McCain courts NRA, makes gun shop visit

Saturday 17th May, 04:20 AM JST

The requested article has expired, and is no longer available. Any related articles, and user comments are shown below.

12 Comments

Everton2 at 09:27 AM JST - 17th May

More guns, that is just what America needs
SezWho2 at 10:36 AM JST - 17th May

McCain should consider the notion that just wanting a gun might be an indication of a mental problem.
OssanULTRA at 11:15 AM JST - 17th May

"McCain should consider the notion that just wanting a gun might be an indication of a mental problem."

The above statement in itself suggests a strong possibility of a mental problem. I don't see anyone wanting to acquire a legally sold item as an indication of anything. http://www.azdps.gov/ccw/
SuperLib at 11:41 AM JST - 17th May

Ban guns now. It's just common sense.
SezWho2 at 12:19 PM JST - 17th May

OssanULTRA,

Really? Legality dictates sanity? I don't think so. It's more likely that we get hold of a wrong-headed notion and then build laws to justify its enshrinement.

Slavery? Legal once. Not an indication of anything?

Tobacco? Legal still. Not an indication of anything?

Alcohol? Legal still. Not an indication of anything?

Rampant TV violence. Legal still. Not an indication of anything?

Sleaze bars and pornography. Legal still. Not an indication of anything?

I'm not in favor of the government controlling our lives. But I think if you aren't at least willing to consider the notion that we have created a climate of fear, that fear is in itself symptomatic of a potential mental problem and that guns add to the fear, you aren't paying attention.
skipthesong at 01:25 PM JST - 17th May

McCain should consider the notion that just wanting a gun might be an indication of a mental problem." why?

An unbiased question: to gun supporters: why do you feel it is necessary to purchase guns? what is the main thing that makes you want to keep a gun If you use your legal gun, should you be charged?

to anti-gunners: Why must legal guns be priority over illegal guns? Why has it been considered neocon-ish to take tougher action on illegal guns in inner cities? Why is it, in the time when people are doing their best to reduce time served for illegal gun crimes, mostly for young gang members, do you want to limit people to protect themselves? If I don't have a gun, but a baseball bat, and beat an attacker, why would you want me to be charged and not the attacker? this is happening right now as we speak in New Jersey.
SezWho2 at 03:45 PM JST - 17th May

skipthesong,

Speaking as an "anti-gunner" and only for myself, I'm not sure what your first question means. If by legal guns having priority over illegal guns you are referring to restricting the sale of legal guns but doing nothing about illegal guns, I don't think it is the case that restriction on legal purchases has "priority". If it does, it should not. However, by definition, it is easier to effect change among those who follow the law than those who do not. Both must be pursued.

As for your second question, I wasn't aware that it was considered "neocon-ish" to take tougher action on illegal guns in inner cities. I think almost everyone is in favor of taking tougher action on illegal guns. The problem is how to do that without suspending laws against unwarranted search and seizure.

As for your third question, I admit that I'm not aware of all the current legal movements, but I don't think that people are doing their best to reduce time served for illegal gun crimes per se. I think people are doing their best to ensure that our sentencing laws are fair and fairly applied, to fit prison terms to the severity of the actual crime and to have them be comparable to the severity of sentences for which people are currently serving in confinement and to ensure that legislation such as "three strikes" does not encourage gun use. Nobody, I think, wants to limit people in protecting themselves, but the argument is one of what protection is effective and what protection actually contributes to the growth of the problem. I think most people would agree, for example, that a cash-register mounted machine gun is too much protection.

Finally, if you beat someone with a baseball bat, you do need to be able to establish that the person actually was an attacker. Obviously, a gun in the person's hand would tend to be a persuasive indicator. However, if you were to continue to beat any attacker (ala the bodega proprietor in Taxi Driver) past the point at which he is rendered harmless, people might understand your spleen but you would still have committed a crime.

But be of good cheer. Police officers firing from shielded positions are still able to put 50 rounds in unsuspecting people wrongly suspected of reaching for guns. You know, if a group of police officers can be so nervous, I really don't want to be in the bodega when the proprietor thinks he remembers that I came in with the other guy he just shot.
SezWho2 at 03:47 PM JST - 17th May

skipthesong,

I'm sorry not to have addressed your first question, but it seemed to me that I already had done so. Short answer: fear and paranoia are not healthy mental states.
skipthesong at 04:18 PM JST - 17th May

sez, thanks for that reply.
Madverts at 07:36 PM JST - 17th May

Heh. From my cold dead hands.

Or a ban on firearms at the old folks home at least.
Sarge at 08:01 PM JST - 17th May

Everton2: "More guns. That is just what America needs"

Barack Obama: People have the right to lawfully bear arms"

If Everton2 could vote in U.S. elections, I'm guessing he wouldn't vote for Obama.
nonacnon at 07:08 PM JST - 18th May

There are alot of guns in Canada but much less homocide and crime. There are guns in Europe too but much less gun related crime. There are guns in many places in US where they enjoy a low crime rate. What makes US not look good in these statistics is that depserate people with guns tend to go wrong. This I think goes back to the class difference in US between the rich and the poor. You do not find the same type of poverty and desperate people in western Europe or Canada as you do in USA. I think there is something to this. As the saying goes there is no has never been any socialism in USA therefore also greater gap between rich and poor which as a whole makes the society more tense.