Saturday, December 15, 2012

Following Up…

I really had expected a lot more comments on yesterdays posting.
Maybe a bit more elaboration and clarification on my part is necessary.

I do not think that hunting weapons are of any major problem in this Nation. People have gone hunting since humans walked the earth. The problem, like it has been pointed out in the comments, are automatic and semiautomatic weapons. It is pretty clear that someone who buys a semi-automatic Glock has no intentions of going deer hunting with it, and for any other purpose it should be prohibited to be purchased and owned.

The 2 Amendment wasn’t hogwash when it was created. But I must insist it is heavily outdated, and when somebody reacts to a mass murder like the one in Connecticut, by blasting me with his right to carry weapons and the 2.Amendment, I react the way I did yesterday.

One commenter thinks that he can do away with “EVIL” in our society. Let me just point out that he would have to change the human kind and until we have the means to do that the next best thing is to do away with automatic weapons.
He also thinks that only the evil people will have access to weapons. Not true. He forgot those people who own hunting weapons --- that is those who go hunting. Looking to the European countries might also help to understand that the violent crime rate isn’t any higher than in the U.S., matter of fact, it is a good part lower. If you look closely, you’d see that central Europe has the lowest crime rate in the world. They are between those countries with the lowest gun density in the world.

The map below shows violent crime rates by intensity of the blue. The darker the blue the higher violent crime.
1 - >20 homicides pr. 100,000 inhabitants, Source:
Homicide Statistics 2012. UNODC
File:Map of world by intentional homicide rate.png

Our hearts go out to the victims of the Connecticut shooting and we can just hope that this violent crime will force political leaders to re-think the gun laws in the U.S.


  1. Peter, I read your post last night but didn't comment because I do not yet believe the United States has yet reached the tipping point in the debate over gun control so it seemed pointless to engage in a pointless debate.

    Unfortunately, I think it will take several more mass shooting tragedies like Connecticut, Aurora and Columbine before enough citizens rise up and say enough is enough.

  2. When I first read your blog yesterday I wasn't going to comment. I felt calling an Amendment to our Constitution "hogwash" very disrespectful especially since you choose to spend six months of the year using our services. I'm from a family where generation after generation has served in the military defending that Constitution. Maybe there are things I would like to see changed but as an American I would never call an Amendment "hogwash".

    Over the last few months there have been many negative blogs and comments about our country from Canadians who spend the winter in the United States. We are all entitled to our opinion but terminology and expression can be a turnoff.

    However, I eventually went back and posted that we personally don't hunt and don't own a gun but am against semi automatic and automatic weapons. The good thing about freedom is you have the freedom to use the term "hogwash" anytime and about anything you wish. My freedom is I don't have to like it.

    1. Jeri, read my reply to Sandie's comment. That's all I can say.

  3. The first time I read your post last night, you made me very angry. Yesterday was a very emotional day and I agree with Jeri that calling parts of our Constitution hogwash did not sit well. I love my country and she may have flaws but so does every other country. After I was able to calm down a bit, I went back and reread your post and was able to comment that I agree that automatic weapons are not needed. But I, for one, am glad we have the right to bear arms.

    1. Sorry you got so angry, Sandie. Not my intention at all. But I still stand my ground that the 2.amendment should be repealed and replaced with a modified version. And I was angry too. I was angry about that 26 innocent people had to die, because of this outdated 2.amendment. "Hogwash" might have been the wrong word, but we all say things when we are angry. I think our Nationality doesn't matter when it come to commenting to both of our country's affairs. The naked and bare facts are that the U.S. has way too many mass shootings. There is plenty information availableon the internet if you go looking for it. And it is all related to the massive density of weapons present in the U.S.
      No hard feelings Sandie!

  4. After thinking about your statement that the 2nd Amendment to the U.S. Constitution is "hogwash" and now reading the comments of two American bloggers, I have to say that I agree with them.

    As a Canadian, I feel calling anything in the U.S. Constitution "hogwash" is disrespectful and even insulting. It's their Constitution approved by their elected representatives and should be respected by us as good neighbours.

    I don't agree 100% with the way the 2nd Amendment is interpreted by many (and neither do a lot of Americans as it is constantly being argued in the Courts) in the U.S. but like I said earlier, there may come a tipping point one way or the other and perhaps a new path forward may be chosen.

    1. Sure Rick, I may have used the wrong word, but it is what it is - a hopelessly outdated part of the U.S. Constituition. And yes we are Canadians - not Americans, but living less than 3 miles from the U.S. border makes us live (and think)like we lived south of the border. And besides of that this debate has a human aspect that should not be hampered by Nations or borders.

  5. Thanks, Rick - You are right in that even if we don't always agree, we still wouldn't call an amendment to our Constitution "hogwash".

    Canadians are good neighbors. I've often felt that it was sad that the border between the two was not open. Respecting each other and both of our countries in the past is one of the reasons we have remained such strong friends.

  6. So "25 people had to die because of this outdated second amendment" which you propose to amend again to disallow automatic weapons. Are you saying that if automatic weapons had not been available, the Connecticut shooting would not likely have happened? Really? So the morality, psychology and pathology of the evildoer need no attention in your view? It's all about those pesky guns and what they're dreaming up next, I suppose. Give me strength.

    1. The CT perp got the weapons from his mothers house, where his mother, an obviously deranged person, had legally registered weapons designed for mass killings. That is if you don't use a semiautomatic Glock for deer hunting. Analyzing the psychologic profile of the perp would not have prevented the killings. Our society would never be able to do that unless you put all abnormal persons in jail.
      If the 2.Amendment would have been updated 20 years ago, the automatic weapons would not have been available today. Maybe you should have a good look at the crime stats of your country.


We like to hear from you. You can add your comment here: