Pro-gun lobby targets parents of dead boy

[lostnfound]

http://news.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2005/01/16/ugun.xml

Pro-gun lobby targets parents of dead boy
(Filed: 16/01/2005)

The parents of a two-year-old British boy who was shot and killed in Turkey have become hate figures for the US pro-gun lobby.

David and Ozlem Grimason, whose son Alistair was killed in 2003 as he slept in his pram in a cafe, have been targeted over their campaign for gun control.

A contributor on one website describes them as "idiots" who should stop meddling in the affairs of other countries.

Another labels them "emotionalists (who) want to force Turkey into the same miserable gun control failure that was implemented (post Dunblane) in the UK."


*************
IMO, this is not about gun control or gun rights. This is about basic human decency and about respecting other people's right to have an opinion.

I find myself wondering if the emotions of many have become so shallow -- desensitisized -- that they are unable to understand or empathize with another's suffering.

[brentspeak]

1. These gun nuts are hypocrites, too

"A contributor on one website describes them as "idiots" who should stop meddling in the affairs of other countries."

So,logically,an American should be telling British citizens what and what not to do.

[Jack_DeLeon]

2. Sorry about thier son...

but just because they lost thier son it doesnt mean I should support them in thier fight to take away rights from people.

[lostnfound]

5. No, I don't think you need to support them in their fight.

I just think that calling them "idiots" is completely callous. If someone loses a child over something, and then feels compelled to make a campaign over it, I think they deserve a little bit of understanding and compassion. Disagreement with their views is perfectly okay, but whoever called them 'idiots' or 'emotionalists' has shown themselves to be unfeeling or incapable of holding even a minimum amount of tension in his/her own head.

[Ignis]

6. So...

You live in Turkey?

[Jack_DeLeon]

8. No, forgive me...

I forgot that only Americans have rights, and people in other countries have no rights. :eyes:

[Ignis]

10. Oookay.

Right, because that was exactly my point. And a hearty hi-ho eyerolling right back at you, sir. Good luck with that.

[Megahurtz]

61. Lol!

:D

[Hoping4Change]

52. Only Americans believe having a gun is a right. But I suppose since

the US is such a paragon of peace you have a holy oligation to be mouthpieces for the the gun industry/God's current incarnation on Earth.

[Garbo]

53. Nice insult.

Very typical. Americans "beleive" it is a right because it happens to be written in our Consititution. How silly of us.

[Hoping4Change]

54. That's right your Constitution. The one that initially protected

the right to own slaves and deprived all but property owners the right to vote. Your Constitution was created by brilliant but nevertheless fallible humans. The beauty of your Constitution is that being the product of Man not God it has been amended when it's shortcomings were recognized.

[Garbo]

55. Thanks....

.....anything else you would like us to change just for you? You have such a leg to stand on if you are not American, I just can't wait to hear how we really should be doing things.

[Hoping4Change]

56. Yeah there is something I want you to change. I want Americans

to have an inalienable right to health care. I want Americans to show the same unconstrained zealotry demanding the right to universal health care as they do to the right to bear arms.

p.s. What leg do you have to stand on in commenting on Britain's and Turkey's gun control laws?

[Garbo]

57. Hmmm.....

.....if only that were an actual right written into the Constitution.

P.S. Please show me where I commented on any country's gun issues, other than America's. Funny, I don't recall that.

[Hoping4Change]

58. The Constitution has been amended and it can be amended again.

There seems to be enough fervor to amend it to protect the so-called traditional concept of marriage. If it can be amended for so shallow a reason why not amend to include the right to universal health care? If one looks to Jesus as a shining example, he certainly spent more time healing people than marrying them.

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

3. I believe in the right to bear arms

for reasonable purposes (ie target shooting, hunting), but I don't see anything wrong with what this British couple is doing. I empathize with them and feel horrible about their loss. My stepfather lost his brother to a gun accident; although that didn't make him give up hunting, he was obsessed with making sure everyone who handled guns learned gun safety.

The gun nuts who belittle them are doing nothing for their cause, and demean people who believe that some forms of gun ownership is all right.

[Garbo]

49. Not an attempt at a war.....

....but then the issue becomes who defines reasonable?

Hopefully not the federal government.

[McKenzie]

4. I drove past Dunblane the day after it happened

I was on the way to Glasgow. The day before I was driving to a site when it was announced on the radio. The reports had live coverage from the school and I could hear the sound of frantic parents crying out for their children. Anyone with any decency in their body couldn't help but feel a huge lump rising in their throat. I watched the TV footage of it that evening but switched it off after a few minutes.

That's the reality of it. Maybe the handgun-nuts would feel differently if they had to walk through the gymnasium afterwards. Kiddies lying around dead and blood all over the walls and the floor.

Even our cops don't routinely carry guns though every force has at least one armed response vehicle available at any one time. It's different in the US because your country is flooded with the damned things, and they are easy to get hold of, so I suppose armed police are a necessary evil.

On edit: I have owned sporting firearms and have no difficulty with that.

[spdyvkng]

22. Gun density vs gun use

I believe Norway has more guns per 1000 persons than the US. So, by your logic our Police should be as heavily armed as the US Police. To the contrary our Police is unarmed, though they do have hand guns in their patrol cars (locked down), and might get assault weapons in some patrol cars due to some rather nasty criminal elements going around shooting cops with assault weapons during heists...

It will be a sad day when our Police will have to be armed all the time.

[GetTheRightVote]

7. I believe in gun ownership but be responsible as well

I had a pass boyfriend who would leave his loaded on a counter in the kitchen like it was no big deal and I had young children. We are over now because he is basically an responible human being.

:kick:

[jody]

9. David Grimason from Scotland and his Turkish wife Ozlem

have every right to lobby the Turkish people for new gun laws after their only child Alistair was killed. However, there views have no more merit than any single Turkish citizen.

Sovereign states recognized the inalienable right to defend self and property before they ratified our Constitution and its Bill of Rights. Guns are the most effective efficient tool to exercise that right and guns are the tool of choice of professionals like police officers and criminals.

In the U.S., SCOTUS has ruled that governments are not obligated to defend an individual so an individual is the first and often last line of defense.

When the world is free of criminals, then we can revisit the issue but in the mean time, the Democratic Party has moved in the right direction by changing out party platform to read:
QUOTE
We will protect Americans' Second Amendment right to own firearms, and we will keep guns out of the hands of criminals and terrorists by fighting gun crime, reauthorizing the assault weapons ban, and closing the gun show loophole, as President Bush proposed and failed to do.
UNQUOTE
Democratic Party Platform 2004

[alarimer]

11. Why do they (the US gun lobby) care?

I mean they are talking about Turkey, not the US. It is where these people live, after all. So they feel they want to make it a safer place through gun control. Big deal. But why is it the business of the US gun lobby??

[Lydia Leftcoast]

12. Because some people are obsessed with guns, period.

I was riding a bus in Portland a few years ago, when a British couple got on to ride to the shopping district that lay just beyond where I lived.

Some freeper type heard their British accents (this was just after the shooting incident in Scotland) and started haranguing them about how the U.K. was going to be a more dangerous place if it banned handguns, and how he was glad that he lived in the good old U.S.A. where a man still had some rights.

Note that they had not even been discussing guns or crime before he began talking at them.

After he got off, I apologized to them for his bothering them, and they just shook their heads and said, "We've encountered his type before."

[Garbo]

50. As some people are obsessed with demagoguing gun owners, period.

And that is not intended to start a battle, but I nonetheless believe that many people (not necessarily you, Lydia) have a massive superiority complex when it comes to gun owners.

[jody]

13. "make it a safer place through gun control" but no US study has shown

that gun control laws reduce violent crime.

“Firearms and Violence: A Critical Review” published by the National Academy of Sciences and “First Reports Evaluating the Effectiveness of Strategies for Preventing Violence: Firearms Laws” published by the Center for Disease Control both reported that none of the scholarly papers reviewed have conclusions that are statistically significant and support assertions that laws restricting or banning handguns or long guns are effective in reducing violent crime.

[spdyvkng]

23. Which axis of safety?

Are they talking about safety of people working in a bank being robbed, or safety of children in homes with guns? I hardly ever hear about shooting accidents involving children in Norway, though I'm under the impression that they are pretty common in the US. Both nations have a large number of weapons in the general populace.

Unfortunately I don't have statistics showing the number of accidents in both countries, so I don't know the relative numbers.

On a side note, there are at least one or two deaths during hunting season here, because of hunters misidentified as game (even when wearing emergency services orange hats and overalls...).

On another side note, life has become more secure in the US, crime has fallen, yet, people there seem to feel the opposite is true.

[catgirl]

26. Look who did the studies?

Why are the police in this country all for gun control?
Why do we have to wait for a loved one to be
murdered before we call for tighter gun control?
Are we that self absorbed?

[jody]

29. Have you read the studies and the list of committee members? Do you

question the National Academy of Sciences?

If gun control is so good, then why does the state of New York have 465 violent crime incidents per 100,000 but Vermont has only 110? New York restricts gun ownership but Vermont does not.

SOURCE: FBI’s Uniform Crime Reports “Crime in the United States – 2003”

[spdyvkng]

32. I can hypothize

I guess it has to do with population density. It seems that there is more violence in bigger cities than smaller cities. How many violent crimes are there in Tokyo? Los Angeles? Mexico City? Manila?

Do you have a state with the same demographics as vermont which restricts gun ovnership so which Vermont could be compared to more fairly?

Do all the violent crimes stem from gun use? Or is there in fact some violent crimes due to people using knives?

What constitutes a violent crime in Vermont vs New York (different states, a bit different laws, I would guess)? Is reporting better or poorer in Vermont vs New York?

Though, I use to say to people who feels things are bad in Norway today that during the middle ages there were more violent crimes (murders to be specific) in the city of Bergen pr 1000 inhabitants than there are in Norway today.

And there were NO guns there! ;)

[jody]

34. I've read many supposedly scholarly studies purporting to show that guns

cause violent crime. Upon careful analysis, the statistical methods of the studies are flawed suggesting the authors were trying to lie with statistics. That's why the two reports I cited above are important because they were made by experts without an agenda.

I suggest you read the two studies.

Several reputable studies have suggested that violent crime is related to inequities in wealth or income and that often is the greatest in heavily populated areas.

[spdyvkng]

40. Put that way

I can understand your position and what you meant in the other posts, my mistake. I agree with you that guns don't cause violent crimes (or kill people), people cause violent crimes and kill other people, sometimes with the use of guns.

You can exchange guns with violent video games, and you'd suddenly have half the discussion board agreeing with you ;) that video games doesn't cause violent crime.

I'm not against gun ownership in itself, I think all my neighbours have one or more hunting rifles (I don't particularly like going into the woods for a hunt). In Norway I feel we have this somewhat under control, since you need to be a member of a gun club and/or have a hunting licence in order to own a gun; and of course pass a Police background check (no serious violent crimes, no medical history of instability, I believe thats the limits).

In the US, though, I understand that even these basic, and I think pretty down to earth requirements, aren't in place, nor does the gun lobby like those.

What you say in your last paragraph:

"Several reputable studies have suggested that violent crime is related to inequities in wealth or income and that often is the greatest in heavily populated areas."

Is pretty near what I hypothized about, that heavily populated areas have more violent crimes than more sparsely populated areas.

The root cause of everything, the difference in having, and not having isn't that clear. Hmm, I can't rephrase this in a good way, pressed for time, but a lot of murders are done in affect. As they like to say in Police shows on TV, the murderer are most often someone close to the victim, and that seems to hold true in murder after murder here in Norway (when following them in the news).

Murders aren't the largest portion of violent crimes, though.

[MrBenchley]

44. Basically, the studies show the need for

more research...because the GOP and the gun lobby have blocked all efforts to find out the truth.

What Jody is pointedly NOT mentioning is that the ONLY study around that indicates gun control is not successful was funded by the gun lobby through a cutout foundation, was conducted by a racist crackpot named John Lott who is synonymous with academic fraud, and is riddled with both error and falsehood. And of course, it was neither peer-revioewed nor published in a scientific publication.

[MrBenchley]

43. A flat out lie...

What both of those reports show is that the US gun lobby has blocked the kind of research that could answer questions.

"laws restricting or banning handguns or long guns are effective in reducing violent crime."
Funny, they do the job everywhere else. The entire UK has less gun crime in a year than a medium-sized American city like Birmingham, Alabama.

Australia and Texas both have 20 million people...Australia has about 300 gun deaths a year, whiel Texas has about 2,600 a year. And gun nuts want to pretend that it's Australia that has the gun problem.

[Jack_DeLeon]

15. So your saying...

its okay for UK citizens to have an opinion of gun laws in Turkey, but its not okay for US citizens to have an opinion of the UK citzens opinion?

[alarimer]

16. No

I am saying these fucking gun nuts should mind their own fucking business. They have no idea how these people feel after their son was killed. If it makes them feel better to what they are doing, so be it. God I hate the gun lobby in this country.

[Jack_DeLeon]

17. Isnt the gun lobby's business...

the business of gun rights?

So by saying what they are saying arent they minding thier own business?

Not minding thier business would be having an opinion of something completely unrelated to guns. This however is definately all about guns.

[PROGRESSIVE1]

14. The Pro-Gun lobby are a bunch of right wing Mcveighites!

:puke:

[jody]

38. But many leading Democrats are pro RKBA. Why do you call them Mcveighites?

[MrBenchley]

41. No, the RKBA movement is almost all Republican

and far right wing at that.

[NorthernSpy]

18. Baloney! The gun lobby ISN'T "targeting" them!

Did y'all actually read the article? Whoever wrote it merely pulled a scant handful of quotes from a website -- and didn't even bother to tell us which site! An opinion expressed by an individual or three hardly qualifies as a campaign by "the gun lobby". This is a case of journalism at its laziest.

As a rule, it's wise to beware the argumentum ab foro online. You can always find at least one example of anything, no matter how bizarre or unrepresentative it may be of whatever you're trying to link it to.

[Pert_UK]

19. For the record.....

- Anybody who thinks that the largely unregulated access to firearms and their casual, common use in Turkey is a GOOD thing must be insane
- Gun controls implemented in the UK post-Dunblane have been phenomenally successful (and hugely popular with the general public in the UK)

It beggars belief that people can be so blindly pro-gun that they see any suggestion of tighter laws (even in a country with such inadequate controls as Turkey) as anathema. Fuck them for their tunnel-vision and insensitivity. IMHO I think somebody who's child has been shot dead in a cafe in Turkey has more right to talk about gun control than some asshole who probably couldn't find Turkey on an atlas.....

[catgirl]

24. Well put. I second that!

[MrBenchley]

42. Amen to that!

[Pert_UK]

20. Do these pro-gunners realise that these are MUSLIMS with guns?

Just a thought....

(Incidentally, as far as I am aware Turkey is officially a secular country, but the main religion is Islam).

As far as I can tell the pro-gunners here are saying that people SHOULD be allowed to have gunfights in crowded cafes....... Have I got that wrong?

[NorthernSpy]

28. Which "pro-gunners"?...

... the three random unidentified individuals whose quotes the author supposedly pulled off some unknown website?

As far as I can tell the pro-gunners here are saying that people SHOULD be allowed to have gunfights in crowded cafes....... Have I got that wrong?

Me! Me! I can answer that one!

The answer is, yes, you got that wrong.

As for whether pro-gunners here might consider the religion of Turkish people significant, all I can say is I was perfectly well aware that most in Turkey are Muslim and I didn't see anything to made of that fact...


(edit: added word for clarification)

[Pert_UK]

33. Errrr........sarcasm? Anyone? Anyone? Sarcasm? Bueller....Bueller....

Which pro-gunners...the three random unidentified individuals whose quotes the author supposedly pulled off some unknown website?

Yes, obviously those pro-gunners.

"pron. pl. these - Used to refer to the person or thing present, nearby, or just mentioned."

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=these

Oddly, I was using the word "these" to refer to the people mentioned in the article rather than generalising wildly. I'd have said, "pro-gunners" rather than "these pro-gunners" if I'd meant to broaden things out.

Am I suggesting that anyone pro-gun holds the same views as these unnamed people? Nope. Just making a sarcastic comment towards the people with the kind of mindset that wants to attack the parents of a dead kid who'd really rather it hadn't happened.

As far as I can tell the pro-gunners here are saying that people SHOULD be allowed to have gunfights in crowded cafes....... Have I got that wrong?

Again, sarcasm aimed squarely at anybody who could look at a gunfight in a cafe where a baby is killed and then decide that the best thing they can do is start shouting about infringements of the right to bear arms. Call me crazy ("YOU'RE CRAZY!!!") but if I were pro-gun, I'd probably not be highlighting cases of child gun deaths whilst making the case for the RKBA....

[NorthernSpy]

36. never can be too sure, Pert

Yeah, I kinda figured, but still...

This reminds me. Recently, one of the anti-gunners accused a fellow gungeonite of glorifying organized crime, or promoting the criminal lifestyle, or something like that. What prompted this, you ask?

The gungeonite's Marlon Brando avatar.

And as it turned out after a bit of discussion, if I'd assumed sarcastic intent in that case, I'da been wrong...

[RetroLounge]

21. It's a Slippery Slope, people.

Take away gun rights in Turkey, and next thing they'll try it in Iraq.

How long before it reaches our shores.

:eyes:

RL

[catgirl]

25. Some people should NOT have guns. Period.

Strict background checks should be implemented everywhere.
If someone has anger issues, they shouldn't own a gun. Our
safety should have precedence over someone's "right" to
own a gun.

[NorthernSpy]

27. Some people should NOT have gasoline. Period.

Strict background checks should be implemented everywhere.
If someone has anger issues, they shouldn't own a gun gasoline. Our safety should have precedence over someone's "right" to own a gun gasoline.

http://www.crimelibrary.com/notorious_murders/mass/happyland/index_1.html?sect=10

[jody]

31. Don't forget to ban the ingredients for a fertilizer bomb. n/t

[Garbo]

51. ...and booze, and cars, and knives, etc.

Come to think of it, lets ban anything that might be bad for those with "anger issues"!!!!

By that rationale, half the people on this board shouldn't be allowed near anything sharp.

[PassingFair]

30. Yeah, let's fight the gun law fight over there!

So we don't have to fight it over here!

You'd think someone was trying to take their penises away.

[biftonnorton]

37. Take Their Penises Away, Too!

There are so many rapes committed where a penis was used that at the very least we should do background checks before anyone is allowed to get one of those things. I'm a responsible owner and won't let anyone even hold mine unless I've shown them how to do so safely. :)

[hollowdweller]

35. With freedom comes some danger.

What are Turkey's laws anyway?

No doubt if they banned guns they would be safer from freak accidents like this.

Of course when we pull out of Iraq and the Kurdish army starts coming across the border to take part of Turkey to create a new Kurdistan they will probably be happy they have their guns.

[Pert_UK]

39. I think a whole bunch of Iraqis would agree with that........

"With freedom comes some danger." - what, so a dead kid is OK then? The parents should just accept that this is one of those sacrifices you make in exchange for the greater freedom? Do you really believe that guns are making individuals safer in Turkey?

"No doubt if they banned guns they would be safer from freak accidents like this."

Hey, call me crazy, but I don't call a child being shot during a gunfight in a public cafe to be a "freak accident". I call it murder, and it only happened because an angry guy had a gun.

"Of course when we pull out of Iraq and the Kurdish army starts coming across the border to take part of Turkey to create a new Kurdistan they will probably be happy they have their guns."

Shame that Turkey doesn't have an army and that its individual citizens have to fight against invading forces...

"Women's group The Second Amendment Sisters, called them 'pathetic'.

A spokeswoman said: 'These people should mind their own business. The Grimasons have made Turkey more dangerous.'"

http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/tm_objectid=15084012&method=full&siteid=89488&headline=gun-nuts-target-grieving-couple-name_page.html

More dangerous for who, exactly? Exactly how does taking guns away from people who misuse them make life more dangerous?

[MrBenchley]

45. The Second Amendment Skanks are an offshoot of Freak Republic

by the way.....who evidently think the toddler should have whipped out his own little gun and started shooting first.

[rfkrfk]

46. What is their connection to the US ?

I'm sorry for their loss, but
the US involvement is how?

[Redstone]

47. Hardcore gun nuts are even worse zealots

than religious fundamentalists. I've known some who would choose their guns over their kids if they had to pick.

For me, it only took getting shot the one time to take all the romance & adventure out of firearms.

Redstone

[slackmaster]

48. Two contributors on a Web forum = "the pro-gun lobby"?

This is about a couple of comments made by rude people on the 'Net.

Wake me up when the NRA or some other widely recognized pro-gun lobby says something.

[klyon]

59. I believe the right to keep and bare arms is in the constitution

so be can have recourse against OUR government when stops doing the work of the people. The time maybe growing near.

My republican neighbors laugh when I give them that belief.

Not too many years ago the right wing nuts where stockpiling guns because they thought the government might need overthrowing some day. I guess they didn't think it would be them that would needed bringing down. My same neighbors.

Just my perception anybody else remember those days?

KL

[SmokingJacket]

60. It would be interesting to do a psychological study of gun nuts.

I'm not talking about hunters or sportsmen who simply believe guns should be legal, but those incredibly rabid gun people who organize their lives around their fear that their guns will be taken away, and who begin to froth at the mouth because some people in TURKEY are trying to change gun laws.

What IS that all about?

Is the fear of guns being taken away actually a kind of castration fear? Because from the outside, as someone who could give two shits about guns one way or the other, that's what it looks like.