From News.com.AU:
Ringo Starr urges for tougher gun laws on anniversary of John Lennon's death
- December 09, 2011
Ringo Starr has urged tougher gun laws while marking the 31st anniversary of Beatle John Lennon's death. Picture: Courtesy of The Los Angeles TimesRINGO Starr called for tougher sentences for gun users as he marked the 31st anniversary of Beatles bandmate John Lennon's death.RINGO Starr called for tougher sentences for gun users as he marked the 31st anniversary on Thursday of Beatles bandmate John Lennon's death.
The drummer unveiled his psychedelic design for the Non Violence Foundation's "knotted gun" symbol, posing by a statue of it at an event in London.
"It should be that if you're caught with a gun or before you use it that it should be a higher sentence than what they get now," the 71-year-old said.
"I can't stand up and dictate to the world: 'it's over - no more guns'. I can just do what I do, and there's another side to the story which is peace and love."
He spoke of his shock in hearing of Lennon's death.
Lennon was shot dead outside his New York apartment by Mark Chapman on December 8, 1980 as he returned home with his artist wife Yoko Ono.
"My stepchildren called saying 'Something's happened to John'. And you don't think 'He's been killed', so you say 'Well, what's happened?'," Starr said.
"They called me back. They called and said 'John's been killed. He's been shot and he's dead.'
Starr flew from the Bahamas to New York to see if he could be of assistance following his friend's death. He looked after Lennon's son Sean for a while but later left feeling having another Beatle around was not helping the situation.
"You don't know what to do. Your emotions are so whacked out. You don't believe it really, but you know it's happening. It's just such a mad moment," he said.
"Yoko was there, of course, and she just asked us to look after Sean, who was a baby, and that's all we did for a couple of hours.
"In the end it was so crazy that we got on another plane that night and went to Los Angeles."
Gesturing to the statue, he said: "It was a bad day. But it was a bad day because someone took one of these and shot John."
1960s British pop legends The Beatles -- drummer Starr, rhythm guitarist Lennon, bassist Paul McCartney and lead guitarist George Harrison -- are the best-selling band in history.
Ringo Starr experienced the loss of his friend, but that does not make him an expert on gun policy, nor about individual rights. Those of us who care about gun rights aren't ignoring the value of lives that are lost. We simply understand that there are more things at stake.
ReplyDeleteI love the Beatles but Ringo should stick to drumming. In case he forgot, his other band mate, George Harrison was stabbed in his own home. Where is his outrage at knives?
ReplyDeleteGreg, lives are not as important as guns.
ReplyDeleteAnonymous fails to address the fact that George Harrison survived the knife attack--Lennon did not survive being shot.
The real issue is that firearms are far more lethal than most weapons. It is their lethality and ability to inflict injury at a distance which causes gunloons to want them.
To the detriment of society.
We simply understand that there are more things at stake when firearms are abused that make them prime for regulation.
In fact, it is within the states' police powers to regulate personal firearms--yet another reason the Federal Constitution doesn't address the issue while state constitutions do.
What's the barrel length on that knotted revolver, about 20 inches? You guys sure don't know much about the things you want to ban.
ReplyDeleteYou see a disabled gun where I see a pretty sweet snubbie after a few minutes with a lathe and hacksaw.
MAgunowner,
ReplyDeleteI like the way that you think, although ruining a real gun like that would have been a shame.
Laci the Dog,
So you have no objection to the forty states that are shall issue? You have no objection to the many states that choose to have no gun registry? How about the ones that don't ban "assault weapons"?
"Anonymous fails to address the fact that George Harrison survived the knife attack--Lennon did not survive being shot."
ReplyDeleteWell, let's not have anyone post anything about, say, two kids in Texas who got shot and survived.
I don't think anyone said he was an expert, Greg. The problem is you and your friends have no use for anyone who disagrees with you. If a celebrity pushes for gun rights, you have no complaint. If one says what Ringo did, we hear ridicule, disparagement and exaggerated claims like we offer him as some kind of expert.
ReplyDeleteAnonymous, would you like to get into the amount of money it will cost to treat those two youngsters who were shot and survived? Will we have to pay for their therapy if they are crippled in anyway?
ReplyDeleteI don't think pointing out how many people are shot and how much that puts a drain on public expenditure is a good idea.
But, you brought up the topic.
Mikeb302000,
ReplyDeleteYes, we all, you included, tend to agree with people we agree with and disagree with people we disagree with. Groups use star power for all manner of causes. I just point out that the celebrities have no particular expertise on the subject.
I say the same thing about Charlton Heston, by the way. He was a decent actor, but that's what he was. His celebrity had no influence on me, though.
Celebrities are entitled to the same freedom of speech as the rest of us, but we're entitled to ignore them.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous said...
ReplyDeleteI love the Beatles but Ringo should stick to drumming. In case he forgot, his other band mate, George Harrison was stabbed in his own home. Where is his outrage at knives?
Harrison was stabbed with not only a knife but a stone sword broken stone sword from a statue.
Harrison and his wife fought with the intruder, and Harrison's wife cracked him upside the head with a lamp.
The police arrived and were able to prevent the attack from being fatal.
Thank god in the UK it is harder for crazy people to get firearms than it is here - because the intruder was completely and totally nuts - schizophrenic. If that had been here, clearly he would have gotten a firearm with little difficulty.
"Anonymous, would you like to get into the amount of money it will cost to treat those two youngsters who were shot and survived? Will we have to pay for their therapy if they are crippled in anyway?
ReplyDeleteI don't think pointing out how many people are shot and how much that puts a drain on public expenditure is a good idea."
And what exactly would be the difference if the same injuries were caused by a knife? None. That's the point.
I wonder if a lower socioeconomic status teenager shot dead is a net saving to society in terms of future healthcare expenditures on him.
ReplyDeleteIt's a cold calculation, but part of the equation that you love to bring up.
Yeah, MAgunowner, kill all of 'em. That'll save a fortune.
ReplyDelete"I wonder if a (insert racist dogwhistle here) teenager shot dead is a net saving to society in terms of future healthcare expenditures on him.
ReplyDeleteIt's a cold calculation, but part of the equation that you love to bring up.
December 14, 2011 9:15 PM
I don't know, I think you boyz get pretty hot blooded where the perpocitizens are concerned.
Laci the Dog,
ReplyDeleteNo opinion about the states that side with me? You said that individual states have the power to regulate personal firearms. Most states in this country are on my side.
Greg, why would I give a shit about your opinion?
ReplyDeleteOnly 3-4 states actually "side" with you, but Federal law is controlling.
So, as many states can posture in whatever silly ways they want.
Once again, you demonstrate fallacious thinking, Greg.
Not very good for someone who claims to be educated.
In regard to caring about what you say, Greg, the only reason I respond to you is to show that you have missed the point or are spouting bullshit.
ReplyDeleteRefuting your bullshit could be a full time job if I didn't have two (three) other people helping in the process.
If I don't respond to you, I find that you feel that you have somehow "won" the argument rather than the reality I find that the canine Laci has a far higher intelligence level than you do.
Greg, you are completely ignorant and tiresome, yet it needs to be pointed out HOW ignorant you are.
For someone who claims to be educated, you certainly don't know a hell of a lot about what you should know.
Laci the Dog,
ReplyDeleteRead your words:
"In fact, it is within the states' police powers to regulate personal firearms--yet another reason the Federal Constitution doesn't address the issue while state constitutions do."
I wasn't offering an opinion. I'm referring to facts here. There are forty states that are shall-issue. Only a small number of states ban particular kinds of firearms, other than fully automatic weapons. Few states register firearms. My Arkansas carry license lets me travel in forty states with my handgun concealed on my person.
According to your own words, those matters are within the power of the states. All of those things are in agreement with my position. I don't know what you mean by only three or four states. What I'm saying is that most states are on my side and do not follow the program of regulation that you and others advocate.
Ah, Greg, do you need for me to give you a course in constitutional law, or would that blow over your head?
ReplyDeleteI understood what I said, but it was well over your intellectual level.
I find it hard to commmunicate with idiots, but I will give it a go:
Federal law rules over state laws if there is a federal law covering that topic.
States have police power, the federal government does not.
That means that most criminal charges are brought by states, not the feds (of course, that oversimplifies the issue, but I am writing for a complete idiot).
At this point, firearms laws are indeed pretty much between the states for the above stated reasons.
That is why you can carry in 40 different states and have reciprocity between those states.
All that has been set up by and between the states.
Should national carry pass--then Federal law would control.
If the feds chose to harmonise laws, those laws would control.
Until that time, State laws control.
Did I write that at a level someone as stupid as you are can understand, greg?
You realise that I deal with severely mentally ill people who grasp these concepts more quickly than you do, Greg?
If this is still above your head (which I believe it will be), Greg, I will try to dumb it down further for you.
Would pictures work, or are you too mentally defective for those?
Laci the Dog,
ReplyDeleteI understood you the first time. You said that states get to regulate firearms within their jurisdictions. I said that most states do so in a manner that I support. What part of that don't you get?
If you understood me the first time, Greg,then why did you have to make the idiotic comment?
ReplyDeleteAre you covering your ass?
Too late, Greg, we are of the opinion that you are a moron and you keep confirming that fact with each comment you make.
It's not prejudice--you just have to make an idiot of yourself.
BTW, because 40 states are foolish enough to have shall issue CCW laws is nothing to be happy about.
ReplyDeleteI would also add that each of these states have varying levels of gun control as well.
So,Greg,your one criteria for what makes a good state is pretty limited.
As is your intellect.
Laci the Dog,
ReplyDeleteOne criterion, two or more criteria, and I have many for what makes a good state. The forty shall-issue states look a lot alike when it comes to gun laws.
By the way, which comment specifically was idiotic, in your view? Your intemperate use of that word makes me doubt that you know what you're talking about.
Greg Camp:
ReplyDeleteThere's not enough time in the day, or space on the page, to detail your idiocy.
Jesus, he knows the difference between "lay" and "Lie" as well as "criteria" is the plural of "criterion", but he can't epxpress himself for shit.
ReplyDeleteGreggy, you will find a vast difference in gun laws between those 40 states, for example Michigan requires a firearms card to buy a gun (both air and firearm) to Vermont with almost no firearms laws.
Not to mention Greg doesn't quite understand abuse of discretion.
You can have discretion, but one can also abuse that discretion.
Greg, you are a wanker.
BTW, Greg, if anyone comes off as a "know-it-all", it's you.
ReplyDeleteThe sad fact, Greg, is that you are shown up to not know much more than the difference between "lay" and "Lie" as well as "criteria" is the plural of "criterion".
I'd hate to think if you had to work overseas with people who don't speak English as well as you do.
BTW, Greg, the "criteria"/"criterion" crap only is a poor try to disguise the fact that you miss that there is a wide variation in firearms laws and requirements for CCW licences in those "40 States that agree with you".
Wow, if that isn't yet another example of a fucking overblown ego.
Yes, I'm aware that Michigan has some unfortunate laws, but it is a shall-issue state. Most of the southern states have effectively identical laws, as do many of the states of the Rocky Mountains. Vermont, in many ways, is an ideal.
ReplyDelete