Is It Time To Regulate Clubs And Hammers?

[bobevenson]

Jewish World Review Jan. 16, 2013
http://www.JewishWorldReview.com
Are Guns the Problem?
By Free-market Economist Walter Williams

When I attended primary and secondary school — during the 1940s and '50s — one didn't hear of the kind of shooting mayhem that's become routine today. Why? It surely wasn't because of strict firearm laws. My replica of the 1902 Sears mail-order catalog shows 35 pages of firearm advertisements. People just sent in their money, and a firearm was shipped. Dr. John Lott, author of "More Guns, Less Crime," reports that until the 1960s, some New York City public high schools had shooting clubs where students competed in citywide shooting contests for university scholarships. They carried their rifles to school on the subways and, upon arrival, turned them over to their homeroom teacher or the gym coach and retrieved their rifles after school for target practice. Virginia's rural areas had a long tradition of high-school students going hunting in the morning before school and sometimes storing their rifles in the trunks of their cars that were parked on school grounds. Often a youngster's 12th or 14th birthday present was a shiny new .22-caliber rifle, given to him by his father.

Today's level of civility can't match yesteryear's. Many of today's youngsters begin the school day passing through metal detectors. Guards patrol school hallways, and police cars patrol outside. Despite these measures, assaults, knifings and shootings occur. According to the National Center for Education Statistics, in 2010 there were 828,000 nonfatal criminal incidents in schools. There were 470,000 thefts and 359,000 violent attacks, of which 91,400 were serious. In the same year, 145,100 public-school teachers were physically attacked, and 276,700 were threatened.

What explains today's behavior versus yesteryear's? For well over a half-century, the nation's liberals and progressives — along with the education establishment, pseudo-intellectuals and the courts — have waged war on traditions, customs and moral values. These people taught their vision, that there are no moral absolutes, to our young people. To them, what's moral or immoral is a matter of convenience, personal opinion or a consensus..

During the '50s and '60s, the education establishment launched its agenda to undermine lessons children learned from their parents and the church with fads such as "values clarification." So-called sex education classes are simply indoctrination that sought to undermine family and church strictures against premarital sex. Lessons of abstinence were ridiculed and considered passé and replaced with lessons about condoms, birth control pills and abortions. Further undermining of parental authority came with legal and extralegal measures to assist teenage abortions with neither parental knowledge nor consent.

Customs, traditions, moral values and rules of etiquette, not laws and government regulations, are what make for a civilized society. These behavioral norms — transmitted by example, word of mouth and religious teachings — represent a body of wisdom distilled through ages of experience, trial and error, and looking at what works. The importance of customs, traditions and moral values as a means of regulating behavior is that people behave themselves even if nobody's watching. Police and laws can never replace these restraints on personal conduct so as to produce a civilized society. At best, the police and criminal justice system are the last desperate line of defense for a civilized society. The more uncivilized we become the more laws that are needed to regulate behavior.

Many customs, traditions and moral values have been discarded without an appreciation for the role they played in creating a civilized society, and now we're paying the price. What's worse is that instead of a return to what worked, people want to replace what worked with what sounds good, such as zero-tolerance policies in which bringing a water pistol, drawing a picture of a pistol, or pointing a finger and shouting "bang-bang" produces a school suspension or arrest. Seeing as we've decided that we should rely on gun laws to control behavior, what should be done to regulate clubs and hammers? After all, FBI crime statistics show that more people are murdered by clubs and hammers than rifles and shotguns.

[Arising_uk]

Fuck all to do with America's youth at those times having fun shooting guns abroad.

[bobevenson]

Fuck all to do with America's youth at those times having fun shooting guns abroad.

Please restrict your worthless throw-away comments to those that have a minimum level of relevancy.

[chaz wyman]

Jewish World Review Jan. 16, 2013
http://www.JewishWorldReview.com
Are Guns the Problem? e]

In most civilised countries, carrying an offensive weapon is 'regulated' already, and rightly so.
So, in civilised countries the answer is no, sensible people thought of that a long time ago.

The USA in nuts. You can't buy a beer until you are 21, but you can buy a machine gun at age 18, and you can carry a hidden weapon legally in most states.
This is a criminals' charter.

[bobevenson]

Jewish World Review Jan. 16, 2013
http://www.JewishWorldReview.com
Are Guns the Problem? e]

In most civilised countries, carrying an offensive weapon is 'regulated' already, and rightly so.
So, in civilised countries the answer is no, sensible people thought of that a long time ago.

The USA in nuts. You can't buy a beer until you are 21, but you can buy a machine gun at age 18, and you can carry a hidden weapon legally in most states.
This is a criminals' charter.

You have absolutely no understanding of Williams' article, you pathetic boor!

[Ginkgo]

Jewish World Review Jan. 16, 2013
http://www.JewishWorldReview.com
Are Guns the Problem?
By Free-market Economist Walter Williams

When I attended primary and secondary school — during the 1940s and '50s — one didn't hear of the kind of shooting mayhem that's become routine today. Why? It surely wasn't because of strict firearm laws. My replica of the 1902 Sears mail-order catalog shows 35 pages of firearm advertisements. People just sent in their money, and a firearm was shipped. Dr. John Lott, author of "More Guns, Less Crime," reports that until the 1960s, some New York City public high schools had shooting clubs where students competed in citywide shooting contests for university scholarships. They carried their rifles to school on the subways and, upon arrival, turned them over to their homeroom teacher or the gym coach and retrieved their rifles after school for target practice. Virginia's rural areas had a long tradition of high-school students going hunting in the morning before school and sometimes storing their rifles in the trunks of their cars that were parked on school grounds. Often a youngster's 12th or 14th birthday present was a shiny new .22-caliber rifle, given to him by his father.

Today's level of civility can't match yesteryear's. Many of today's youngsters begin the school day passing through metal detectors. Guards patrol school hallways, and police cars patrol outside. Despite these measures, assaults, knifings and shootings occur. According to the National Center for Education Statistics, in 2010 there were 828,000 nonfatal criminal incidents in schools. There were 470,000 thefts and 359,000 violent attacks, of which 91,400 were serious. In the same year, 145,100 public-school teachers were physically attacked, and 276,700 were threatened.

What explains today's behavior versus yesteryear's? For well over a half-century, the nation's liberals and progressives — along with the education establishment, pseudo-intellectuals and the courts — have waged war on traditions, customs and moral values. These people taught their vision, that there are no moral absolutes, to our young people. To them, what's moral or immoral is a matter of convenience, personal opinion or a consensus..

During the '50s and '60s, the education establishment launched its agenda to undermine lessons children learned from their parents and the church with fads such as "values clarification." So-called sex education classes are simply indoctrination that sought to undermine family and church strictures against premarital sex. Lessons of abstinence were ridiculed and considered passé and replaced with lessons about condoms, birth control pills and abortions. Further undermining of parental authority came with legal and extralegal measures to assist teenage abortions with neither parental knowledge nor consent.

Customs, traditions, moral values and rules of etiquette, not laws and government regulations, are what make for a civilized society. These behavioral norms — transmitted by example, word of mouth and religious teachings — represent a body of wisdom distilled through ages of experience, trial and error, and looking at what works. The importance of customs, traditions and moral values as a means of regulating behavior is that people behave themselves even if nobody's watching. Police and laws can never replace these restraints on personal conduct so as to produce a civilized society. At best, the police and criminal justice system are the last desperate line of defense for a civilized society. The more uncivilized we become the more laws that are needed to regulate behavior.

Many customs, traditions and moral values have been discarded without an appreciation for the role they played in creating a civilized society, and now we're paying the price. What's worse is that instead of a return to what worked, people want to replace what worked with what sounds good, such as zero-tolerance policies in which bringing a water pistol, drawing a picture of a pistol, or pointing a finger and shouting "bang-bang" produces a school suspension or arrest. Seeing as we've decided that we should rely on gun laws to control behavior, what should be done to regulate clubs and hammers? After all, FBI crime statistics show that more people are murdered by clubs and hammers than rifles and shotguns.

To me the article seems to be a regretting a loss of traditional customs and moral values that were evident is a society that saw itself being responsible for the up keep of its own values. It blames progressiveness for a undermining of these values. No doubt he is trying to point out the role cultural relativism in this process.

Cultural relativism seems to go hand in hand with people being aware of their rights and not being aware of their responsibilities. Cultural relativism works for people who can get their beliefs and values codified into legislation because it gets them out of taking responsibility for their actions.

[bobevenson]

Does anybody want to challenge or comment on Williams' final two sentences? "Seeing as we've decided that we should rely on gun laws to control behavior, what should be done to regulate clubs and hammers? After all, FBI crime statistics show that more people are murdered by clubs and hammers than rifles and shotguns."

[chaz wyman]

Does anybody want to challenge or comment on Williams' final two sentences? "Seeing as we've decided that we should rely on gun laws to control behavior, what should be done to regulate clubs and hammers? After all, FBI crime statistics show that more people are murdered by clubs and hammers than rifles and shotguns."

In the USA it is legal to carry weapons, guns, hammers etc in a public place. That is why there is so much crime - it being illegal for a policeman to arrest a person for intent to commit a crime.
The irony is that in the latest shootings the police would not have had the power to stop the shooter bringing the weapon to the school under his coat. Williams reflects that civilised countries have less crime. The USA has more criminals per capita and more violent crime than all comparable countries. You have failed to see the irony.

In civilised countries laws are enacted to make it illegal to carry a weapon, as it is only people that intend to do harm who carry weapons. Law abiding citizens want barbarians locked away.

So, yes it's time for the US to consider rational laws against the intent to commit a crime; and that includes clubs too.

[Ginkgo]

Does anybody want to challenge or comment on Williams' final two sentences? "Seeing as we've decided that we should rely on gun laws to control behavior, what should be done to regulate clubs and hammers? After all, FBI crime statistics show that more people are murdered by clubs and hammers than rifles and shotguns."

Ok then, I think Williams is promoting a continuum fallacy. In other words, there are a huge variety to things that can be used as weapons to kill people therefore all should be classified as the same, 'able to kill category'. It ignores the possibility that weapons can be seen to produce different outcomes when it comes to particular circumstances.

[chaz wyman]

Does anybody want to challenge or comment on Williams' final two sentences? "Seeing as we've decided that we should rely on gun laws to control behavior, what should be done to regulate clubs and hammers? After all, FBI crime statistics show that more people are murdered by clubs and hammers than rifles and shotguns."

Ok then, I think Williams is promoting a continuum fallacy. In other words, there are a huge variety to things that can be used as weapons to kill people therefore all should be classified as the same, 'able to kill category'. It ignore the possibility that weapons can be seen to produce different outcomes when it comes to particular circumstances.

Good point! By extension does the Right to Bear Arms also include the right to own an atomic bomb, or mustard gas?

[Ginkgo]

Does anybody want to challenge or comment on Williams' final two sentences? "Seeing as we've decided that we should rely on gun laws to control behavior, what should be done to regulate clubs and hammers? After all, FBI crime statistics show that more people are murdered by clubs and hammers than rifles and shotguns."

Ok then, I think Williams is promoting a continuum fallacy. In other words, there are a huge variety to things that can be used as weapons to kill people therefore all should be classified as the same, 'able to kill category'. It ignore the possibility that weapons can be seen to produce different outcomes when it comes to particular circumstances.

Good point! By extension does the Right to Bear Arms also include the right to own an atomic bomb, or mustard gas?

I have seen it used both ways when it comes to weapons. It depends on what you are trying to promote at the time.

In your above case it would be, "major distinctions are only minor distinctions". When it comes to assault rifles it could be, "minor distinctions are really major distinctions"

[reasonvemotion]

Australians own as many guns as they did in 1996 at the time of the Port Arthur shootings. Australia's stockpile of firearms is back to the same level. More than 1 million guns were destroyed, but over the last ten years importation of more than one million has restocked its numbers. Despite this, gun related deaths have halved, since the buy back.

Apparently these findings will be used by the gun control task force set up in America. Guns that have been imported into Australia are not the semi automatic types that were banned in 1996 and stats show that 90% of gun deaths have nothing to do with mass killings. There is no research on this resurgence of gun ownership in Australia, it is a bit like a virus, returning. We have yet to see the impact of this new development. So far, it seems it has not been a strong deterrent.


.

[Ginkgo]

Australians own as many guns as they did in 1996 at the time of the Port Arthur shootings. Australia's stockpile of firearms is back to the same level. More than 1 million guns were destroyed, but over the last ten years importation of more than one million has restocked its numbers. Despite this, gun related deaths have halved, since the buy back.

Apparently these findings will be used by the gun control task force set up in America. Guns that have been imported into Australia are not the semi automatic types that were banned in 1996 and stats show that 90% of gun deaths have nothing to do with mass killings. There is no research on this resurgence of gun ownership in Australia, it is a bit like a virus, returning. We have yet to see the impact of this new development. So far, it seems it has not been a strong deterrent.


.

Yes, What happened was the Australian government deemed certain types of guns that were once legal as illegal. If you were now in possession an illegal firearms you had to hand it in and you would be compensated for your loss. I can only think that gun enthusiasts restocked themselves with legal arms over time.

I think there is a need to look at the background to this because it is important.. In Australia only about 5.2 percent of the population own guns. We have no right to arms because we have no Bill of Rights. Owning a gun in Australia is a privilege, not a right. We have had a lot of success since Port Arthur. There has been no mass shooting for 17 years.

I think the task force will not achieve anything because your background is so different to ours.

[chaz wyman]

Australians own as many guns as they did in 1996 at the time of the Port Arthur shootings. Australia's stockpile of firearms is back to the same level. More than 1 million guns were destroyed, but over the last ten years importation of more than one million has restocked its numbers. Despite this, gun related deaths have halved, since the buy back.

Apparently these findings will be used by the gun control task force set up in America. Guns that have been imported into Australia are not the semi automatic types that were banned in 1996 and stats show that 90% of gun deaths have nothing to do with mass killings. There is no research on this resurgence of gun ownership in Australia, it is a bit like a virus, returning. We have yet to see the impact of this new development. So far, it seems it has not been a strong deterrent.
.

You figures are puzzling. On the one hand you say guns were destroyed, then the same number have returned.
Under what basis were they destroyed and, who is buying them back. Is this legal importation?
Then you say there is not research on the resurgence, but suggest that the guns are not semi-auto.

I assume you are implying that the gun type has changed from automatics to handguns, and this corresponds to a halving of the death rate.

[chaz wyman]

Australians own as many guns as they did in 1996 at the time of the Port Arthur shootings. Australia's stockpile of firearms is back to the same level. More than 1 million guns were destroyed, but over the last ten years importation of more than one million has restocked its numbers. Despite this, gun related deaths have halved, since the buy back.

Apparently these findings will be used by the gun control task force set up in America. Guns that have been imported into Australia are not the semi automatic types that were banned in 1996 and stats show that 90% of gun deaths have nothing to do with mass killings. There is no research on this resurgence of gun ownership in Australia, it is a bit like a virus, returning. We have yet to see the impact of this new development. So far, it seems it has not been a strong deterrent.
.

Yes, What happened was the Australian government deemed certain types of guns that were once legal as illegal. If you were now in possession an illegal firearms you had to hand it in and you would be compensated for your loss. I can only think that gun enthusiasts restocked themselves with legal arms over time.

I think there is a need to look at the background to this because it is important.. In Australia only about 5.2 percent of the population own guns. We have no right to arms because we have no Bill of Rights. Owning a gun in Australia is a privilege, not a right. We have had a lot of success since Port Arthur. There has been no mass shooting for 17 years.

I think the task force will not achieve anything because your background is so different to ours.

Just 2 reflections on matters of fact. Australians do have a Bill of Rights.Law is based on precedent. Australian law is based on the Lex Britannica, and as such you have the original Bill of Rights upon which the US was copied. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_of_Rights_1689
A second point is that the US do not have the right to bear arms due to the US Bill of Rights, but by an amendment (2nd.) to the Constitution.

To what do you attribute the lack of mass shootings since the Port Arthur incident? RvsE claims that gun deaths have dropped by half since that time, though gun ownership has risen to previous levels. How do you account for that?