Those opposed to the decision, such as Georgina Geikie, 26, pictured above, a Commonwealth Games bronze medallist and Olympic pistol hopeful, feel it's wrong because it would give kids an opportunity to see guns in a different light, something not related to violence and crime.London schoolchildren are eligible for 125,000 Olympic tickets but these will not include any featuring guns, as Games organisers and City Hall fear a backlash from the anti-gun lobby.
Giving children tickets to the events, at the Royal Artillery Barracks in Woolwich, could have appeared at odds with Mayor Boris Johnson's bid to quell teenage gun and knife crime.
A source said: "We decided it would not be appropriate. It's the only sport children will not be able to go to as part of the Ticketshare scheme."
But, would it really? I'm not convinced. My idea has always been that shooting sports are nothing more than simulated killing. Often the targets are in human shape, for crying out loud. The Olympics probably doesn't use the human silhouette for its competitions, but the idea is still there.
Guns were not made for shooting paper targets or clay disks. They were made for shooting living beings and no matter how much one tries to disguise the fact, this is the underlying truth.
What's your opinion? Is participation in a shooting sport good innocent fun? Do children who watch and take part begin to see the connection with gun violence as they grow older? Is there a connection?
What do you think? Please leave a comment.
Heck, I learned how to shoot in Boy Scouts. It was fun. But at least the instructor (a crusty old guy who had been a sniper in WWII, in the Pacific) didn't make any bones about it. Coming from the South, where you're not a "man" until you shoot your first buck, it was a rite of passage.
ReplyDeleteYes, it's all about killing, whether animals or human. Fun or not, there's no denying the origins of the sport and the intent of nearly all firearms. Any gunloon who denies it is lying or is deluded.
Considering the rounds fired into targets vs. the rounds fired into humans is better than a million to one, I would say that target shooting is the number one use of guns in the U.S.
ReplyDeleteI have no problem with shooting sports.
ReplyDeleteAlthough, We did learn our lesson when a horse was hit by a stray round from the shooting range we used back in the day when bullets travelled 1 mile (they now say 2 miles).
Guns aren't toys.
Anyway, I prefer that guns are used for shooting sports and not bought for "self-defence".
The other point is that all this shooting sports was part of the indoctrination toward joining the military in my world. But that's another issue.
Sorry, FWM, but I have to disagree with you about shooting sports in the US, which was where this was also heading.
The open spaces needed for shooting sports has been disappearing all over the world--even in the US. The NRA should have had an environmentalist bent, but...
Anyway, with fewer places around to shoot, there are fewer people engaged in shooting sports.
I haven't shot a gun in 7 years.
"Sorry, FWM, but I have to disagree with you about shooting sports in the US, which was where this was also heading.
ReplyDeleteThe open spaces needed for shooting sports has been disappearing all over the world--even in the US."
I'm inclined to agree to an extent. The places available to shoot a rifle are dwindling. However, ammunition expended on shooting sports has not decreased at all. Perhaps the remaining ranges are more crowded or pistol shooting has greatly overtaken rifle shooting and pistol ranges require far less land. I don't know, I am guessing. Anyway, the number of new, indoor ranges, including those for rifle are growing though I would think due to the cost of them, their growth in number does not exceed the loss of older, outdoor ranges.
For my personal situation, Laci is dead on. My 27 acres of hilly ground used to provide any number of safe rifle ranges. However, with the growth of surrounding housing--including the new house I built for myself right in the middle of the longest field on the place--I no longer have a good rifle range. I can still safely shoot .22 rifles at 50'--barely, and we still have a couple of good pistol ranges. But to get the full benefit of my old military bolt action rifles, I will have to seek another place.
I'm reading *a book at the moment, "They Dare to Conquer", IIRC*, it's a book on small unit, special forces and other sorts of targeted force application.
ReplyDeleteOne of the items the author mentions is that the Sturmjaeger and other "special forces" used by the Nazis in WWII were composed, in large part of hunters and shooting enthusiasts who had been trained in clubs that were set up to ensure that Germany could still train snipers and the like, despite the strictures of the Versailled Treaty.
I would be interested in hearing what the reaction of gunzloonz would be to shooting paper targets depicting their loved ones** or, say, JESUS. I'm guessing that they would decline to do so--but, why? it's only a piece of paper.
* the book's upstairs and I'm lazy this morning.
** I did say, "loved ones", these may or may not be family, in-laws or others.
Hey, FWM, if times get tough for me, can I park a trailer on your property and move in with my family?
ReplyDeleteEven in Nevada (we haven't seen cowman now for awhile) Senator Harry Reid was responsible in large part for what is billed as one of the largest shooting recreational areas anywhere.http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=flbzbFbKxK0
ReplyDeleteConsidering that you call those who support shooting sports "gunloons," I can't imagine you'll be convinced of anything that you aren't already convinced of.
ReplyDeleteYes, guns are tools that are designed ultimately for killing - not murder necessarily - but killing. However, they are tools that have facilitated many a saved life as well, as well as feeding the owner (hunting for food).
As a sport, guns are used to teach control, discipline and hand-eye coordination. Additionally, they teach focus and shooting is an absolute skill that has nothing to do with senseless murder.
But again... you came to my blog wanting me to read your view, so in some small way you obviously wanted my opinion. There it is.
Yes it's all about killing. Too many of the wrong ones killing the wrong ones.
ReplyDeleteMine has saved me twice, and I never even needed to fire. Each case, as soon as the safety snapped off, they got smart and fled. 'Miracle I tellya.
I'll consider giving mine up after they've taken the last gun from the last bad guy.
And,, the knifes,, sharp sticks,, in other words: no way.
Nicki, Thanks for the comment.
ReplyDeleteI'd like to point out that I don't usually use the term "gunloon" myself. That's my co-bloggers but they have my complete blessing.
You know, you sound so niave pointing out that guns save lives and provide food and help teach hand-eye coordination.
They do a lot more than that. And there's the rub. To put it simply, I say guns do more harm than good. So much so that justification always falters and you guys fall back on the misinterpretation of the 2A.
I hope we hear more from ya. You sound like an interesting person.
Nikki, Supporting shooting sports does not make someone a gunlooon--otherwise this member of the blog would be one.
ReplyDeleteWhat makes someone a gunloon is there inability to address the need for reasonable restrictions on Gun Ownership.
Heller-McDonald has found that registration and laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms were in doubt.
Additionally, the Court said that
the right was not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose. See, e.g., Sheldon, in 5 Blume 346; Rawle 123; Pomeroy 152–153; Abbott 333. For example, the majority of the 19th-century courts to consider the question held that prohibitions on carrying concealed weapons were lawful under the Second Amendment or state analogues. See, e.g., State v. Chandler, 5 La. Ann., at 489–490; Nunn v. State, 1 Ga., at 251; see generally 2 Kent *340, n. 2; The American Students’ Blackstone 84, n. 11 (G. Chase ed. 1884).
As Heller-McDonald pointed out these decsions only takes certain policy choices off the table. These include the absolute prohibition of handguns held and used for self-defense in the home. Heller at 64.
As of this point, no further gunlaws have been invalidated.
So, if you want to argue that things such as registration and restrictions on the sale of firearms violate the Second Amendment, you're out of luck.
People who didn't get the memo are gunloons.
You can't argue that reasonable gunlaws violate the Second Amendment any more.
"They do a lot more than that. And there's the rub. To put it simply, I say guns do more harm than good. So much so that justification always falters and you guys fall back on the misinterpretation of the 2A."
ReplyDeleteHmmmm.... I would submit to you that 1) guns don't do harm or good. They can be used for either. People like you tend to fall back on their tendency to humanize a tool. 2) Philip Cook once estimated that defensive gun use in the United States were somewhere around 80,000 annually. Gary Kleck estimated defensive gun uses approached 2.5 million per year. Almost 500,000 home invasions are deterred annually by the use of guns, and many times the gun is merely brandished, and not fired. In both Canada and Britain the rate of "hot" burglaries skyrocketed after gun controls were implemented. I'd say the use of guns does more good than harm, especially when given the following:
- 71% of gunshot victims had previous arrest records.
- 64% had been convicted of a crime.
- Each had an average of 11 prior arrests.
- 63% of victims have criminal histories and 73% of the time they know their assailant (twice as often as victims without criminal histories)
Given that the majority of gun crime is criminal on criminal, I'd say, "GO DARWIN!"
Now... I hear this "reasonable restriction on gun ownership" argument all the time, but no one has been able to properly explain to me what, exactly, that means. We already have background checks. We already prohibit straw purchases and purchases of guns by those with criminal records. What else do you people think is reasonable?
And finally, Heller and McDonald. Heller reaffirms the individual right to keep and bear arms as protected by the Constitution. McDonald incorporates said right. Everything else is yet to be addressed, but many, such as myself, believe that the Second Amendment does protect the right of the individual to possess and use whatever weapon necessary to protect life, liberty and country. So what is it about the 2A that I'm misinterpreting?
Nikki,
ReplyDeleteYou spout a bunch of pro-gun bullshit.
First off Kleck has been discredited. Cook's figure is probably closer to reality. But,I wouldn't cite him to bolster your opinion.
Please cite a source for your claim that "hot" buglaries have gone up in the UK and Canada. This discredits your claim to that.
Then you come up with the ultimate idiotic pair of comments:
Now... I hear this "reasonable restriction on gun ownership" argument all the time, but no one has been able to properly explain to me what, exactly, that means.
and
And finally, Heller and McDonald. Heller reaffirms the individual right to keep and bear arms as protected by the Constitution
Perhaps if you KNEW what Heller-McDonald said, you wouldn't make such a stupid comment:
I'll give it to you for your edification, so you don't go around making an idiot of yourself. Here is the Heller-McDonald language:
Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited. From Blackstone through the 19th-century cases, commentators and courts routinely explained that the right was not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose. See, e.g., Sheldon, in 5 Blume 346; Rawle 123; Pomeroy 152–153; Abbott 333. For example, the majority of the 19th-century courts to consider the question held that prohibitions on carrying concealed weapons were lawful under the Second Amendment or state analogues. See, e.g., State v. Chandler, 5 La. Ann., at 489–490; Nunn v. State, 1 Ga., at 251; see generally 2 Kent *340, n. 2; The American Students’ Blackstone 84, n. 11 (G. Chase ed. 1884). Although we do not undertake an exhaustive historical analysis today of the full scope of the Second Amendment, nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms. Heller at 54-5
Which has as a footnote (26):
We identify these presumptively lawful regulatory measures only as examples; our list does not purport to be exhaustive.
It also held that registration and licencing were constitutional.
So far, the only unconstitutional restriction is "the absolute prohibition of handguns held and used for self-defense in the home." Heller at 64
Well, Nikki, given that the Second and Third Amendments to the Constitution were there to protect us against the establishment of standing armies, not "gun rights, you are misunderstanding quite a bit.
And before you bombard me with loads of really dumb statements, I suggest that you read my posts on the Second Amendment.
It would also help if you educated yourself so that you don't make more of an idiot of yourself.
BTW, Nikki, another reasonable restriction from Heller-McDonald:
ReplyDeleteWe therefore read Miller to say only that the Second Amendment does not protect those weapons not typically possessed by law-abiding citizens for lawful purposes, such as short-barreled shotguns.
This also includes machineguns.
@Laci the bitch -
ReplyDeleteFirst of all, I didn't come here to start a fight. Mike invited me here, and I think I've been nothing but polite. However, you've got all the makings of a rude cunt, and this will be my last reply to you.
Mike, thanks but no thanks.
A blog post from Tim Lambert saying he is not convinced of the number of DGUs is supposed to be overwhelming evidence that Kleck has been discredited? Yeah. Not. The actual number of DGUs will vary by methodology, but even if we take the very anti-gun Cook's contention that the number is "only" 80,000, it's still pretty significant.
Second, I know what Heller and MacDonald say, you illiterate bitch. I was asking YOU PEOPLE what you defined as "reasonable restrictions," since I hear that phrase tossed around all the time. The major questions addressed the individual RKBA and the incorporation of the 2nd Amendment. There's nothing that says separate issues such as which guns can be possessed cannot be addressed. And by the way, so YOU don't go making a moron of yourself, machine guns are legal. Many people own them. It requires certain bureaucratic paperwork and red tape as well as fees, but I know many people who do own machine guns and shoot them regularly for fun. And I can honestly say that none of the hundreds of folks I know who are legal machine gun owners have ever used those guns in a crime.
As for increases in robberies in Britain, there's plenty of reporting on that.
http://www.politics.co.uk/news/2006/07/20/muggings-rise-by-eight-per-cent
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/law-and-order/4314446/Burglary-fraud-and-knife-point-robbery-rise-as-recession-sees-crime-increase.html
Have a nice day. And by the way, my name is spelled "Nicki."
My what language.
ReplyDeleteSomeone contradicts you and you get all upset.
Not to mention that you are seriously outgunned here.
I think a study that shows Kleck's methodology would mean that almost 20 million Americans have seen spacecraft from another planet, and over a million have been in personal contact with aliens from other planets would discredit the Kleck Study. See This as well.
Anyway,if you know what Heller-McDonald says, then you had your answer.
We can also get into how the Home Office has changed its method of keeping statistics. Not to mention this from the BBC contradicts your statement about British Crime. And are much more recent than the stories you cite.
I can add in that there is also an assumption that British and Canadian gun ownership is at a similar rate to US, which is another false belief.
I can play nice as well, but trust me, I know a lot more about this subject than you do.
And I've heard it before.
So,if you can be nice, I can too.
But try to get your facts straight, please.
Nicki, as the sole female admin here, I view the use of the word bitch pretty much the way black people object to the word nigger being used. That applies to the word cunt as well. Please consider yourself on notice.
ReplyDeleteLaci the dog is a male human writing with a female canine persona, for reasons which are clever and funny. Please address him as male; I object to gender being used as a means to insult people, either the b word or the c word.
Your civil comments are welcome, so long as you accept the ideas being challenged by reason and facts. I encourage you to challenge any of us, admins or commenters to support any facts that we present.
I would be interested in your explanation for the very great difference between the UK rates of gun violence and the US statistics.
Bottom line, more people here are harmed by more guns than elsewhere. There is a rough correlation between total numbers of guns per capita and gun violence, a correlation which appears more significant where there are more easily obtained guns, such as a lack of compliance with keeping the NCIS data base current.
I believe Nicki you will find all of us admins are experienced with firearms, and either past or present engage or engaged in shooting sports and own/ owned firearms. At least two of us have or had a concealed carry permit - to fill you in on our happy little group.
Dear Nikki, Don't get mad at us. Around here we all agree the Kleck suggestion that 2.5 million DGUs happen each year is laughable.
ReplyDeleteThink about it. Does it sound reasonable to you? Half a million home invasions thwarted without firing a shot???? And then another 2 million somehow - every year???
I don't usually offer links or stats to support my ideas which are based on logic and reason, as best I can. I take them and try to convince others. That's it.
I think Laci is right when he points out that you're just repeating the same old NRA talking points. I honestly believe if you really thought about them, and could objectively look at them, you'd see at least some of it our way.
Anyway, please don't be too offended. We get a little rough over here sometimes, and speaking for myself, I don't mind you getting rough right back.
Nicki, don't go on the attack if you can't back up your position with facts.
ReplyDeleteYou fared pretty badly in this exchange and don't look too good for "your side".
It seems you have your mind made you and nothing is going to change it.
You also have preconceptions about us that are pretty much made up.
I believe that's called bigotry.
I will also add that Nicki's comment about law abiding machiegun owners is a better argument for gun control than for relaxing gun laws.
ReplyDeleteMachineguns are very highly regulated in the states. The likelihood of a legal machinegun being used in a crime is slim. Not to mention the gun would be quickly traced to its owner.
This would also probably lead to federal charge which would lead to stiff penalties.
Such as being banned from ever owning these expensive plaything in the future.