I hate guns...

[5.56X45mm]

This is from a Canadian but I think it applies to you guys as well.

By MICHAEL COREN
Sun Media

I hate guns. They terrify me. I have never owned one and never will.

I have little sympathy for the gun culture or the gun lobby. Both seem crass and crude. If I had my way, guns would not exist. But - and this but is the size of a Liberal grant - we do not live in a perfect world and I am prepared to admit that reality sometimes stings.

More than this, the relative lack of gun control legislation in the United States had nothing, absolutely nothing, to do with a 6-year-old in Michigan shooting another child to death. Nor had it anything to do with other child killings, with murders by street gangs, with any of the shootings in Canada.

Indeed, gun control is one of the great misnomers of modern times. We cannot control guns and we don't have to either. What we have to control is the decaying social fabric of North America and our headlong rush into an ethical vacuum.

Good God, this one isn't rocket science. A few fundamentals:

Guns are extraordinarily common in Canadian and American rural communities, where the crime rates are lower than anywhere else in either country. Farm kids shoot from an early age and are in the company of firearms before they can walk. Yet there are hardly any violent rampages and so-called accidental discharges of weapons.

Guns have existed in very large numbers for more than two centuries. They were common among ordinary families from the 1740s. Children did not kill with them. After 1945 Canada was flooded with handguns brought home from Europe and Asia by soldiers. Teachers of the time report of half of the class bringing dad's shooter to school. These were military weapons, deadly and efficient.

Were there mass slaughters? Of course not. But according to some zealots, it's all about registration. So just who are these people so anxious to tell us what to do and how to do it?

Curiously enough, the activists campaigning for draconian gun control seem to be the same activists who are calling for a lower age of sexual consent, for more children's rights, for increased funding of daycare rather than support for families, for a wholesale dismantling of the society that has served us so well for so long.

If you doubt me, just take a look. It is an almost infallible rule that the more permissive a person is on social and moral issues the more in favour they are of strict gun control. Coincidence?

Please. It is not that such people are sinister, simply that they are wrong. Dangerously wrong. Ignore the disease, misinterpret the diagnoses and then prescribe the wrong medicine.

It's too late for that nonsense now. The patient is dying and we have to operate fast. As for the ailments, they should be obvious.

Single-parent families and the absence of male authority figures. Parents never seeing their kids because both are working and junior is parented by the television. Teachers emasculated and unable to chastise children who instead revel in their thuggery. An obsession with the self-esteem of kids who in fact scream for boundaries and borders.

Endless discussions about children's feelings, encouraging them to act out the slightest whim. Constant attacks on the virtues of family, chastity, faith, respect, order and tradition. TV that deadens the mind and the sensibilities with graphic violence, grotesque pornography and vacuous pop videos, and then hosts long discussions wondering why kids are going wrong.

I want, I need, I must have, I know, I am, I rule, I'm cool, I'm everything. You're nothing, you're not me, you don't understand, you suck, you don't matter. And I'm the center of the universe. I know it because I feel it and nobody dares tell me otherwise.

Laugh when Jimmy uses obscene language, believe that Susan can do no wrong even when the cop and the teacher tell you otherwise, decide that your "self-fulfillment" in some job is more important than Jake seeing his mother when he comes home from school, and say you can't control what Brittany watches on television when you haven't even tried.

It ain't about guns, it's about you. And you, and you. Don't blame mechanics for your own madness.

 

[HokieMSG]

An excellent article. I agree that since the 1970's there has been a fundemental shift in the pardigm by which we raise our children. No one has ever said that being a parent is easy. But too many times I have seen parents cave into their childs wishes because if the parents do not, the child will have a tantrum and embarras the parents. I spanked my son (he is 14 now) in a store when he was 4 because he kept running away from his mother (my wife) and me. I was sneered at and looked down at by a woman who asked me why I was abusing my child. I calmly told her that I was correcting my sons dangerous behavior. Her reply was that I was not correcting him but abusing him. I turned around and walked away because I didn;t want to "abuse" her. He had almost been hit by 2 or 3 buggy's in that store because he and the other shoppers were not paying attention. Him becasue he was 4 and the other customers because they were talking on cell phones, looking at their lists etc.

I am disturbed that society has taken the turn it has. I can only try to raise my children to the best of my ability before I unleash them on society. I am hoping that My wife and I have done a good enough job.

 

[Rob Henderson]

And that's all we can do, Hokie... I don't have kids, and am not planning on it for quite some time, but when I do, I must revisit this forum and tell myself to stick to my guns that I've set up here. I agree with (nearly) everything that was said in the article, and I agree with what you said. All you can do as a parent is raise them to be good, and hope that it's enough of a barrier between them and social chaos.

 

[HokieMSG]

There is always the fallback that Denis Leary uses.

"I've stopped yelling at my kids. I figure waving the gun around pretty much gets my point across."

 

[Rob Henderson]

That man is a political comedic genius! I love his bit about smoking and the "hooligans" in London. Haha

 

[HokieMSG]

My favorite is the bit about Coffee.

"I'm not going to have a heart attack in front of some 18 year old haiku writing motherf:cen:r in a Starbucks."

 

[A Can of Man]

Interesting times.
That's what we're living in.

 

[The Other Guy]

Curiously enough, the activists campaigning for draconian gun control seem to be the same activists who are calling for a lower age of sexual consent, for more children's rights, for increased funding of daycare rather than support for families, for a wholesale dismantling of the society that has served us so well for so long.

I'm all for the first two mentioned after the gun control. Not sure how either one dismantles society. First off, 16 year olds know what he heck they're doing. If they f*ck up, so to speak, that's really their problem. They can have abortions or give their kids up to adoptions, no questions asked. As for youth rights? Of course I'm for that! Knowing what's going on in the world but having no way to really affect how it looks when it's our turn to be in charge is REALLY frustrating. I can't tell you how many times what I've said has been discounted because I'm "just one of those teenage rebels." Just because I'm 16 or 18 or whatever doesn't mean that I somehow don't know what's going on or don't understand it. And also remember that feudalism served Europe well for so long too. But that doesn't mean that it was good.

As for the comparison to the post-1945 world? Really? Today's world is a much much different place. Let's just remember that.

I agree with you though, Hokie. When an :cen: whooping is in order, an :cen: whooping is the best solution.

 

[A Can of Man]

What I noticed is that once kids reach about 14 or 15, it's already kind of late. You have to get them sorted before that age. If they have no sense of discipline, duty, work ethic and a decent moral standard, chances are it's going to take a LOOONG time and perhaps a few tragic events to make them adopt those characteristics from then on. At around high school age, trying to change them will only make them angrier and more confused. Punish them when they f*ck up but generally this is when people should get their foot off the gas for a bit and let them figure it out for themselves. Remember, it's in their genes to rebel at this moment. Don't give them something to rebel against. Just make sure you get your crap sorted BEFORE the hormones kick in.

 

[HokieMSG]

I'm all for the first two mentioned after the gun control. Not sure how either one dismantles society. First off, 16 year olds know what he heck they're doing. If they f*ck up, so to speak, that's really their problem. They can have abortions or give their kids up to adoptions, no questions asked. As for youth rights? Of course I'm for that! Knowing what's going on in the world but having no way to really affect how it looks when it's our turn to be in charge is REALLY frustrating. I can't tell you how many times what I've said has been discounted because I'm "just one of those teenage rebels." Just because I'm 16 or 18 or whatever doesn't mean that I somehow don't know what's going on or don't understand it. And also remember that feudalism served Europe well for so long too. But that doesn't mean that it was good.

As for the comparison to the post-1945 world? Really? Today's world is a much much different place. Let's just remember that.

I agree with you though, Hokie. When an *ss whooping is in order, an *ss whooping is the best solution.

I'm going to have to disagree with you on this one TOG.
When a 16 year old f's up. It is usually the parent or parents who bear the burden of helping or raising the child. In many cases this add a strain on some households that they simple cannot afford.

In most cases there is not the social stigma attached to a teenaged/unwed parent. When you have little girls (10 years old) saying that they want to have a baby so they can get a check every week, something is really wrong with society.

Too many times parents dont or wont take the moral education of their children seriously. They expect the state to take care of it (moral education) and when something bad happens they insist on another program to "educate" which doesn;t worth either. Kids need to understand that there are rules, and when you break the rules there is punishment usually of the form of the :cen: whooping that you and I agree on.

 

[Rob Henderson]

What I noticed is that once kids reach about 14 or 15, it's already kind of late. You have to get them sorted before that age. If they have no sense of discipline, duty, work ethic and a decent moral standard, chances are it's going to take a LOOONG time and perhaps a few tragic events to make them adopt those characteristics from then on. At around high school age, trying to change them will only make them angrier and more confused. Punish them when they f*ck up but generally this is when people should get their foot off the gas for a bit and let them figure it out for themselves. Remember, it's in their genes to rebel at this moment. Don't give them something to rebel against. Just make sure you get your crap sorted BEFORE the hormones kick in.

Quite honestly, if you get them sorted before the rebelling age, they won't rebel... I mean, sure, I "hated" my parents during my middle school/freshman year of high school, but I wasn't a bad kid... I was an angel compared to some kids... Mouthing off to their parents, cursing them, fighting them (like physically), moving out on their own.... It was scary to me how bad those kids were... My parents raised me right, and my most drastic "rebellion" was getting a hair cut...

 

[The Other Guy]

I'm going to have to disagree with you on this one TOG.
When a 16 year old f's up. It is usually the parent or parents who bear the burden of helping or raising the child. In many cases this add a strain on some households that they simple cannot afford.

In most cases there is not the social stigma attached to a teenaged/unwed parent. When you have little girls (10 years old) saying that they want to have a baby so they can get a check every week, something is really wrong with society.

Too many times parents dont or wont take the moral education of their children seriously. They expect the state to take care of it (moral education) and when something bad happens they insist on another program to "educate" which doesn;t worth either. Kids need to understand that there are rules, and when you break the rules there is punishment usually of the form of the @ss whooping that you and I agree on.

this is why adopions are avaliable, along with abortions. The likelihood of a 16 year old really wanting a kid are slim anyway.

I've honestly never heard that before, but I hope I never do.

I understand the need for rules and law, but this should let up once the teenage years begin. I believe that below there everything that is done must be done by the parents. I dont' mean beatings constantly, but if I were a parent I would not be afraid to use force to get my way. With luck, the kid would catch on pretty quickly and by the time he was 8-9 problems with parents would be virtually nonexistent. But my point is in agreement with you; it's not the state's job to raise your kids.

 

[A Can of Man]

Quite honestly, if you get them sorted before the rebelling age, they won't rebel... I mean, sure, I "hated" my parents during my middle school/freshman year of high school, but I wasn't a bad kid... I was an angel compared to some kids... Mouthing off to their parents, cursing them, fighting them (like physically), moving out on their own.... It was scary to me how bad those kids were... My parents raised me right, and my most drastic "rebellion" was getting a hair cut...

I didn't rebel much during my teens either. Didn't mean I wasn't a pissed off individual, but just didn't rebel much at home. It was only after high school that things fell apart. It didn't have much to do with hormones, rather than actual conflict. I think my parents mistook it as hormones but when they saw it wasn't wearing off by my 26th birthday, I think they finally got the message.

 

[HokieMSG]

this is why adopions are avaliable, along with abortions. The likelihood of a 16 year old really wanting a kid are slim anyway.

I've honestly never heard that before, but I hope I never do.

I understand the need for rules and law, but this should let up once the teenage years begin. I believe that below there everything that is done must be done by the parents. I dont' mean beatings constantly, but if I were a parent I would not be afraid to use force to get my way. With luck, the kid would catch on pretty quickly and by the time he was 8-9 problems with parents would be virtually nonexistent. But my point is in agreement with you; it's not the state's job to raise your kids.

Adoptions are available, but not easy or cheap.
16 year old kids usually don;t have kids by choice.
Laws do start in the teenage years. At 18.
Our society has become too tolerant. Tolerant in the sense that bad behavior is not punished and good behavior is not rewarded.

 

[papasha40]

this is why adopions are avaliable, along with abortions. The likelihood of a 16 year old really wanting a kid are slim anyway.

I've honestly never heard that before, but I hope I never do.

I understand the need for rules and law, but this should let up once the teenage years begin. I believe that below there everything that is done must be done by the parents. I dont' mean beatings constantly, but if I were a parent I would not be afraid to use force to get my way. With luck, the kid would catch on pretty quickly and by the time he was 8-9 problems with parents would be virtually nonexistent. But my point is in agreement with you; it's not the state's job to raise your kids.

It certainly is not the states job to raise kids. But it certainly is their job to protect children from abuse.

 

[The Other Guy]

It certainly is not the states job to raise kids. But it certainly is their job to protect children from abuse.

As I've said before, regular beatings are just cruel. But when an *ss whooping is called for...

 

[A Can of Man]

We've gone overboard with protection of children and now they're growing up (and I am using this term lightly) thinking they're entitled to the whole world and that they are the master of the universe though their arrogance and lack of discipline has armed them with the intellectual capability of a sea urchin.

 

[BritinBritain]

I had an amazing firearm in my hands this morning. The owner wanted me to identify the firearm for police registration. It was a 9mm Parabellum P08 built by DWM in 1911, it was captured by his great uncle during WW1 in Tanganyika. On the front strap was Stamped “Sch D.O.A. 57” or Schutztruppe Deutsch Ost Afrika, I haven't been able to I.D. the number 57. Every part has matching numbers, but is missing the loading tool and cleaning rod from the holster.

The mans great uncle was wounded, ended up in Britain and after recovering from his wounds, joined the Royal Flying Corps flying Sopwith Camels. Three days before the war ended he went on an operation and disappeared.
Interesting stuff.

 

[SHERMAN]

An armed scoiety is a polite society.

I am a liberal in many ways. Im pro free choice on abortions, gay right to marry eache other, and so on.

Which is exactly why im against over zealous gun control.

If your sane, dont have a criminal record, and want to own a reasonable weapon(Not a M240, for instance), you should be allowed to own it. When normal people dont have guns, they are going to be pushed around by criminals(who will always have guns). They are also incapable of fighting the governent if it comes to it.

 

[MontyB]

I had an amazing firearm in my hands this morning. The owner wanted me to identify the firearm for police registration. It was a 9mm Parabellum P08 built by DWM in 1911, it was captured by his great uncle during WW1 in Tanganyika. On the front strap was Stamped “Sch D.O.A. 57” or Schutztruppe Deutsch Ost Afrika, I haven't been able to I.D. the number 57. Every part has matching numbers, but is missing the loading tool and cleaning rod from the holster.

The mans great uncle was wounded, ended up in Britain and after recovering from his wounds, joined the Royal Flying Corps flying Sopwith Camels. Three days before the war ended he went on an operation and disappeared.
Interesting stuff.

Now that is a weapon I would give anyone's left testicle to have (except my own, I am attached to them).

An armed scoiety is a polite society.

I am a liberal in many ways. Im pro free choice on abortions, gay right to marry eache other, and so on.

Which is exactly why im against over zealous gun control.

If your sane, dont have a criminal record, and want to own a reasonable weapon(Not a M240, for instance), you should be allowed to own it. When normal people dont have guns, they are going to be pushed around by criminals(who will always have guns). They are also incapable of fighting the governent if it comes to it.

You know you are absolutely correct in all but one area, politeness through fear is not genuine.

Now here is a question for you, we both agree that sane people with no criminal record should be allowed to own weapons but who should determine the criteria and policing of those restrictions?

I for one do not believe that the retailer is the right person to be carrying out these checks.