This is a guest post by retired reporter, Hugh Clark. His “Hughisms” appear frequently at BigIslandChronicle.com.
OK, it is time to talk about guns — idiots who have them and abuse them. Yes, guns do not kill — just the morons holding them.
I am not talking about Aurora, Colorado, times two nor poor Newtown, Conn., but our own Big Island.
Despite fools worrying about Hawaii’s relatively strict gun rules, those laws are poorly enforced (you may be more likely to get a ticket for a seat belt infraction than a gun law violation).
In the past three weeks, we have witnessed:
* An accused Ocean View resident from Ka’u who apparently carried his heat 70 miles from there to Hilo’s Kanoelehua Industrial Area where he was busted for shooting his weapon Dec. 13. Cause? undisclosed thus far.
* The murder on the Bayfront Highway near Hilo’s Mo’oheau Park Dec. 29 whose shooter remains unknown, as best the public now knows.
* The fool in North Kona who was wandering down the roadway with a loaded shotgun New Year’s Day. Hardly on a family hunting trip. The defense of his dumb act was astounding.
* Finally, we have two veteran policemen shot by a guy with what appears to have been an ambush a la Rochester, N.Y., near Wailoa River Jan. 2 at one-time fine dining spot know as the Tropics Lanai — converted into a succession of seedy Korean bars.
The perpetrator, whose motive is unclear, was busted but not before he shot himself and cost us all thousands in medical bills. Neither he nor his family likely will ever pay those expenses. Plus our county is on the hook for surgical operations, hospitalization and subsequent loss of services by his two victims. (Will their working life ever be the same?)
Does this sound like Columbine or some southern town rife with gun-toting nuts?
I submit we have a real problem that cries out for a serious crack down.
With the legislative session about to commence, now is a right time for a serious reaction/reflection. Even if some wacko ex-West Hawaii councilman contends Hawaii’s controls are too stiff…
Aloha, Hugh
Discover more from i L i n d
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
If you outlaw guns then only outlaws will shoot people.
Ummm…. Only “outlaws” do shoot people, since that act is against the law. This phrase reeks of falsity, made solely for the turn of the phrase.
As you well know, the current public interest is in restricting access to guns to a more reasonable level. This is a right that all societies reserve and determine, even ours in the Old West. “Boys, ya better check them guns before you go into yonder saloon”.
The point of further restrictions on gun ownership are to limit access to them so as to reduce accidents, crimes of passion, and crimes of convenience (such as the ease to which weaponry can be accumulated so as to facilitate a shooting spree)
The “outlaws” falsity is one of the most inane justifications for maintaining the current interpretation of the 2nd amendment and those who continue to use it are trying to reduce the conversation with a false equivalence.
Unless, of course, Dave is being ironic, in which case this response is meant for Raleigh, John, and Nancy.
A recent letter to the editor from Brian Moore pointed out the unique opportunity we have here in Hawaii (with no neighbor states) to severely restrict gun possession and demonstrate to the rest of the country that guns DO kill people.
The sky is falling! The sky is falling! Flap, flap, flap.
We have had three or is it four pedestrian deaths on Oahu in the last week or so. I think that we have a serious problem, that it is time to crack down on cars and demonstrate to the rest of the country that cars DO kill people.
All sarcasm aside, more people are killed and injured by cars in this state each year than by guns. Yet there is no one seriously advocating banning cars or placing restrictions on their use or even offering any other solution. And yes, it is the moron behind the wheel or with his finger on the trigger which causes the death or injury not the particular hunk of metal which is employed.
I agree that we as a society are far too lenient on those who kill, injure, or endanger others with cars.
Putting aside, for the moment, what should be done about gun violence (and Hugh offers *NO* suggestions), the comparison of cars and guns is inapt, at least from a sociual utility analysis. Our entire liefestyle, economy, and infrastructure is built, for better or worse, around motor vehicles. As a result, we accept a certain amount of carnage because of the utility of those vehicles. The same can not be said of guns. There is little or no crime or violence that reqyuires self-defense with a gun and hunting is a long gun affair, not one using hand guns. Accordingly, the cost of gun violence is not justified by any comparably corresponding benefit.
So, Raleigh, you be comparing dem apples and dem oranges.
The other such distinction, of course, is that one is a privilege and one is a right.
You say that comparing cars and guns is apples and oranges. I don’t agree, they are both fruit. Whether by car or gun we are still talking about dead people. You argue that because we have built a car centric society the genie is out of the bottle and we accept the body count that goes along with the dependence on cars. You may accept it, but I don’t! When people are dying you first go after what is killing the most. Right now that is cars and the (dare I say it) nutburgers who drive them.
According to recent estimates there are approximately 300 million guns in the United States (and I am betting that is a low estimate). I would posit that the genie is out of the bottle there too. How do you propose to get him back in? Let’s say, for the sake of argument, that you could round up all of these guns. About half of the gun deaths in the US are suicides. I would argue that you are not going to prevent many of those. Absent a gun, a suicidal person will probably find another way. There are about as many violent deaths in the US by knives, bats, clubs, hammers, bricks and whatever as there are from guns. Again, I would argue that if someone wants to do murder he will find a way. The point being that if you could, somehow, get rid of the guns, you wouldn’t prevent all that many deaths.
As I have said in previous posts, we are looking at the problem the wrong way. The problem is not cars, guns, knives, clubs, etc. These are just inanimate objects. The problem is US. Until we focus on that problem, the body count, from whatever cause, will continue to mount.
Part of the reason I moved to Hawaii nearly 30 years ago was the strictness of our gun laws. So I’m definitely siding with Nick, and not with Dave or Raleigh, in this matter.
Back before I moved here, I found myself in a situation where a close family member, an enraged drunk, was waving a loaded gun at my brothers and me and threatening to use it – a LEGAL gun, by the way. We thought we were going to die.
By the grace of God and some very good fortune, we did not.
But think about this – if, on that dark night, that drunk hadn’t had that gun, our chances of living would have been ever so much greater.
If you’ve never been there, you just can’t know.
What about drunk drivers, you have more of them to fear than a drunk with a gun
That’s a nonsense argument and you know it.
Just read about a woman arrested in Hilo for stabbing a man to death. I demand that something vague and non-specific be done about our knife problem!
Well, here we are reading comments by a variety of male nutburgers who somehow think that shooting people is part of the Bill of Rights.
Well your brilliant argument, and the term “nutburgers” convinced me: I now agree with Hugh that something vague and non-specific is wrong, and something vague and non-specific must be done! Immediately!
Too bad Dana Ireland didn’t have a CC firearm with her when those thugs ran her off the road, ran over her with their car, and gang-raped her.
Unarmed women are helpless, and a lot of men like it that way.
Punatic fringe. Armed, stoned and dangerous.
Take away the guns and the pot..
As much as I really respect Mr. Clark as a journalist, I believe he is wrong about guns being a problem that has to be addressed by the legislature. I live in Waikiki and I can bet you that within a thousand yard radius of my condo there has been more crimes committed with knives, lead pipes, household appliances and other instruments of mass destruction than all of Hilo in the last year.
As it was pointed out, the lastest homicide in Hilo was carried out with a common kitchen knife. Not a bayonet, dagger, or butterfly knife that is illegal under Chapter 134, along with machine guns, silencers, electric guns and “assault pistols”. Just a common household knife.
If you look at the registered (aka legal) gunowners, rarely do you see any them or their firearms involved in crimes reported. They are very law abiding citizens who respect the law and follow it to the letter. Those who we find shooting folks are normally using stolen or unregistered firearms.
It is easy to get a gun on the mainland and never have it registered at HPD, just like it is to import hundreds of pounds of ice, cocaine or heroin. If the Prohibition didn’t teach the United States that such things such as banning alcohol was a very stupid idea, but it just brought about the rise of criminal class (aka Mafia).
For those anti-gun advocates who say that assault weapons are not needed for hunting, I doubt that they have bothered to read the Second Amendment. No where is it said that the right to bear arms is only for hunting. The Second Amendment was there to provide for the citizens to be prepared to defend the United States should another country deem it necessary to take it over (aka England).
If you look at Switzerland, all citizens are part of their national army/guard. They have fully loaded, fully automatic assault rifles in their homes. Why don’t they have mass killings? Because they don’t let the insane people walk around and getting their hands on their guns.
Sinapore has very few crimes according all accounts. However, do you want to implement their criminal justice system where drug dealers are executed rather quickly and people who chew gum are arrested?
Our system in America is not perfect, but it works better than most. Asking for more gun laws will not address the problem of those who have mental problems who have the opportunity to destroy other people. May be we should designate them to be “zombies” and have a game to blow their brains out. That should be a lot of fun for those “gamers” who spend time on all those ultra violent video games.
Yeah! What you said!
Okay, on the Swiss reference, here’s a quick search result:
“…The Swiss army has long been a militia trained and structured to rapidly respond against foreign aggression. Swiss males grow up expecting to undergo basic military training, usually at age 20 in the Rekrutenschule (German for “recruit school”), the initial boot camp, after which Swiss men remain part of the “militia” in reserve capacity until age 30 (age 34 for officers). (Annual training required)
Each such individual is required to keep his army-issued personal weapon (the 5.56x45mm Sig 550 rifle for enlisted personnel and/or the 9mm SIG-Sauer P220 semi-automatic pistol for officers, military police, medical and postal personnel) at home. Up until October 2007, a specified personal retention quantity of government-issued personal ammunition (50 rounds 5.56 mm / 48 rounds 9mm) was issued as well, which was sealed and inspected regularly to ensure that no unauthorized use had taken place.[4] The ammunition was intended for use while traveling to the army barracks in case of invasion.
In October 2007, the Swiss Federal Council decided that the distribution of ammunition to soldiers shall stop and that all previously issued ammo shall be returned. By March 2011, more than 99% of the ammo has been received.”
and….
“Government statistics for the year 2010[15] records 40 homicides involving firearms, out of the 53 cases of homicide in 2010.”
Switzerland is a unique country in many respects, as is Singapore, and not at all comparable to the huge, vastly diverse, USA.
Can you imagine every male in the US reporting for Militia duty? Can you imagine local militia inspectors entering your house to inspect your ammo? I can’t, and it’s absurd to use that notoriously “neutral” micro-country as an example
I agree, our system works better than most, but that’s not to say it can’t be improved. What is it about assault rifles that is so damn important to people who hunt, enjoy shooting sports, or gun ownership? I grew up with guns, own one still, but if told that it was now restricted I’d turn it in. Times change and social mores and expectations change. It’s no longer acceptable for our society to condone the ease to which these mass murders gain access to weapons and ammunition that facilitate their urges and/or intent. Whatever their underlying mental states.
Bolt actions, breaking actions, levers and pumps, are all still acceptable to most for long guns. And Muzzle loaders of course. For pistols… revolvers. But semi-auto’s are not.
Yes, I know Charles Whitman climbed the tower with a bolt action. It was a snipers post he took. These punks with semi’s are walking into schools and theaters using weapons that mimic their video games and B movie encultured behaviors. It’s time to limit that if we can, and we have the will.
Limiting dangers to the public is a reasonable use of statutory powers, and the time has come to scale back the overly broad interpretation of
the 2nd Amendment, written in 1791 and with the needs of the peoples of that time it’s obvious intent.
“A well regulated militia….” is the basis and the reason for the 2nd, not “…the right of the people to keep and bear arms…”. So, it’s time to “infringe”, just as it was decided that it was no longer appropriate to own slaves, keep women from voting, or let children work in factories instead of going to school. Times change, laws change.
Well, up to 2011 Switzerland didn’t have any mass murder situations considering the massive number of assault weapons that were lying around the country.
As for “semi-auto” weapons, you clearly are not aware that in America those weapons are used in hunting situations and, in many cases, are more expensive than other types of weapons. Semi-automatic weapons include WWII arms like the M-1 Garand that hold only eight (8) rounds, or hunting rifles that Remington has been producing for over 100 years.
Unlike you, if the government one day declared that I had to turn in even one gun, I would deem that to be an illegal act. Unlike you, my relatives were illegally rounded up and thrown in concentration camps during WWII. They lost their businesses and their livelihoods to an unjust act. Sorry, but I am not giving up any more contitutional rights with out a fight all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court.
If you feel so strongly, you can turn in any of your firearms to HPD at any time. They will put a blow torch to it and dump it off shore. But don’t ask me to give up a constitutional right because you can’t stomach reality.
In fact, I think President Obama is really a hypocrite for taking up “gun control” after a killing of a upper middle class group of children when in Chicago (his “hometown”), they had 512 homicides of primarily poor, minority people, probably more children than in Newtown. The Chicago murder rate is rather high by any standard and yet Chicago has the most stringent gun laws amongst the major cities like New York and Washington D. C. So you see how “effective” gun laws are so stringent or prohibitive. People will just ignore them.
Thanks for that. 🙂
Hmmm….R. Yamashita, you wrote;
“…As for “semi-auto” weapons, you clearly are not aware that in America those weapons are used in hunting situations ”
Well…actually the gun that I still own, purchased new in 1968, is a Remington Nylon 66. Squirrels and rabbits. Tell you true, I had a Single shot, drop block Ruger at the time that I preferred, it required my teenage nerves to calm down, be patient for the cleanest shot, and sqqquuueezzee. Once was all I had.
But that was then.
Then you go on with…. “Unlike you….”
Really??? I didn’t know some of your relatives were interred until you revealed it, and I would never suggest anything about your relatives based on your post. Why do you assume anything about me?
You remind me of another fellow on this blog who is also argumentative in an assumptive way. It’s disheartening. I would hope that after all these years of sorting out how to communicate through various media platforms we would agree that staying on point, in this case the constitutionality of gun ownership and it’s possible amending, and stay away from the personal attacks.
When I made my first response to “Dave” I challenged his statement re: outlaws for it’s illogical basis. I didn’t call him an “Idiot” when I referred to the argument as “inane”. I didn’t call anybody a “fool”, a “nut”, a “wacko”, or a “nutburger”.
So, why do you state I “can’t stomach reality”, as if I’m delusional or dyspeptic ?
So, let’s get back to the question at hand, which I state is a question of how to modify the following language to reflect the needs of a modern society;
“A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.”
I will begin by stating that I construct this as a prefatory clause and an operative clause. The two can not be separated, despite Scalia’s liberal interpretation in Heller. He’s a strict constructionist when it suits him, and yet he fails to give each word full effect when it is not in his interest.
I think “shall not be infringed” trumps any prefatory language. Your interpretation would be “shall not be infringed, as long as the government deems it in keeping with militia purposes.” “shall not be infringed” is pretty absolute.