Charlton Heston dead

Nick · 6 April 2008

yes, there's not enough people in the world that are prepared to wish horrific deaths on their fellow human beings because of differing points of view

Now now, I simply pointed out a few home truths about a bloke some of the world won't miss. I didn't wish him a horrible death, I just said it was a shame he didn't die differently at the hand of his own propaganda.

This would have been ironic and some may say "appropriately fitting."

Let's get something straight here, "famous people dead thread RIP" -Let's all glorify and hail the life of a person in the media spotlight, bandwagon....... if we can stick an opinion in a public forum for others to comment on, don't be surprised if some people responses are not totally proportionate to what is required if the subject is somebody who led a controversial lifestyle that caused as much misery as happiness in the lives of others. I found this man offensive and won't miss him.

Secondly I am still waiting for a reply to this:

QUOTE (Thracian @ Apr 6 2008, 01:00 PM)

What a nasty and narrow-minded individual you are.

Almost everyone I met when I lived in Switzerland owned a gun but the place was just aboiut the safest country you could ever be in.

Thousands of people who enjoy rifle shooting as a hobby are as horrified as anyone about the actions of lunatics with guns but no law will ever legislate for lunatics or prevent people getting their hands on or making deadly weapons if they so wish to.

It's like all the furore about dangerous dogs. It's the owners are the problem not the dogs.

As for the homosexual undertones in Ben Hur I knew nothing about that and simply watched a film, both as a kid and since, for the enjoyment of it.

And had I wished to analyse it I couldn't really give a shit whether Ben Hur had homosexual feelings towards anyone.

Why it should be such a big deal and why people should even be bothered by it I don't know.

Put men in a warfare situation or any other circumstances which require them to be in a predominently single sex group of close comrades and away from home for long periods of time and even supposedly "straight" people might be tempted to take comfort they wouldn't necessarily have chosen from choice.

This is shown in numerous writings conerning military and prison life, among others.

The guy achieved things in his life. He gave a lot of people a lot of pleasure and deserves respect.

I'll fully reply when I've stopped laughing.

Thracian, I apologise for being nasty and narrow minded.

I am also sorry that one of your role models was a complete cock.

You never had a chance poor lamb, did you?

As for the film of Ben Hur, again you have missed the point completely, I suggest you watch it again - Ben Hur was not homosexual - his friend was in love with him..... but I'm glad you enjoyed the non homo erotic action bits.

As for the NRA, the guns are a problem as it is all about socio-cultural context. This differs greatly between Countries, including, Switzerland, Canada etc. It's about the Fifth Amendment and the right to bear arms, the need to protect from fear that is only perpetuated by the very act itself. America can't have guns safely because of the cultural history associated with them.

Entertaining people and them deriving pleasure from it, does not equate with giving respect. People are entertained by your posts mate but that rarely leads to people respecting you.

As for Michael Moore's documentary, 'Bowling for Columbine', I suggest you watch it. If you have watched it, watch it again as I'm sure there are bits you missed between the action scenes.

Lovin your work Thrac,

Love,

"Narrow minded and Nasty"

Nick.

(but 'individual' as you rightly pointed out)

Zingari · 6 April 2008

I don't see why you want a reply from Thracian or why you feel he needs to reply Nick :dunno:

You hold different views to him ; that is all, and you have both stated them

He has fond memories of the man, while you see fit to to suggest that he should have died in horrible circumstances to suit your prejudices of what you believe he was like in life.

Maybe he felt uncomfortable with homosexuality and maybe he advocated that rifles were not the problem in society .

These two terrible things make up the sum of your post as to why you feel it would have been appropriate for him to suffer in death .

:dunno:

what more is there for either of you to say other than insults ?

Thracian · 6 April 2008

I'll fully reply when I've stopped laughing.
Thracian, I apologise for being nasty and narrow minded.

I am also sorry that one of your role models was a complete cock.

You never had a chance poor lamb, did you?

As for the film of Ben Hur, again you have missed the point completely, I suggest you watch it again - Ben Hur was not homosexual - his friend was in love with him..... but I'm glad you enjoyed the non homo erotic action bits.

As for the NRA, the guns are a problem as it is all about socio-cultural context. This differs greatly between Countries, including, Switzerland, Canada etc. It's about the Fifth Amendment and the right to bear arms, the need to protect from fear that is only perpetuated by the very act itself. America can't have guns safely because of the cultural history associated with them.

Entertaining people and them deriving pleasure from it, does not equate with giving respect. People are entertained by your posts mate but that rarely leads to people respecting you.

As for Michael Moore's documentary, 'Bowling for Columbine', I suggest you watch it. If you have watched it, watch it again as I'm sure there are bits you missed between the action scenes.

Lovin your work Thrac,

Love,

"Narrow minded and Nasty"

Nick.

(but 'individual' as you rightly pointed out)

a) I don't have role models of any sort.

b) I don't give a toss about people's sexuality one way or the other and quite probably wouldn't notice except in particular circumstances.

c) I've never conducted a socio-cultural study of Americans and considering the vastness of the United States and the different backgrounds/environments of the people living there I don't imagine it would be easy.

However I could well imagine that many situations in the US make many people believe they need a right to bear arms and protect themselves.

There's not too much protection available from anyone else in the remoteness of some areas and the debate is not all about fear or protection anyway, it is partly about people's rights to enjoy target shooting and hunting, things which are common in many areas of Europe.

If people want to spend time trying to change a socio-cultural outlook they've every right to but I'm always sceptical of the consequences of social experiments that are forced on folk by activists and idealists and certainly don't believe some lobby should easily dictate to others and affect their established freedoms as seems to be the driving desire of some.

People who don't want to carry guns or own guns or use guns don't have to.

But my son's fiance has a collection of guns - quite normal in New Mexico - and I don't see that she's any more a danger to her fellow cirtizens than someone in Switzerland or Canada, whatever her socio-cultural background.

When it comes to freedom, not only do I believe in freedom of speech but freedom of choice too. In other words I'd rather have the right to make my own decisions than have someone like you dictate them.

Freedom is not a convenient word and something to compromise when it suits. Freedom is something you really believe in or you don't because anything that affects freedom is dictatorship by others whether wise or not. Don't be kidded that it's democracy because the concept of democracy is forever being manipulated and I want nothing of democracy if it goes against whatever I believe in.

If a democratic vote decreed that all first born sons should be slaughtered would that make it right?

Or if it decreed that the only churches allowed would be Christian, would that be right.

Or that all homosexuals should be castrated - would that be right?

Zingari · 6 April 2008

well said mr thracian , but why do you waste so much time arguing with these over educated fools :dunno:

surely life's too short and hopefully one day, in the fullness of time , they will grow up anyway :dunno:

Nick · 6 April 2008

I don't see why you want a reply from Thracian or why you feel he needs to reply Nick
You hold different views to him ; that is all, and you have both stated them

He has fond memories of the man, while you see fit to to suggest that he should have died in horrible circumstances to suit your prejudices of what you believe he was like in life.

Maybe he felt uncomfortable with homosexuality and maybe he advocated that rifles were not the problem in society .

These two terrible things make up the sum of your post as to why you feel it would have been appropriate for him to suffer in death .

what more is there for either of you to say other than insults ?

He is entitled to his memories.

He is not entiltled to insult me personally for stating my memories.

Maybe the guy had issues around rifles and homosexuality.

Maybe he caused untold misery in the lives of those who had tragically lost loved ones and were grieving.

Maybe what he represented to America and the NRA contributed to further American lives being taken in the name of 'freedom.'

It's great that you are able to understand both sides of the story Mr. Z, but its not you that has been personally insulted today for having an opinion (clearly one made in a degree of ironic jest) on a public forum.

And with regard to the sum total of my post relating to two points, are you aware what this man did? Have you seen Bowling for Columbine? Why are you sticking up for Charlton Heston and Thracian. My comments may have been aggressive and without sensitivity but isn't that exactly what Heston was, agressive and voidless of sensitivity?

What goes around comes around.

Lastly ~ I would expect a reply from Thrac rather than a cowardly personal insult and then disappearing.

With the greatest of respect go and stop a battle that you are involved in and when you do take sides maybe don't join the side of the person who cast the first stone.

FFS.

N.

Zingari · 6 April 2008

He is entitled to his memories.
He is not entiltled to insult me personally for stating my memories.

Maybe the guy had issues around rifles and homosexuality.

Maybe he caused untold misery in the lives of those who had tragically lost loved ones and were grieving.

Maybe what he represented to America and the NRA contributed to further American lives being taken in the name of 'freedom.'

It's great that you are able to understand both sides of the story Mr. Z, but its not you that has been personally insulted today for having an opinion (clearly one made in a degree of ironic jest) on a public forum.

And with regard to the sum total of my post relating to two points, are you aware what this man did? Have you seen Bowling for Columbine? Why are you sticking up for Charlton Heston and Thracian. My comments may have been aggressive and without sensitivity but isn't that exactly what Heston was, agressive and voidless of sensitivity?

What goes around comes around.

Lastly ~ I would expect a reply from Thrac rather than a cowardly personal insult and then disappearing.

With the greatest of respect go and stop a battle that you are involved in and when you do take sides maybe don't join the side of the person who cast the first stone.

FFS.

N.

you must have missed it , he already has :dunno:

and with the greatest of respect i'll say what i want on here, and join in any discussion , at any stage as i feel fit ( the same as other posters who have agreed with you )

you can of course feel free to ignore me

Nick · 6 April 2008

well said mr thracian , but why do you waste so much time arguing with these over educated fools
surely life's too short and hopefully one day, in the fullness of time , they will grow up anyway

Ha, over educated fool, huh?

You know nothing about me.

Yes the more knowledge one has, the more stupid they get....... hmm.

I am fully grown thanks.

My comments are often ironic and my right. (whether they lack maturity or not)

I have no problem in people having a differing opinion but if you insult me personally I will retort.

The reason I don't post more is because I have to reason with people I don't have the patience or the time to explain myself to.

Get a grip.

Zingari · 6 April 2008

Ha, over educated fool, huh?
You know nothing about me.

Yes the more knowledge one has, the more stupid they get....... hmm.

I am fully grown thanks.

My comments are often ironic and my right. (whether they lack maturity or not)

I have no problem in people having a differing opinion but if you insult me personally I will retort.

The reason I don't post more is because I have to reason with people I don't have the patience or the time to explain myself to.

Get a grip.

sorry for any offence , it was not meant seriously (or directly/indirectly at you) :thumbup:

but if you don't have time to post the reasons why you feel that; for instance, Charton Heston should have suffered a horrific death, then would it not be better for you not to post that opinion at all .

you surely must realise that your original opinion would sound offensive to some other posters, but please accept my apology anyway :thumbup:

Daggers · 6 April 2008

sorry for any offence , it was not meant seriously (or directly/indirectly at you)

:crylaugh:

Fantastic.

Nick · 6 April 2008

a) I don't have role models of any sort.
b) I don't give a toss about people's sexuality one way or the other and quite probably wouldn't notice except in particular circumstances.

c) I've never conducted a socio-cultural study of Americans and considering the vastness of the United States and the different backgrounds/environments of the people living there I don't imagine it would be easy.

However I could well imagine that many situations in the US make many people believe they need a right to bear arms and protect themselves.

There's not too much protection available from anyone else in the remoteness of some areas and the debate is not all about fear or protection anyway, it is partly about people's rights to enjoy target shooting and hunting, things which are common in many areas of Europe.

If people want to spend time trying to change a socio-cultural outlook they've every right to but I'm always sceptical of the consequences of social experiments that are forced on folk by activists and idealists and certainly don't believe some lobby should easily dictate to others and affect their established freedoms as seems to be the driving desire of some.

People who don't want to carry guns or own guns or use guns don't have to. Of course they do, that's the point!

But my son's fiance has a collection of guns - quite normal in New Mexico - and I don't see that she's any more a danger to her fellow cirtizens than someone in Switzerland or Canada, whatever her socio-cultural background.

But her child is more likely to use a gun than a child with no access to guns.

When it comes to freedom, not only do I believe in freedom of speech but freedom of choice too. In other words I'd rather have the right to make my own decisions than have someone like you dictate them.

So we should legalise guns for the general public in this country then yeah, Thrac?

Freedom is not a convenient word and something to compromise when it suits. Freedom is something you really believe in or you don't because anything that affects freedom is dictatorship by others whether wise or not. Don't be kidded that it's democracy because the concept of democracy is forever being manipulated and I want nothing of democracy if it goes against whatever I believe in.

Hilarious.

If a democratic vote decreed that all first born sons should be slaughtered would that make it right?

Or if it decreed that the only churches allowed would be Christian, would that be right.

Or that all homosexuals should be castrated - would that be right? - I really don't have the time, just read my posts again.

Zingari · 6 April 2008

Fantastic.

truthfully ,

it was just a tongue in cheek , general statement , not directed at anyone in particular

Zingari · 6 April 2008

nick's resorted to shouting now :unsure:

calm down , it's only a forum

and in case you missed it , i did apologise for any perceived insult :thumbup:

Jon the Hat · 6 April 2008

I always found it interesting that, for his infamous "from my cold dead hands" speech against Al Gore's intention to remove the right to bear arms, he chose to hold a flintlock rifle and not, say, a semi automatic Uzi or AK47, which were of course the weapons under discussion.

It is all very well pulling out the Swiss or Canadian examples, and indeed no one is suggesting that no one should be able to own a weapon, but there can be no doubt whatsoever, that the fact that so may people own guns, not in rural areas which Thracian mentioned, but in the cities and suburbs, lead to the US having a gun crime rate which is beyond belief. A homeowner who has a handgun is more likely to be shot with it, than to shoot someone. So why would you own a handgun?

Flynny · 6 April 2008

Heston was unquestionably a man who stepped all over people sensibilities after tragic incidents. He was also unquestionably a fine actor.

Whilst I'm not a big fan of rednecks wanking all over the 2nd amendment, you do have to remember the man had Alzheimers when filmed for BfC. And Michael Moore isn't a man I'd trust to accurately present my views if he disagreed with them.

Not only this, but he was a tireless civil rights campaigner. So his record is 50/50 at worst.

RIP

This is the most useless post ever. Seriously.

I've complained about this kind of thing before when people die. It's of no help.

TrickyTrev · 6 April 2008

I think it is important to remember that Heston was a champion of "rights" other than just the one about guns that us Europeans are so appalled by. He was also a champion of civil rights and racial equality in the 50's and 60's when plenty of others were not. I'm not against celebrating people's death, when Hussein swung I didn't shead a tear, but at the same time you need to realise that 99% have a lot of good in them, despite their flaws, Including Heston.

Thracian · 6 April 2008

I always found it interesting that, for his infamous "from my cold dead hands" speech against Al Gore's intention to remove the right to bear arms, he chose to hold a flintlock rifle and not, say, a semi automatic Uzi or AK47, which were of course the weapons under discussion.

It is all very well pulling out the Swiss or Canadian examples, and indeed no one is suggesting that no one should be able to own a weapon, but there can be no doubt whatsoever, that the fact that so may people own guns, not in rural areas which Thracian mentioned, but in the cities and suburbs, lead to the US having a gun crime rate which is beyond belief. A homeowner who has a handgun is more likely to be shot with it, than to shoot someone. So why would you own a handgun?

#######

Whether weapon ownership really does offer greater protection against an assailant or not I have serious doubts, particularly in cities. And, as I say, people don't have to own a weapon of any kind.

Despite increasingly draconian gun laws in the UK official figures show there has been a 3% RISE in the last year's gun crime figures, following a 2% rise the previous year suggesting, as I mentioned earlier, that criminals intent on using guns will find people to supply them, just as is the case with knives. The statistics also show a 35% rise in crimes involving imitation weapons.

In the USA I couldn't find specific gun crime figures but while the crime rate had risen sharply in the late 1960s and early 1970s, bringing it to a constant all-time high during much of the 1970s and 1980s, it has drastically declined since 1991 according to Wikipaedia and that despite the liberal gun laws.

Jon the Hat · 6 April 2008

Whether weapon ownership really does offer greater protection against an assailant or not I have serious doubts, particularly in cities. And, as I say, people don't have to own a weapon of any kind.
Despite increasingly draconian gun laws in the UK official figures show there has been a 3% RISE in the last year's gun crime figures, following a 2% rise the previous year suggesting, as I mentioned earlier, that criminals intent on using guns will find people to supply them, just as is the case with knives. The statistics also show a 35% rise in crimes involving imitation weapons.

In the USA I couldn't find specific gun crime figures but while the crime rate had risen sharply in the late 1960s and early 1970s, bringing it to a constant all-time high during much of the 1970s and 1980s, it has drastically declined since 1991 according to Wikipaedia and that despite the liberal gun laws.

The problem over here is quite different I think. It will be hard if not impossible to stop people with cash from buying weapons. Much of the problem with having gun ownership in the general population is that stolen guns are much cheaper to buy, and hence available to a wider customer base.

Nick · 6 April 2008

I always found it interesting that, for his infamous "from my cold dead hands" speech against Al Gore's intention to remove the right to bear arms, he chose to hold a flintlock rifle and not, say, a semi automatic Uzi or AK47, which were of course the weapons under discussion.

It is all very well pulling out the Swiss or Canadian examples, and indeed no one is suggesting that no one should be able to own a weapon, but there can be no doubt whatsoever, that the fact that so may people own guns, not in rural areas which Thracian mentioned, but in the cities and suburbs, lead to the US having a gun crime rate which is beyond belief. A homeowner who has a handgun is more likely to be shot with it, than to shoot someone. So why would you own a handgun?

Whether weapon ownership really does offer greater protection against an assailant or not I have serious doubts, particularly in cities. And, as I say, people don't have to own a weapon of any kind.

Despite increasingly draconian gun laws in the UK official figures show there has been a 3% RISE in the last year's gun crime figures, following a 2% rise the previous year suggesting, as I mentioned earlier, that criminals intent on using guns will find people to supply them, just as is the case with knives. The statistics also show a 35% rise in crimes involving imitation weapons.

In the USA I couldn't find specific gun crime figures but while the crime rate had risen sharply in the late 1960s and early 1970s, bringing it to a constant all-time high during much of the 1970s and 1980s, it has drastically declined since 1991 according to Wikipaedia and that despite the liberal gun laws.

FOOD FOR THOUGHT

Published on Tuesday, May 22, 2007 by

Organize To Fight Gun Crime

by Jesse Jackson

We mourned the murder of Blair Holt on Friday at the House of Hope in Chicago. The 16-year-old died a hero, using his body to shield a friend as his crowded bus was shot up by what was apparently an enraged gang member. Americans saw the horror at Virginia Tech, the worst mass murder in U.S. history, where 32 students died. But this country experiences a Virginia Tech every day, as an average of 32 people are murdered by gunfire. America’s cities — and particularly America’s poor neighborhoods — are terrorized by gun violence.

Our cities don’t manufacture guns. Most don’t allow gun dealers to operate inside the city limits. But our urban borders are even more porous than our national borders. Just outside Chicago, as outside many large cities, the dealers set up shop. There is no limit on the number of guns an individual can buy. And President Bush allowed the assault weapons ban to expire, so there is virtually no limit on the kind of guns that can be purchased.

Any big-city police chief will tell you the easy access to guns contributes directly to the death toll in our cities — and endangers the lives of the men and women who serve on the thin blue line of police.

Metropolitan areas — where most people live — have no use for gun peddlers, for people packing concealed weapons, for kids fighting gang wars with assault weapons. If given their choice, most citizens in cities and suburbs would simply ban handguns, ban assault weapons and ban gun shops and gun dealers. Hunters could buy their guns in the rural areas where they hunt.

Why are the warnings of police chiefs across the country ignored? The answer, largely, is that the gun lobby, led by the National Rifle Association, has been taken over by zealots and promises to punish politicians who want to get guns off our streets. The NRA doesn’t simply play defense. It has gone into statehouses to pass laws prohibiting metropolitan areas from enforcing their own gun bans, and to make licensing easy for concealed weapons. The gun nuts’ answer to Virginia Tech is that students should pack concealed weapons.

Politicians quake before the NRA’s muscle. My own sense, however, is that the NRA is more swagger than actual swat. In 2000, they organized big time against Al Gore. But Gore won the popular vote. He won Michigan and Pennsylvania. Gun-control initiatives passed in Colorado and Oregon, both hunters’ states. The NRA lost the great bulk of the House and Senate races that it pumped the most money in. The NRA has a lot of money and makes a lot of noise, but its members have other concerns: Iraq, health care, the economy.

But the NRA is mobilized. The victims of gun violence are not. The gun dealers sell the guns; innocent people get shot; we mourn. But mourning isn’t enough. This will change only if the victims — the parents and the children, the police and the firefighters — organize. Americans should not have to live in fear of sitting on their porches, walking the streets or riding the buses. There must a victims’ rebellion. They must demand laws that protect them, and value and honor those laws.

The NRA wants guns on streets. The gun dealers profit from the sale. Guns are becoming a statement of manhood. The victims — and their friends, relatives and neighbors, police and firefighters — must demand real gun control. Gun control won’t end violence, but it will lower the casualties and help protect the innocent. It will make it harder for terrorists — foreign and homegrown — to buy guns in America. It will strengthen the porous borders of metropolitan areas against the gun peddlers who profit from selling guns to gangs. It might even allow us to celebrate the life of the next Blair Holt rather than mourn his death.

source: http://www.commondreams.org/archive/2007/05/22/1352/

News

World news

Guns take pride of place in US family values

Despite the spiralling rise in the daily number of shootings in the US, its arms culture has a firmer grip than ever, reports Paul Harris in New York

Paul Harris

The Observer, Sunday October 14 2007 Article history

Shirley Katz is not afraid to fight for her rights. Last week the schoolteacher, 44, went to court in her home town of Medford, Oregon, to protest at her working conditions. Specifically she is outraged she cannot carry a handgun into class. 'I know it is my right to carry that gun,' she said.

atz was in court in the week that someone else took a gun to school in America. This time it was a pupil in Cleveland, Ohio. Asa Coon, 14, walked the corridors of his school, a gun in each hand, shooting two teachers and two students. Then he killed himself. Coon's attempted massacre made headlines. But a more bloody rampage, the murder of six young partygoers by Tyler Peterson, a policeman in Crandon, Wisconsin, got less attention, even in the New York Times - America's newspaper of record - which buried it deep inside the paper.

Guns, and the violence their possessors inflict, have never been more prevalent in America. Gun crime has risen steeply over the past three years. Despite the fact groups such as the National Rifle Association (NRA) consistently claim they are being victimised, there have probably never been so many guns or gun-owners in America - although no one can be sure, as no one keeps a reliable account. One federal study estimated there were 215 million guns, with about half of all US households owning one. Such a staggering number makes America's gun culture thoroughly mainstream.

An average of almost eight people aged under 19 are shot dead in America every day. In 2005 there were more than 14,000 gun murders in the US - with 400 of the victims children. There are 16,000 suicides by firearm and 650 fatal accidents in an average year. Since the killing of John F Kennedy in 1963, more Americans have died by American gunfire than perished on foreign battlefields in the whole of the 20th century.

Studies show that having a gun at home makes it six times more likely that an abused woman will be murdered. A gun in a US home is 22 times more likely to be used in an accidental shooting, a murder or a suicide than in self-defence against an attack. Yet despite those figures US gun culture is not retreating. It is growing. Take Katz's case in Oregon. She brought her cause to court under a state law that gives licensed gun-owners the right to bring a firearm to work: her school is her workplace. Such a debate would have been unthinkable a few decades ago. Now it is the battleground. 'Who would have thought a few years ago, we would even be having this conversation? But this won't stop here,' said Professor Brian Anse Patrick of the University of Toledo in Ohio. Needless to say, last week the judge sided with Katz and she won the first round of her case.

It is a nation awash with guns, from the suburbs to the inner cities and from the Midwest's farms to Manhattan's mansions. Gun-owning groups have been so successful in their cause that it no longer even seems strange to many Americans that Katz should want to go into an English class armed. 'They have made what was once unthinkable thinkable,' said Patrick, a liberal academic. He should know. He owns a gun himself. Even the US critics of gun culture are armed.

To look at the photographs in Kyle Cassidy's book Armed America is to glimpse a surreal world. Or at least it seems that way to many non-Americans. Cassidy spent two years taking portrait shots of gun owners and their weapons across the US.

The result is a disturbing tableau of happy families, often with pets and toddlers, posing with pistols, assault rifles and the sort of heavy machine-guns usually associated with a warzone. 'By the end I had seen so many guns and I knew so much about guns that it no longer seemed unusual,' Cassidy said. He keeps his in a gun safe in his home in Philadelphia. 'This turned into a project not about guns but about a diverse group of people,' he said.

At the cutting edge of weapon culture remains the gun lobby and its most vocal advocate, the NRA. Founded in the 19th century by ex-Civil War army officers dismayed at their troops' lack of marksmanship, the NRA has transformed into the most effective lobbying group in Washington DC. It has scores of lobbyists, millions of dollars in funds and more than three million members. It is highly organised and its huge membership is highly motivated and activist. They can have a huge influence on politics.

In 2000 Vice-President Al Gore supported stricter background checks for gun-buyers and the NRA organised against him, describing the election as the most important since the Civil War. It spent $20m against Gore in an election ending in a razor's edge result. Its influence was especially felt in Gore's home state of Tennessee, which he narrowly lost to NRA gloating. 'Their vote can select the President. They don't get to pick who goes to the White House. But they can tip the balance,' said Patrick.

Democrats have learnt that lesson now. Many shy away from gun control issues, wary of taking on such a vociferous lobby group. In the 2006 mid-term elections the NRA was able to back a historically high 58 Democrats running for office. Every one of them went on to win. Such influence over the past three decades has seen the NRA fight a successful campaign against new gun laws. It has in fact loosened regulations, spreading the ability to legally carry concealed weapons across 39 states. And this has all been done in the face of a fight from anti-gun groups, backed by much of the mainstream media. 'Politicians are so afraid of the gun lobby. They run scared of it,' said Joan Burbick, author of the book Gun Show Nation

But the key question is not about the number of guns in America; it is about why people are armed. For many gun-owners, and a few sociologists, the reason lies in America's past. The frontier society, they say, was populated by gun-wielding settlers who used weapons to feed their families and ward off hostile bandits and Indians. America was thus born with a gun in its hand. Unfortunately much of this history is simply myth. The vast majority of settlers were farmers, not fighters. The task of killing Indians was left to the military and - most effectively - European diseases. Guns in colonial times were much rarer than often thought, not least because they were so expensive that few settlers could afford them. Indeed one study of early gun homicides showed that a musket was as likely to be used as club to beat someone to death as actually fired.

But many Americans believe the myth. The role of the gun is now enshrined in mass popular culture and has huge patriotic significance. Hence the fact that gun ownership is still a constitutional right, in case America is ever invaded and needs to form a popular militia (as hard as that event might be to imagine). It also explains why guns are so prevalent in Hollywood. Currently playing in US cinemas is the Jodie Foster film The Brave One, a classic vigilante movie of the wronged woman turning to the power of the pistol to murder the criminals who killed her boyfriend. Foster's character is played as undeniably heroic. 'There is a fascination with guns in our culture. All you need to make a movie is a girl and a gun,' said Cassidy.

But this worship of the gun in many ways springs from economics and social problems, not the historic frontier. It took mass production and mass marketing to really popularise firearms. The Civil War saw mass arms manufacturing explode in America, including making 200,000 Colt .44 pistols alone. It saw guns become familiar and cheaper for millions of Americans. The later 19th century saw gun companies using marketing techniques to sell their weapons, often invoking invented frontier imagery to do so. That carries on today. There are more than 2,000 gun shows each year, selling hundreds of thousands of guns. It is big business and business needs to sell more and more guns to keep itself profitable. 'They will do anything to sell guns,' said Burbick.

But there are deeper issues at work too. The gun lobby's main argument is that guns protect their owners. They deter criminals and attackers whom - the gun lobby points out helpfully - are often armed themselves. Some surveys estimate there are more than two million 'defensive' uses of firearms each year. But others say that this argument is a shield, using guns as a way of deflecting harder arguments about how crime is caused by economics, poverty and racism. 'The argument over guns redefines a lot of social issues as simple aspects of crime,' said Burbick. She argues that a way to make Americans feel safer from crime is not to arm them with guns but to tackle the causes of crime: urban poverty, joblessness, drug addiction and racial divisions. 'We have to take back the language of human security. To talk about solving those social issues in terms of safety, not just letting the gun lobby control that language,' she said.

It is a powerful argument. Critics of America's gun culture often point to other nations with high levels of gun ownership - such as Canada and Switzerland - but much lower levels of violent crime. The fact is that America itself is equally divided. Patrick lives in a quiet, rural part of Michigan just across the state line from Ohio and the town of Toledo where he works. 'I would be amazed if anyone within four miles of me did not have a gun,' he said 'But our homicide rate is zero.'

Then look at where Cassidy lives. He has an apartment in Philadelphia, a city that is just as flooded with guns as Patrick's rural idyll, but also suffers from inner-city social ills. It has a stratospheric murder rate. 'There is a murder here every day. This is something that America has to come to terms with,' he said. Yet the differences do not lie with the simple existence of guns. Both places are full of them. They lie with the root causes of crime and violence, such as poverty and drugs, that blight many big cities. Guns seem neither to be totally the problem and certainly not the solution.

However, that is a debate few in America are having. In the meantime, the gun culture is so firmly entrenched and society so full of guns that there is little prospect of it retreating. Even those who advocate much tighter laws have long accepted defeat of the ideal of creating a society where guns are rare in public life, or even completely absent. 'That notion is absurd. There is no way to de-gun America,' said Patrick.

To cap a grim week, as Katz was winning her court battle in Oregon police in Pennsylvania were giving details of a raid on the home of a teenager who was plotting to attack a school. They found seven home-made grenades and an assault rifle. His mother had bought it for him at a gun show. The boy was just 14.

America's worst shooting sprees

Virginia Tech

Seung-Hui Cho a Korean American, was a loner who scared classmates. In April he killed 32 students and staff, then himself, at Virginia Tech, the worst US school shooting.

Amish killings

On a Monday morning in October 2006, truck driver Charles Roberts opened fire in a school in Paradise, Pennsylvania. He killed five children, then shot himself.

Columbine

Colorado misfits Dylan Klebold and Eric Harris assaulted their high school, Columbine, in April 1999, killing 12 students and a teacher. They then committed suicide.

Luby's massacre

In October, 1991 George Hennard drove a truck into Luby's Cafe in Killeen, Texas, shot dead 23 people and injured another 20 before shooting himself.

'Going postal'

Patrick Sherrill, an Oklahoma postal employee, took a gun to work in August 1986, shot 14 staff, then killed himself.

McDonald's massacre

In January 1984 in San Ysidro, California, James Huberty killed 21 with an Uzi and other guns at a McDonald's. He was killed by a Swat sniper.

Texas tower shooting

In 1966 Charles Whitman murdered his wife and mother, then climbed a University of Texas observation tower in Austin. He shot and killed 14 people before police shot him.

source: http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2007/oct/1...a.usgunviolence