40 Comments

1. 

   Bruce Swanney on 1st March 2018 at 7:26 pm

   The problem is a little thing called the Second Amendment and a supreme court (Scalia) ruling on it’s interpretation and few years ago. A constitutional amendment is required to really restrict the sale of guns. The current groundswell for change (which I wholehearted welcome and support) is a molehill compared to that required to change the constitution.

   Reply
   • 

     Heather Hastie on 2nd March 2018 at 5:55 am

     That 2006 ruling, where the NRA finally got their way after years of lobbying is a major issue and has caused untold damage.

     I recently discussed this with a lawyer in the context of developing a constitution for NZ. (We don’t have a formal document known as the constitution.) She said there’s no problem placing reasonable restrictions on rights.

     Although there would be no right to bear arms in a NZ constitution, I see no problem with putting reasonable restrictions on that right in the US context in order to maximise the safety of the majority. It’s reasonable not to be able to call for violence as part of the right to freedom of speech, and you can’t do anything you want and say it’s your religion.

     I think even if things like proper, universal, background checks are introduced by federal law, there will be activist local officials who won’t follow the law. They will be sticklers when it comes to certain segments of the population, but people like Cliven Bundy will be seen as not needing to follow the law. Remember, there was a time when the NRA called for restrictions to a protester’s right to carry – it was when the protesters who were carrying were the Black Panthers in California.

     Reply
     • 

       nicky on 3rd March 2018 at 8:06 am

       There should not just be background checks, one should be able to show one actually needs a gun, and an appropriate one.
       If for ‘self-defense’, one should show there is a clear and credible threat, immo.
       If for hunting, a two shot hunting rifle should be the rule.
       If for target shooting, rental or deposit at the range should do.
       Maybe the NRA’s call for restrictions on ‘Black Panthers’ carrying could be extended to anybody? A very good point!

       Reply
2. 

   rickflick on 1st March 2018 at 9:17 pm

   I’d like to see the warning text appear before the image link for the shooting victims – “link to two pictures of dead people”.

   Reply
   • 

     Heather Hastie on 2nd March 2018 at 5:59 am

     I’ll do it as soon as I get to my other computer. Sorry about that. I added the words about where they were shot to the sentence to try and make it clear, but I could have made it clearer how bad the pics are.

     Reply
     • 

       nicky on 3rd March 2018 at 8:25 am

       I’ve seen quite some wounds, including gunshot wounds and a few high velocity gunshot wounds. The latter are kinda easy: nothing can generally be done, the victims are destroyed internally, most often dead. I do not want to sound callous, but I’m kind of immune to these images. Got enough actual tangible penetrating trauma to deal with, in the flesh, so to say, and that hits a bit harder than any pictures.
       I do appreciate the intentions of trigger warnings, but I’m not a real fan, a bit in two minds about them. On the one hand you do not really want to upset people unnecessarily. However, on the other hand, real life is as it is, often not quite savoury. Trigger warnings may be a good excuse to close one’s eyes to reality.

       Reply
       • 

         Heather Hastie on 3rd March 2018 at 8:45 am

         I don’t personally like the words “Trigger Warning.” In fact I really hate them and would like to add them to the banned list of phrases that irritate me. I’d rather put it another way, but those seem to be the mots de jour. I do think there needs to be a warning though. It’s not up to me to force those images on others. As I said, I was going to put them into the post, but I decided otherwise in the end.

         Reply
3. 

   rickflick on 1st March 2018 at 9:24 pm

   Dick’s Sporting has been a dick about guns in the past: WAPO –
   “The announcement, though heralded by some, drew scrutiny given that Dick’s discontinued sales of assault-style rifles from its eponymous stores after the shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Conn., in 2012. A few months later, the firearms went back into circulation through Dick’s outdoor and hunting chain, Field & Stream.”

   Reply
   • 

     Heather Hastie on 2nd March 2018 at 6:01 am

     Yes. The video makes it clear they got it wrong in the past too. They seem more sincere this time. They’re also stopping sales of high capacity magazines.

     Reply
4. 

   Samantha on 2nd March 2018 at 4:40 am

   That is the ultimate question regarding the US. Its embarrassing to be a citizen here.

   Reply
   • 

     Heather Hastie on 2nd March 2018 at 6:04 am

     You guys do plenty of good stuff too, and judging by the comments on this website (and WEIT) and statistics, there are plenty of people who want to see change.

     Reply
5. 

   nicky on 2nd March 2018 at 9:57 am

   I see nothing wrong with the second amendment as such, but everything wrong with the distortion the gun-nuts and SCOTUS (yes, the despicable gnome Scalia, not first, but foremost*) contorted it into, completely discarding the ‘well regulated militia’ context.
   It is like “a citizen maybe incarcerated if found guilty of a crime in a court of law”, meaning any citizen maybe thrown in jail anytime for any reason. I can’t think of a better comparison right now (maybe: you are entitled to a remuneration for your labour meaning you may steal any money you can lay your hands on?), but it is beyond ridiculous.

   * in the context of the horrifying number of gun deaths in the US, it could be argued he was a mass murderer. He was at least clearly lying about his ‘originalism’. In my private pantheon of ‘despicables’ Scalia ranks high. He clearly was one of the effing things wrong with the USA.

   Reply
   • 

     Mark R. on 2nd March 2018 at 12:00 pm

     I’d bet that Gorsuch (another originalist) will be proven to be a more radical/partisan justice than Scalia.

     Reply
   • 

     Heather Hastie on 2nd March 2018 at 12:34 pm

     I think if people are going to say they’re originalists, they should only be able to use weapons that were available when the constitution was written.

     Reply
     • 

       Mark R. on 2nd March 2018 at 12:38 pm

       Indeed!

       Reply
     • 

       nicky on 2nd March 2018 at 5:34 pm

       I’m not sure about that, these ‘founding fathers’ were probably aware there is progress in technology.
       However, they could not have forseen in their wildest nightmares that any nut would be considered a ‘well regulated militia’.

       Reply
       • 

         Heather Hastie on 3rd March 2018 at 6:54 am

         I was being facetious. But you’re right – it’s the 2006 SCOTUS decision that’s the problem.

         Reply
6. 

   Jenny Haniver on 2nd March 2018 at 12:08 pm

   I haven’t seen much mention about the bill passed by the Georgia state senate that penalizes Delta airlines for yanking perks for NRA members. A couple of days ago, Lt. Governor Casey Cagle declared his intent to punish Delta for its stand against the NRA
   https://twitter.com/CaseyCagle/status/968199605803454465; today I read that the state senate passed the bill.

   I find this an ominous development in that partisan factions (right or left) in government (municipal, state, federal) can apparently penalize “persons” for taking any action (or voicing any opinion on social media or elsewhere?) that stands in opposition to some favored institution, person, whatever. And since corporations are legally “persons,” one must assume that the same goes for actual, individual, homo sapiens. My foreboding may seem over the top, but in these over the top times, it’s not so fantastic. I could envision people being threatened with losing government subsidies if they publicly speak out against some policy or person or institution that is favored by those politicians who hold the reins of power. In fact, I do believe that such actions are by no means unheard of.

   In the past, I’ve seen such gruesome photos of people whose brains were blown out, so I’m somewhat inured; nonetheless, my sense of horror is not muted, just perhaps somewhat more abstract. I once wrote a poem about the writer Richard Brautigan (“Trout Fishing in America”) who blew his brains out over his last manuscript; the poem was a description of the act.. I didn’t see any photos, but reading the autopsy report and other descriptions of what the coroner found was as stomach churning as any photo I’ve seen. But he wasn’t found immediately, so decomposition had set in.

   Reply
   • 

     Heather Hastie on 2nd March 2018 at 12:42 pm

     I didn’t know about what the Georgia State Senate had done. I think that’s appalling and surely can’t be legal as it’s stopping Delta’s freedom of speech.

     I agree this is a very serious issue, and it concerns me greatly when a government makes such regulations. So much for Republicans wanting small government!

     Reply
   • 

     Mark R. on 2nd March 2018 at 12:50 pm

     And the lovely state of Georgia also passed a bill in the Senate that would exclude LGBTQ married couples from state adoption services. Aint that ol’ time religion great?

     Reply
     • 

       Heather Hastie on 2nd March 2018 at 12:55 pm

       Disgusting.

       It’s not going to be long before there are two USAs. It’s already happening to a certain extent. People who can will just move to a state, red or blue, that supports their pov. There’ll be no more purple states.

       And, as is already happening, the red states will will fail economically and socially while the blue ones succeed.

       Reply
       • 

         Mark R. on 2nd March 2018 at 1:22 pm

         Yes, I totally agree. I did just that in 2007, moving from deep red Wyoming to deep blue Washington. It was heartening to hear the other day our governor Jay Inslee telling Trump (regarding guns in schools) he needed to do more listening and less tweeting. No shit! There goes our chances of getting federal aid. LOL!

         Reply
       • 

         Diana MacPherson on 3rd March 2018 at 3:08 am

         It’s the problem when states decide things and it’s not decided at the federal level. Americans are suspicious of the government so are therefore suspicious of federal jurisdiction over things other than defence, immigration, the big stuff. As a Canadian, my culture is the closest to American culture, and we differ most in this area. Canadians are not as suspicious of their government. To Americans, Canadians appear as people who “let their government do everything for them” and they think Canadians can’t think for themselves or innovate or really do anything of note. It’s a huge blind spot.

         Reply
   • 

     nicky on 3rd March 2018 at 8:32 am

     Ominous might be the operative term, I fear, but it is unconscionable at any rate. I’m suspecting it is illegal too, maybe some legal expert can weigh in here?

     Reply
7. 

   Mark R. on 2nd March 2018 at 1:12 pm

   Good question…I’d say the 2nd amendment and religion are the two best answers to your question.

   I needed a trigger warning for the poor turtle. boohoo. Maybe its shell will eventually get revenge when it is passed. 🙂

   I skipped the shooting photos. I’ve seen what guns can do to heads, and don’t need any new imagery to stain my brain. At the same time, I think it is important that people see graphic images of the devastation a gun can cause. I wonder if a nationwide billboard campaign showing photos of dead kids shot by guns could change public opinion. It’s probably not legal though.

   I loved the Orca story; stories like that balance out (sort of) the political tweets.

   Solar technology is fascinating. Under Trump, science research in the US suffers, but it’s encouraging to see the rest of the world isn’t affected by POTUS stupidity.

   Reply
   • 

     Heather Hastie on 2nd March 2018 at 1:20 pm

     I was pretty annoyed by the disability story too. Buildings no longer have to be accessible when they’re built, or a new business opened. They don’t have to do anything until a disabled person sues them. How many disabled people have the money or time to do that? Assuming the case goes against the business, they still have months to sort things out. Getting rid of regulations is one thing, but deliberately making things more difficult for a group of people who already have it tough just getting around every day is disgusting.

     Reply
     • 

       Mark R. on 2nd March 2018 at 1:25 pm

       Yeah, that story made me sick. Republicans make me sick.

       Reply
     • 

       Jenny Haniver on 2nd March 2018 at 3:42 pm

       It’s down the rabbit hole and through the looking glass for me, and the Red Queen rules. Everything the R*s do is perversely contra what good sense dictates. Kleptocracy, kakistocracy, sometime ochlochracy — the list could go on.

       Just now I heard a clip from Trumpls most recent speech, edging toward Duterte (whom he has already praised), now advocating the death penalty for drug dealers, praising those countries that have it. The Red Queen speaks.

       Reply
       • 

         Heather Hastie on 3rd March 2018 at 6:51 am

         We always imagine that the systems we have in place protect us from going the way of countries that are less democratic. But at the end of the day a lot relies on who we give power to and how they use it. Yesterday it was announced that Turkey has become the country with the most journalists in jail. More than 1000 media outlets have been closed since the coup. Judges, teachers, professors, police officers etc by the tens of thousands have been jailed. But Turkey has a stronger secular constition than Sweden. Erdoğan was democratically elected in a free and fair election. A majority of the people support Erdoğan, so he gets away with it. The rest of us need to remember that when we vote. The character of the leader is perhaps more important than policies they say they will promote, especially when it’s clear they will say anything to get elected.

         Reply
8. 

   Jenny Haniver on 2nd March 2018 at 3:43 pm

   The kakapo sitting on that egg is, dare I say, the cat’s meow. I love it.

   Reply
   • 

     Heather Hastie on 3rd March 2018 at 6:52 am

     I’ve never heard someone outside NZ using that expression!

     Reply
     • 

       Diane G. on 10th March 2018 at 8:47 pm

       Was very common in the US in…early part of the 20th century, IIANM, but is now considered old-fashioned–like “23 skiddoo” (wth did that mean?) or “the cat’s pajamas” (what is it with cats?).

       Reply
9. 

   nicky on 3rd March 2018 at 7:50 am

   The repeal of the ADA act is so gratuitous, shortsighted, and i>callous. Note, future admins will reinstate it, and it is generally more expensive to adapt existing structures than to design them wheelchair friendly from the start, so it is not economically sound either..

   On the other hand, maybe it is a good measure, who needs cripples anyway? These ‘wheelchair users’ should not impose on us normal people, they were getting a bit above their station. Well done! It is also such a nice, thoughtful touch towards US war veterans.

   Reply
   • 

     Heather Hastie on 3rd March 2018 at 8:01 am

     I suspect the second paragraph is more like it.

     Besides, it’s a false economy anyway. As you point out, remedial work is almost always more expensive than doing it properly in the first place. Then there’s all the customers you upset and therefore lose, plus their supporters. The bad publicity. The cost of litigation. Further, people are living longer and a bigger proportion of the population is older. Older people often find it harder to get around so that’s another lost customer group. I have difficulty getting around and I always choose businesses etc. that are easy to access, have close parking etc.

     Reply
     • 

       nicky on 3rd March 2018 at 8:40 am

       Yes indeed, forgot the /S at the second paragraph though.
       It would be great if a majority of companies, businesses, municipalities, etc. would take your comments to heart (I’m sure some, or even many, actually do, did think of it themselves).

       Reply
10. 

    Randall Schenck on 3rd March 2018 at 9:08 am

    I agree, we have probably said every that can be but then, nothing has been done so we still must carry on until something is done. Just a couple of things I have learned from all the talk and comments in the past. First – the 2nd Amendment is no excuse not to do lots of gun control laws. Those who think otherwise are just being tricked by the gun people. Just look at any other law or amendment and find one that shut down all future law on the subject. The second finding I would report is that most people involved in the discussion do not know much about the subject, either the second amendment or about guns in general. That means there is a lot more noise out there than there is good ideas. Very few real, known hunters will even get involved in these discussions because they know that none of it is about guns that they use and they just think it is not about them. But as someone who knows a little about guns I think I can safely say this. The assault weapons should certainly be done away with. After that we need to work on eliminating hand guns. Hand guns have no business in the hunting world and they most certainly have no business in the urban environment where most of them exist and kill the most people.

    Reply
    • 

      Mark R. on 3rd March 2018 at 11:18 am

      Good points. I would add a caveat about hunters not needing hand guns. I used to deer hunt in my youth, and usually one or two of the adults would carry a hand gun just in case they needed it to put an injured deer out of its misery. I’d add that I never saw anyone use a hand gun, so you’re probably right that they don’t really need them.

      Reply
      • 

        nicky on 4th March 2018 at 2:48 am

        Putting an injured deer out of it’s misery can easily be achieved -if incapacitated- by cutting the carotid artery. No hand gun needed. If still up and kicking I do not see why your hunting rifle can’t be reloaded.
        Note, I’m not a hunter myself, but recognise it is there. Hunters often are quite conservationist and often have good knowledge about the ecosystems they are hunting in.
        When as a youngster I spent some time in Spain, I helped the local butcher (a woman, btw) slaughtering sheep, that is how I know how fast and effective severing the carotid artery is in ungulates (in most animals I guess, including humans).
        Whichever way: no actual need for hand guns. The debate about guns is, however, not about those two-shot hunting rifles. I guess there are but very few wanting to ban those.

        Ironically, I think such a double barreled, hail loaded hunting rifle would be just as effective a -if not more so- ‘self-defense’ weapon as a hand gun. It is more imposing, at short distance extremely deadly, and if the aggressor flees fast enough, just some painful injuries in the bottom (if the victim still sees fit to shoot a fleeing aggressor).

        Reply
    • 

      Heather Hastie on 3rd March 2018 at 4:14 pm

      I agree, and I think the type of guns available is the big difference between the US and the rest of us. Assault weapons are not available to the general public, and hand guns are almost impossible to get.

      And it’s not mental health either. NZ, despite all the good things, has one of the highest suicide rates in the world. It’s higher than the US. Lots of countries have higher suicide rates than the US. Therefore, the US must actually have better mental health overall. Mental Health is just an excuse. Most people with mental health issues are not a danger to other people. There is a tiny segment of people in every country who are likely to want to engage in mass killings. In the US, they can usually get hold of a gun to do that. In other countries, they often can’t and go on the rampage with a knife or something. So the kill rate is slower, the death rate is lower because of the type of injuries, and they’re stopped before they’ve done as much damage.

      Reply
      • 

        nicky on 4th March 2018 at 3:00 am

        Another thing is that if you take guns out of the equation, people are kinda bad at suicide.
        Often those who attempt suicide, can recover and reconstruct their lives again (note, a failed suicide remains an important risk factor for suicide).
        Thing is, with guns these attempts have the tendency to be successful, and even if failing, quite debilitating.

        Reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.