSN. The chances of two people sharing those pieces of information are rather low. Add to that a summary of the charges convicted of, and the punishment. Thats enough to do a first screening. In the event you come up as a false positive, there should be a well documented procedure to have that record removed or corrected with documentation showing you are not the person listed, or that the convictions recorded never took place. I'd also add a provision where a judges order could allow you to purchase firearms(possibly of restricted types) despite a conviction. And each jurisdiction using the system would be able to set what crimes merit what sort of loss of priveleges.

I think a public education campaing clearly explaining that you can be acting in self defense and still go to jail(excessive force- generally not considered murder, but can easily go into manslaughter territory) could help encourage people to seek less extreme measures than firearms. And as you suggest, other education to actually teach people other methods of problem resolution, rather than simply encouraging them, could also help.

[pseudicide.livejournal.com]

I completely agree with you.

[pseudicide.livejournal.com]

I completely agree with you.

[pseudicide.livejournal.com]

I keep going back to the Swiss, who have more guns and less problems than anyone I know -

A very good point... Also look at Canada, who have roughly the same percentage of gun ownership to population as the US and has very little gun related crime... Mind you, we have shockingly strict controls on handguns, but still, rifles and other hunting weapons in many homes...

I think there needs to be some level of control, but it can't be the only option. There also needs to be education about guns, and what they actually are, weapons... I generally think that the people who think they have a gun, and therefore will be alright are actually quite dangerous. Because as you say, they don't think of other ways to solve their problems other than their guns.

[technoshaman.livejournal.com]

To respond both to this and to an earlier comment:

If you don't feel comfortable with one, then you have no business carrying one. I respect that. I simply require that you respect my right to carry responsibly.

I know damn good and well that having it is no panacea. I think education is the key here. If I had my druthers, it would work this way:

No restrictions on purchase aside from an instant check that does not record any identifying information about the check-ee.

To carry: Attend a class, run by civillian professionals licensed by the state, with the following curricula: Law and philosophy. Weapons safety. Practical pistol (i.e. range time). Test would be an objective quiz on the facts, and qualify with the weapon of your choice, along with the same background check used to qualify purchases. Passage entitles you to leave the class (duration: six to eight hours) with your permit.

Florida does something very close to this.

The law and philosophy section is going to, by necessity, explain what you CANNOT do as much as anything... and can potentially include some of your problem-resolution material. Folks do need to be taught that keeping out of trouble is just as important as how to handle it when it arises.

HOWEVER.

There are, inescapably, some people in this world that simply do not respond to any other language than violence. And no police force in the world can be everywhere all the time, nor would we want them to. An American must be prepared to deal with these people. I'm actually not too picky how. Gun, Mag-Lite, fighting knife, martial art (aikido is a good one; it's mostly defensive, relatively low impact, and involves mediatation and respect...) Choose your method. But to choose not to deal... is to abandon the principles on which this country was founded, and, more importantly, to abandon personal responsibility just for yourself. This I cannot abide.

But I think, they're also expected to be thinking, rational adults as well. And get rewarded for it.

Y'know, *that* I have absolutely no argument with. I think that may be the root of the problem. There *are* folks out there - too many - that have weapons but no brains. Ordinary, generally law-abiding, stupid people.

We got it drilled into our heads in Hunter Safety: Weapons should be kept from children and irresponsible adults. Perhaps as the folks old enough to have not taken that class die off, we'll see a general rise in thoughtfulness about such things.

One can hope (and pass the lesson on to any as need it).

[lysana.livejournal.com]

One other thing. Anyone who tries to buy a gun and shouldn't do so legally should be arrested. No quibbles, no backsies. Finding out that people who fail background checks for valid reasons aren't acted against just burns me up.


So speaks a gun owner.

[technoshaman.livejournal.com]

The only problem I have with that is the quite real possibility, given the current administration and the general nature of modern bureaucracy, of a false positive being given out by the system.

On the other hand, you could use the current waiting period thingy to have local (Local!) law enforcement do an investigation of the ID presented, independent of whatever's in the NICS computer, and if they turn up an outstanding warrant or a conviction or whatever, arrange to have the fuzz present when the induhvidual returns for his purchase.

Gripping hand, if you've been in the joint, rehabilitated yourself, and have been out in the free world for, say, five years, and don't so much as have a speeding ticket, I think you damn well ought to get your rights back. That and mere posession - of anything - ought not to be a crime in and of itself... it's the conduct that needs policing. (Sitting around smoking a joint is ususally a fairly peaceful thing to do. It's the violence surrounding the smuggling of the weed that causes problems. But that's a whole 'nother argument.)

[poetpaladin.livejournal.com]

Well said, my friend. Well said.

Oh, and I think you're awesome. If I ever have a kid I want you to be auntie. :)