home

Recent Similar Articles

Ceasefire vs Gun-Control – Same Rules for All

warning: Creating default object from empty value in /home/members/phillyimc/sites/phillyimc.org/web/sites/all/modules/mailhandler/mailhandler.module on line 855.
by

Ceasefire saves lives. A 50% reduction in gun crime in El Salvador has lasted for over a year after the government mediated with the gangs. Some good results in Los Angeles. Amazing results in Northern Ireland but the forgetful public now just thinks there is supposed to be peace over there.

Short summery:
We need the same rules, everyone is supposed to fasten their seat belts, everyone is supposed not to smoke in a no smoking cafeteria, not the boss or premium members exempted. Of course we say that some are allowed to smoke and some not because of age, but my guess this doesn’t cut down on the cancer rate, possible ends up increasing the number who eventually smoke for more years of their lives.
I find something very doable about everyone supposed to keep their guns in a locked gun closet or bag.
Even the police could have finger-print locking holsters. And a new culture where an road-raged driver would wave a gun bag around everyone including himself expecting he will use if he takes it out of the bag, not after he first starts to squeeze the trigger A poor mugger starving for a fix would have the gun locked in the gun bag part of the time if caught that way would get him in a whole lot less trouble.

 
Sadly the peace movement in the US has forgot the history of ceasefire and mediation. The real difference, when it comes to Israel and Palestinians is that the concept of mediation is still halfway still on the table. To the US peace advocates the subject is nonexistent when it comes to Afghanistan, while Afghan President Karzai has begged the Saudis even the Chinese and Iranians to become mediators, What if the US peace movement, media, and government got exciting and very cooperative with Karzai's attempts? Gun-control advocates preach England but its really ceasefire in England since the corner police don't have guns and don't want them knowing that if they had them the criminals would want them to try to protect themselves from being shot by the police. Gun advocates preach Switzerland and Sweden with lots of guns and little gun crime but fail to note that these countries have never been involved in a recent war.
 
War, recent war, and neighborhood and domestic gun crime is overwhelmingly overlapping. More war equals more gun crime the statistics are overwhelming all over the world. In poor schools kids engulfed in as atmosphere that the only way to a good paying job is a gun: A gun with the government overseas, or a gun to raise money in the hood. A real peace effort would be to try to talk the kids in the hood to do without a gun and at the same time the US government to stop using them to pursue foreign policy objectives.
 
Every time the US has a war, even a social war, more gun crime and deaths result. This all the back to the war on Booze, then Communism, then Drugs, then Terror and now Gun Crime. It is true however that there are heavy penalties associated with Meth or Speed, but the emphasis is eduction as it is with cigarette smoking. Cutting smoking campaigns actually have some real success.
 
Finally the constant further overcrowding of the prisons had finally began to ease with suddenly far less marijuana long sentences, and far less 'three strikes and you are out' convictions but the ACLU, NAACP and Advancement Project are crying about Obama's cops in schools proposals are refueling the School-to-Prison pipeline.
 
 
We can do it!
 
We can change US gun culture starting in Pennsylvania with its gun-ho anti-gun Philadelphia ready to make a push for a dramatic state swing, perhaps the largest gun shift in any state of the nation. If the Pennsylvania NRA were willing to go along with locking up guns rather than something more, the Supreme Court may change its ruling outlawing demanding keeping legal unconcealed guns unloaded and unlocked, providing the new law only requires guns to be locked with a finger-locking box which could easily be a side pouch for a small gun or a finger-locking holster for a police officer, or very rich hoodlum to be able to afford.
 
Of course an officer with a finger-locking gun holster is not really the same as an old duffel bag with a padlock on it but the concept of the same rules for all is important for a society to function.
 
We constantly cry that technology constantly makes the world more dangerous. Pushing finger-locking holders goes with beat of technology. This should be applied to all our problem, such as banning cell phones on the road is a very uphill battle but not an automatic recording that the phone is in a car in motion and after a 30 second delay the phone will ring in the car for emergency access, and the phone charges adjusted to encourage conversation in a car that is not moving, and a sugar tax going up or down depending on the percentage of non-sugar added beverages picked from the vending machine, rather than just a war on sugar. War on gun crime is not the way to go any more than a war on drugs and on booze.
 
As they say a car is a danger as is a gun. Let’s make guns locked up at least as frequent as seat belt now wearing in a car, not trying to solve the problem with huge punishments after something goes wrong.
 
 
For more detail see:
http://www.phillyimc.org/en/liberals-and-progressives-against-gun-control-hysteria
http://readersupportednews.org/pm-section/419-gun-control-/15299-cell-phones-while-driving-and-guns-in-our-cities-is-the-solution-banning-them
http://my.firedoglake.com/richardkanepa/

Comments

See today's piece in the Inky

Your statement: "Sadly the peace movement in the US has forgot the history of ceasefire and mediation. The real difference, when it comes to Israel and Palestinians is that the concept of mediation is still halfway still on the table. To the US peace advocates the subject is nonexistent when it comes to Afghanistan..."

To gauge the possibility of a successsful mediation in Afghanistan, read today's piece on that country. the concluding paragraph reads:

After 30 consecutive years of war in Afghanistan, and almost 12 years of American efforts there, we continue to call our efforts successful, always claiming the next military strategy will succeed where all previous attempts have failed. It is time to accept that we are not going to turn 12 years of a failed Afghan tail into a strategically successful leg by leaving a few thousand combat troops on the ground after 2014. To do so would be to increase the cost of failure.

Rich, you are missing something

About 12% of Afghanistan is Shiite about 12% like modern ways. There was some fantastic good news elsewhere the members of Saddam small tribe weren’t slaughtered when Qaddafi fell, there was fantastic news in Iraq the Kurds know that Turkey would be determined to try to seize and interdependent Kurdistan d forcing them into the role of peacemakers between the Shiites and Sunnis of Iraq.
Such good news in Afghanistan would be unlikely when the US left.

If the US tries to leave Afghanistan after the troops paychecks bounce it would be pandamonium.

Obama is in as much a hurry to get out of Afghanistan as you and I are in a hurry to go to the dentist fireguards how foolish a delay might entail.

Note the woman in the picture in the link below,

http://framework.latimes.com/2013/01/24/afghanistans-new-generation/#/0