quote:

---

Originally posted by Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras:
So sick of the endless gun violence in America. The NRA is a lobby for the gun and ammo industry. Welcome to capitalism in America. Yet, if the majority of the electorate truly wanted to see effective gun control laws enacted, one might think that they could express their collective will in the face of the cynical lobbying of the NRA. What will it take? Will it ever happen?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Zach82:
I don't know the numbers on gun control, but people born after 1980, having come of age during a massive recession and quagmire abroad, have a significantly different political outlook than previous generations. Right now they don't have the clout to elect everyone they want, becuase the Baby Boom generation is so large, but they will sooner or later.

If it's any indication, just over 50% of them like the sound of socialism, which is kinda mind boggling. Changes are afoot.

---

Your keyboard to God's ears, buddy. Do you have any stats on that? I know that the younger generation is saner, but I hadn't heard that applied to gun control or somethign you might call socialism. Do you have any stats on that? I'd hate to get too optimistic. Mind, people become more conservative as they age and acquire money, so perhaps the stats we really need are how 20s and 30s compare to previous 20s and 30s.
 

---

Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on :
 
Invariably these shootings seem to be by 'quiet and reserved' seemingly perfectly ordinary people. So gun availability is the problem. Ordinary folk flip - gun to hand - unimaginable consequences.

I read that far more people were killed by toddlers setting off guns by accident in the USA than by terrorists.

It figures.


 

---

Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gwai:
Your keyboard to God's ears, buddy. Do you have any stats on that? I know that the younger generation is saner, but I hadn't heard that applied to gun control or somethign you might call socialism. Do you have any stats on that? I'd hate to get too optimistic. Mind, people become more conservative as they age and acquire money, so perhaps the stats we really need are how 20s and 30s compare to previous 20s and 30s.

---

quote:

---

"In 2010, Pew found that two-thirds of Millennials favored a bigger government with more services over a cheaper one with fewer services, a margin 25 points above the rest of the population. While large majorities of older and middle-aged Americans favored repealing Obamacare in late 2012, Millennials favored expanding it, by 17 points. Millennials are substantially more pro–labor union than the population at large."

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Zach82:
I don't know the numbers on gun control, but people born after 1980, having come of age during a massive recession and quagmire abroad, have a significantly different political outlook than previous generations. Right now they don't have the clout to elect everyone they want, becuase the Baby Boom generation is so large, but they will sooner or later.

If it's any indication, just over 50% of them like the sound of socialism, which is kinda mind boggling. Changes are afoot.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Zach82:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gwai:
Your keyboard to God's ears, buddy. Do you have any stats on that? I know that the younger generation is saner, but I hadn't heard that applied to gun control or somethign you might call socialism. Do you have any stats on that? I'd hate to get too optimistic. Mind, people become more conservative as they age and acquire money, so perhaps the stats we really need are how 20s and 30s compare to previous 20s and 30s.

---

Shazam.

If this article is to be believed, it simply isn't true that people become more conservative as they age. People seem to make up their minds in their mid 20's and stick with it to the end. People born after 1980 have overwhelmingly made up their minds to head to the left.

quote:

---

"In 2010, Pew found that two-thirds of Millennials favored a bigger government with more services over a cheaper one with fewer services, a margin 25 points above the rest of the population. While large majorities of older and middle-aged Americans favored repealing Obamacare in late 2012, Millennials favored expanding it, by 17 points. Millennials are substantially more pro–labor union than the population at large."

---

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Zach82:
I don't know the numbers on gun control, but people born after 1980, having come of age during a massive recession and quagmire abroad, have a significantly different political outlook than previous generations. Right now they don't have the clout to elect everyone they want, becuase the Baby Boom generation is so large, but they will sooner or later.

If it's any indication, just over 50% of them like the sound of socialism, which is kinda mind boggling. Changes are afoot.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Justinian:
Scandinavian style socialism works really well by the evidence.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Antisocial Alto:
Changing the gun laws (or 2nd Amendment) is probably made more difficult by our system of representation, too- with all the states having an equal voice in the Senate, rural states can exert a lot more control than they would if it were only based on population.

What I can't understand is some people's insistence on absolutely NO restrictions on guns that are meant to kill humans. I can totally understand why people in rural areas want to be sure they can own hunting weapons, but why should people object to regulating handguns or even just big clips?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gwai:
Well, I have very strong doubts that most Americans mean the same thing by "socialism" that a European would. I think that explains some of what we are talking about.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Justinian:
Scandinavian style socialism works really well by the evidence.

---

Scandinavian-style socialism works because Scandinavian countries are significantly more monocultural than the US or UK. People there identify with each other a lot more than we do, and are therefore much happier with seeing other people get benefits they don't get.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Justinian:
Scandinavian style socialism works really well by the evidence.

---

Scandinavian-style socialism works because Scandinavian countries are significantly more monocultural than the US or UK. People there identify with each other a lot more than we do, and are therefore much happier with seeing other people get benefits they don't get.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mousethief:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Justinian:
Scandinavian style socialism works really well by the evidence.

---

Scandinavian-style socialism works because Scandinavian countries are significantly more monocultural than the US or UK. People there identify with each other a lot more than we do, and are therefore much happier with seeing other people get benefits they don't get.

---

You've explained why they have it, but not why it works.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Socialism - UK and Europe: Being responsible to your fellows.
Socialism - US: Damn Gubmint is taking over! Next step: Communism!

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gwai:
Well, I have very strong doubts that most Americans mean the same thing by "socialism" that a European would. I think that explains some of what we are talking about.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Doublethink:
*steps carefully around the pond war*

What I don't understand is, how if this guy had two firearms offenses, he still had a gun. I thought that would have been against US existing laws - after all you can disenfranchised if you have a criminal conviction can't you ?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gwai:
Well, I have very strong doubts that most Americans mean the same thing by "socialism" that a European would. I think that explains some of what we are talking about.

---

Most Americans haven't a clue what socialism is. Ditto social democracy. Nor the differentiation of these economic-political forms from simple reformist welfare statism on one end and Marxist-Leninist communism on the other.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras:
So sick of the endless gun violence in America. The NRA is a lobby for the gun and ammo industry. Welcome to capitalism in America. Yet, if the majority of the electorate truly wanted to see effective gun control laws enacted, one might think that they could express their collective will in the face of the cynical lobbying of the NRA. What will it take? Will it ever happen?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras:
Yet, if the majority of the electorate truly wanted to see effective gun control laws enacted, one might think that they could express their collective will in the face of the cynical lobbying of the NRA.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mousethief:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras:
Yet, if the majority of the electorate truly wanted to see effective gun control laws enacted, one might think that they could express their collective will in the face of the cynical lobbying of the NRA.

---

No. The way the legislative districts are gerrymandered right now, the far right of the Republican Party has created itself a huge sinecure. The majority of Americans could want something, but the majority in legislative district after legislative district is such as to shred any conservative who dares to vote for sanity.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Zach82:
Made even worse by the Hastert rule, which won't let any House bills come to a vote unless a majority of the majority party supports it. With the Tea Party making every Republican representative terrified of losing his seat, it basically means nothing ever comes to a vote without support from the far right.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by no prophet:
Probably I'm full of it, but the attempts to even discuss gun control rationally usually end with someone being totally irrational. I think it is because Americans love guns and guns and related violence are part of their mythology and culture so much so that they really are not open to examination. Americans think settling their disagreements with guns is normal and reasonable, which seems to be one part of the equation, with the other parts being fear, foreboding and grief.

---

quote:

---

I travel to the USA every year or two. The experience of being there is not so frightening as the gun violence suggests. But I worry about the paranoia expressed when I hang out with people met on trips. There's something deeply troubling with it.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mousethief:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Zach82:
Made even worse by the Hastert rule, which won't let any House bills come to a vote unless a majority of the majority party supports it. With the Tea Party making every Republican representative terrified of losing his seat, it basically means nothing ever comes to a vote without support from the far right.

---

Boehner needs to grow a pair and buck the Hastert rule. Hahahahaah! Sorry, got a little disconnected from reality there.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mousethief:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Zach82:
Made even worse by the Hastert rule, which won't let any House bills come to a vote unless a majority of the majority party supports it. With the Tea Party making every Republican representative terrified of losing his seat, it basically means nothing ever comes to a vote without support from the far right.

---

Boehner needs to grow a pair and buck the Hastert rule. Hahahahaah! Sorry, got a little disconnected from reality there.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Porridge:
most of us don't travel -- we can't afford it;

---

quote:

---

Marvin the Martian: Scandinavian-style socialism works because Scandinavian countries are significantly more monocultural than the US or UK.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras:
The thing is, gun violence has become so much more common in America, as has the personal possession of large arsenals.

---

quote:

---

Mere Nick: Gun violence has been dropping for about two decades.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mere Nick:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras:
The thing is, gun violence has become so much more common in America, as has the personal possession of large arsenals.

---

Gun violence has been dropping for about two decades.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by LeRoc:

quote:

---

Mere Nick: Gun violence has been dropping for about two decades.

---

Still it's really high compared with other Western countries. It's not even a gradual difference, there's a very big gap there.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by LeRoc:

quote:

---

Mere Nick: Gun violence has been dropping for about two decades.

---

Still it's really high compared with other Western countries. It's not even a gradual difference, there's a very big gap there.

---

quote:

---

Mere Nick: So, I don't buy the argument that we kill because we have guns.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mere Nick:

quote:

---

Originally posted by LeRoc:

quote:

---

Mere Nick: Gun violence has been dropping for about two decades.

---

Still it's really high compared with other Western countries. It's not even a gradual difference, there's a very big gap there.

---

It is dropping while gun availability is increasing, if anything, based upon every state now having concealed carry. So, I don't buy the argument that we kill because we have guns. We kill because we decide to kill. Over the past couple of decades fewer and fewer people have been giving the consent of their minds to that act.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by LeRoc:

quote:

---

Mere Nick: So, I don't buy the argument that we kill because we have guns.

---

I'm not really interested in the reasons why you kill here. I'm just looking at plain evidence:

Countries that have strict gun control → few fun deaths
Countries that have no gun control → many gun deaths

Hence, if you want to avoid gun deaths, impose strict gun control.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mere Nick:
So, I don't buy the argument that we kill because we have guns. We kill because we decide to kill.

---

quote:

---

Magic Wand: Um, Mexico?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by LeRoc:

quote:

---

Magic Wand: Um, Mexico?

---

Mexican gun laws are complex. While certain types of firearms are restricted to the police and military, the right to keep certain arms is anchored in the Constitution. Either way, gun control isn't just about laws, it's also about effective control on the streets. So, I don't think you can easily classify this country as "very strict gun control".

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Magic Wand:
The vast majority of gun violence is perpetrated with weapons that aren't legally owned in the first place.

---

quote:

---

Magic Wand:We could enact sweeping gun control legislation tomorrow, and the effect on mitigating gun violence would be minimal to non-existent.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jay-Emm:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Magic Wand:
The vast majority of gun violence is perpetrated with weapons that aren't legally owned in the first place.

---

I think last time it turned out that the vast majority of gun violence (in the USA) was committed by guns that were legally owned in the first place, and the second, third, penultimate...
The number that were legally owned in the last place was slightly more dubious (more or less hinging on technicalities-there does appear to be a funny dance with the definition of legally owned).

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by LeRoc:

quote:

---

Magic Wand:We could enact sweeping gun control legislation tomorrow, and the effect on mitigating gun violence would be minimal to non-existent.

---

Many European countries show that it can be done.

---

quote:

---

Magic Wand: Did these European countries simply pass legislation, or did they also remove most guns from public ownership? How was that done? Would you propose the same method for removing guns from Americans? Do you think this would work?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by LeRoc:

quote:

---

Magic Wand: Did these European countries simply pass legislation, or did they also remove most guns from public ownership? How was that done? Would you propose the same method for removing guns from Americans? Do you think this would work?

---

I don't know what would work. Probably a combination of a number of things: tighter gun laws, effective control on the streets, and transforming society so that motivations to commit crimes lesson. In which proportion and correlation these measures should be implemented is a politician's choice, not mine. But if I may make a suggestion: start by passing the proposed legislation on background checks, and work from there.

In all Western countries that manage to have low numbers of gun killings, tighter laws are a part of the package.

---

quote:

---

Mere Nick: Let's take your Brazil, for example. According to this article

---

quote:

---

Mere Nick: We tried Prohibition here from 1919 to 1933. It was a boon to organized crime. Same with our drug laws, and it would be the same with gun laws that you appear to want us to have. All you really do when you outlaw things that people want is change the seller and bring in unforeseen and undesirable consequences.

---

quote:

---

orfeo: I find myself asking, which countries of the world would the USA aspire to be compared with?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Horseman Bree:
The rest of us would be quite happy with anything that slowed the rate of gun-smuggling into other countries, particularly Mexico and Canada.

Shoot each other in your country - OK by me...well, at least, you consented to the situation.

Why should we be forced to adopt your peculiar ideas? Every gun-owner I know around here is pretty firm on the ideas of licensing, training and control of one's weapon, and very scornful of the pathological addiction to flame-spewing fake-orgasmic* devices shown south of the border.

*I'm echoing the author Stephen King, who has the same disdain. Mainers have somewhat better sense.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by LeRoc:

quote:

---

Mere Nick:[qb] Let's take your Brazil, for example. According to this article

---

If you've read the article, it is saying that stricter gun laws in Brazil since 2003 brought gun deaths down. Exactly what I'm arguing.

---

quote:

---

Brazil's laws aren't nearly strict enough, however. In 2005 there was a referendum here trying to forbid the sale of firearms. Sadly, it failed. That's one of the reasons why crime rate is still quite high.

---

quote:

---

We have had firearm Prohibition for a long time here in Europe, and it's working really well.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by orfeo:
It was actually reading about Cascadia, while in Cascadia, that pointed me to a book from the 1980s called The Nine Nations of North America. I've got vague plans to read it at some point, even though it's several decades old the general idea seems plausible.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mere Nick:

quote:

---

Originally posted by LeRoc:
34,147 in 2007, 34,678 in 2008, over 36,000 in 2010.

---

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jay-Emm:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mere Nick:

quote:

---

Originally posted by LeRoc:
34,147 in 2007, 34,678 in 2008, over 36,000 in 2010.

---

---

And 51000 in 2003 which would be the before case*.

(though also according to the same it's increasing gun use in the police, which strikes me as a bit risky, but arguably could help)

*I don't quite know if the methodology is the same, so there may be some correction to match it. And 2003 was the peak/2008 the trough so there may be regression to the mean/correlation but no causation etc...

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mere Nick:
... Exactly what I'm arguing. ... 34,147 in 2007, 34,678 in 2008, over 36,000 in 2010.
...

---

quote:

---

Mere Nick: 34,147 in 2007, 34,678 in 2008, over 36,000 in 2010.

---

quote:

---

Mere Nick: So, to say more guns means more gun deaths is a claim that does not appear to be true.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by LeRoc:
But all your number juggling can't take away this truth.

---

quote:

---

Mere Nick: The truth is that we kill more than most European countries because we choose to do it.

---

quote:

---

Nick: It is also very doubtful that politicians protected by taxpayer-funded armed guards will be listened to by very many people when those politicians try to disarm the general public that pays their salaries.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mere Nick:
... The truth is that we kill more than most European countries because we choose to do it. ...

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mere Nick:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jay-Emm:
And 51000 in 2003 which would be the before case*.

*[disclaimer which turned out to be useful]

---

I find 39,300 for 2003.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras:
Welcome to capitalism in America. Yet, if the majority of the electorate truly wanted to see effective gun control laws enacted, one might think that they could express their collective will in the face of the cynical lobbying of the NRA. What will it take? Will it ever happen?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by moron:
... honest competent gun owners ...

---

Honest competent gun owners shoot people too. They die by suicide. Their children and their playmates die accidentally. George Zimmermann was an honest, competent gun owner on "Neighbourhood Watch" and he shot his neighbour. There is no guarantee that an "honest competent gun owner" will demonstrate good judgment and shoot accurately in every situation. Even police officers miss their target or shoot the wrong person on a regular basis - in the shooting at the Empire State Building last summer, the "bad guy" killed one person, the police killed the "bad guy", and the police shot and wounded nine other people FTW.

Look at automobile safety: we've long known that while driver training and skill are important, passive safety measures save lives even when drivers screw up. Anti-lock brakes work even if the driver floors the brake pedal. Air bags or automatic seatbelts protect people who forget to buckle up. Driving is much, much safer than it was even a generation ago, not through labelling people as "good drivers" or "bad drivers" but by doing things that help everyone be a SAFER driver.
 

---

Posted by Porridge (# 15405) on :
 
What Soror Magna said.

In addition, neither "honesty" nor "competence" are well-defined conditions. Most of us would no doubt describe ourselves as "honest," but are we completely honest about everything, and in all situations?

Human beings aren't even capable of this; our emotions and faulty judgment lead us to assorted small dishonesties every day, and the one person we're most often dishonest to and about is ourselves. "Oh, my cataract surgery isn't scheduled until next month, and my night vision is crap, but I really, really want to go Event X tomorrow evening; I can manage night driving this one time."

It's barely a step to this: "Oh, that tremor in my hands is getting more noticeable, but I can still handle my gun."

Neither honesty nor competence are permanent conditions. Age, illness, and even some prescription medications can work changes on us that affect both competence and judgment.

People given permits to own and/or carry firearms should be required (A) to practice under official observation with them on a regular basis; and (B) to be re-tested at intervals at least as frequently as we get our eyes tested for driving license renewal.
 

---

Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :
 
Also agreeing.

Here's the thing about automobiles: we allow them and use them, despite knowing they're capable of killing, because of the benefits they provide. And we do lots of things to minimise the risks of death or injury.

Not only is the USA not even close to doing things to minimise the risks of death or injury from guns, it's allowing them in situations where there's no demonstrable benefit.

Australia didn't ban guns. But it kept them on the farms and in the shooting ranges. And put them into locked cabinets kept separate from the ammunition. And banned the KINDS of guns that farmers and sports shooters didn't need.

Sure, we DO still have some illegal guns out on the streets and in the hands of gangs. But they are still more difficult for them to get hold of, because there isn't such a ready supply of legal guns for them to swipe.

[ 22. September 2013, 01:18: Message edited by: orfeo ]
 

---

Posted by moron (# 206) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by moron:

to Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras (and I'm still waiting for you other three for Something Anything* which would be both effective and achievable ):

it might be useful if you'd share with us what new controls you would like to have in place, and how they would help. TIA.

---

This is a genuine request. I've been reading these threads for over a decade and have yet to see anyone present** suggestions (quite a few ill-thought knee-jerk half-measures though) which would feasibly address the reality of over 200 millions guns extant in the USA.


(And if you don't hear back from me soon it is because I am preparing to tomorrow put my kayak in the Missouri River at Kaw Point in KCMO to paddle to Coopers Landing near Columbia. Lewis and Clark RULE.

Wish you were here.)


* Long Live Todd Rundgren

** Someone could almost begin to get the impression its more about winding up.
 

---

Posted by Jay-Emm (# 11411) on :
 
Well the 'ideal' outcome we want is:
Guns not used to commit crimes & any plus points of gun ownership kept (hunting, firing range, no net loss to self defense).

As such a now 'illegal' gun kept safely and with the intent to use responsibly is not a immediate problem. The problem is (a)if they get transferred to (violent) criminals (via theft or just giving or selling), (b)or if they are already owned by (violent) criminals. (c)Or if they turn violent (e.g. a crime of passion or breakdown).

(regarding b)
The guns belonging to violent criminals aren't much use if they are kept hidden.
If they are used they are as likely to be caught and taken out of circulation as they are now, potentially more so with heavier control as they will now stand out (but regardless no less).
In short, if nothing can be done we just end up with the status quo, which will slowly improve*.


(regarding c)

At the moment it is (as has been shown) relatively easy for someone (mwaspy) on the verge of breakdown to build a stockpile of guns without it flagging. According to pro-gun posters a fair proportion of this is more a symptom than actually making them more effective, but in any case a limit of one gun a year or some other forms of restraint would probably allow them to be spotted far earlier (or make them delay their crime, again giving more chance of them slipping up). There would have to be some compromise, but any inconveniences would be far worse to the wannabe criminal than the law-abiding citizen.


[That still leaves crimes of passion to deal with]

(regarding a)
The first transfer to look at is from shop/gun shows (21% of illegal guns)

As demonstrated in the wake of the mass shootings it has also been shown that license checking in shops can be patchy, this is of obvious benefit to criminals with a known record and no benefit to l-a-c (yes they may be breaking the law, but you don't not put locks on your door because burglars are breaking the law).

So having much reduced this avenue, although of course if we want our L-A-C to have a gun, then our apparently law-abiding-criminals will also have one.

The next transfer to look at is that from friends/family (38%).
They are clearly not being responsible with their guns, either knowingly or unknowingly giving them to criminals. They should be held to account.
At the moment there is no such mechanism if the police suspect (and as in much of the case the transfer was legal, not much they can do).

Our previous register, says that they have a gun, if they can't show it they have some explaining (which may reveal fraud on the part of the 'seller'). If they are systematically arming their criminal friends this will be picked up and can be investigated (maybe there was a good reason). If the friend gets caught with the gun that's consistent with one they had, again your in a much better position.

Theft and Burglary (9%).
The previous rule should apply, you have to explain how you were such a fuckwit that you lost your gun. Hopefully this should encourage due care.
In any case this will be of benefit, as a gun that's stolen or taken off your body is of course a negative effect to self-defence.

The remaining 24%, Fences and Dealers are of course dealt with by the previous steps, they get their guns from somewhere.

That still leaves 6% 'other', with a massive dent in the normal sources these routes should stand out.

[ 22. September 2013, 16:28: Message edited by: Jay-Emm ]
 

---

Posted by Horseman Bree (# 5290) on :
 
OK, I'm in a Hell-call anyway, so I can be perplexed in a way that may annoy just about everyone. So be it.

All of the following assume that guns are valid for hunting, for varmint control, for target shooting and similar practises that are not harmful to humans:

Why does any Christian need a gun with the view of injuring or killing someone?

Why, in the self-proclaimed Most Christian Nation on Earth, does anyone, especially the Christians, value the idea of possessing assault weapons/machine guns/other weapons designed for the maximum rate of fire?

And why is there near-hysteria among so many of the population about the mere concept of something as basic as background checks, given that many, if not most, agree that certain people should be discouraged from having guns?

Help me out here. I do not understand why, among people who are frantically fearful of very minor health threats, there is such a fascination with increasing the death rate (which is the only purpose of having guns*).

Quoting Morf Morford

quote:

---

But this student who took offense at even the imagined ‘control’ of guns (and dropped the class about a week later) made me realize that the issue quite possibly was never guns or their ‘control’ but a deliberate, almost distraught confusion bordering on delirium.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras:
So sick of the endless gun violence in America.

---

quote:

---

k-mann: What do you think about Chicago? The windy city has the strictest gun control laws in the US, yet (or perhaps therefore) has the most gun violence.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mousethief:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mere Nick:
So, I don't buy the argument that we kill because we have guns. We kill because we decide to kill.

---

But it's much much easier to kill if you have a gun. In order to kill with a non-projectile weapon you have to close.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by k-mann:
Does criminals care about gun control?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mere Nick:
If I were a criminal I'd be all for gun control. Just think of the money I could make selling them.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by LeRoc:

quote:

---

k-mann: What do you think about Chicago? The windy city has the strictest gun control laws in the US, yet (or perhaps therefore) has the most gun violence.

---

I guess this shows that it isn't enough to have strict gun laws in one city.

---

quote:

---

k-mann: Or it shows that gun control laws doesn't remove gun violence. Do criminals buy their guns at a authorised shop and have them registered?

---

quote:

---

k-mann: But more people are killed in traffic. Should we have equally strict car control laws?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by IconiumBound:
After three pages I'm ready to answer the title of this thread "NO!"

But just to make my point, what about banning on-line gun sales? Wouldn't that be easy to control for violations? Maybe the NSA could monitor it?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by k-mann:
Do criminals buy their guns at a authorised shop and have them registered?

---

quote:

---

mousethief: So many murderers are in the "We completely didn't expect him to do this" class

---

I have a number of friends who died as the victims of this
 

---

Posted by sabine (# 3861) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by orfeo:

Not only is the USA not even close to doing things to minimise the risks of death or injury from guns, it's allowing them in situations where there's no demonstrable benefit.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Horseman Bree:

And why is there near-hysteria among so many of the population about the mere concept of something as basic as background checks, given that many, if not most, agree that certain people should be discouraged from having guns?

---

quote:

---

posted previously
But just to make my point, what about banning on-line gun sales? Wouldn't that be easy to control for violations? Maybe the NSA could monitor it?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

What sorts of online sales do you refer to?

Interstate firearm sales (with a couple of exceptions involving collectors with Federal licenses*) are required to go through a licensed firearms dealer, with all the requisite background checks, etc. It isn't like ordering a book from Barnes and Noble.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by IconiumBound:
I don't know about the final on line transaction but I saw a Remington 870 pump action (semi-automatic) shot gun advertised for $88.99. Couldn't anyone simply make up answers to any queries?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Magic Wand:
Having read a couple more pages of this since my last comment, I'm going to go ahead and suggest that the answer to the OP's question is an emphatic no, at least in the short (the next fifty years or so) term.

....

For purposes of discussion, however, I'm interested in what specific approach(es) people think should be tried. Better background checks? Aligning the background check system with medical records? Attempting an amendment? A ban, followed by confiscation? Something else entirely?

---

quote:

---

I'm continually amazed at how often people are able to split the world into 'criminals' and 'non-criminals'. Black hats and white hats.

---

quote:

---

...which assumes either that Americans will line up quietly to turn in their guns and ammunition...

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jane R:
Magic Wand:

quote:

---

...which assumes either that Americans will line up quietly to turn in their guns and ammunition...

---

Well, that's the question, isn't it. Surely the majority of Americans are law-abiding citizens? I mean, when Australia outlawed certain types of automatic weapon that's exactly what happened. And I daresay violent computer games are just as popular in Australia as they are in America; they're certainly popular here in the UK.

If a new law was passed restricting ownership of semi-automatic weapons to the police and military and requiring ordinary citizens to surrender these weapons to the authorities, would all these lovely people really refuse to comply with the law and gun down anyone who tried to enforce it?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jane R:
Well, that's the question, isn't it. Surely the majority of Americans are law-abiding citizens?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mousethief:
Actually I think you'll find the "inalienable rights" thing is in the Declaration of Independence, which unlike the Constitution is NOT the law of the land.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jane R:
I think the problem in understanding your (collective) attitude to guns, for the average British person, is that most of us have absolutely no experience of them and (probably) don't know anyone who owns a gun.

---

quote:

---

Our European ancestors were facing trials, tribulations, and persecutions back there. They couldn't follow their God-given faith. (Christianity, of course--nothing else counts.) So these Pilgrims bravely sailed to the New World, guided by the Manifest Destiny that God prepared for them. (Light to the world, etc.)

They bravely built settlements. They met and mingled with the local savages, who initially helped the Pilgrims learn how to live on this continent. But there was a falling out: the Indians didn't want to accept our clearly superior ways, nor acknowledge that God Had Given US This Place To Tame. So we fought them, which was unfortunate; but they clearly had it coming, because they weren't following God's will. Darn it, we tried to help the survivors out with education. We even gave them land to live on. We couldn't have been any fairer than that.

We civilized this country, with guns, determination, and grit, pushing ever westward. We cleared the land, and made it useful. We were pioneers. A man could work hard, get his own land, build a house with his own hands (and, sometimes, help from the neighbors). He had a God-given right to protect it from varmints, thieves, Injuns, and meddling governments. No one has the right to interfere with that--ever.

We're still pioneers. We're still manifestly destined. We lead the world in democracy, innovation, and military strength. We won't start a war (unless it's in our best interests); but, by gum, we will finish anyone who brings war to us.

May God bless and keep the United States of America, and may we always kick the asses of anyone who gets in our God-given way.

---

quote:

---

If you own guns, no one is coming to take them. If you are a law-abiding citizen who wants to legally buy a gun, no one is trying to prevent that.

---

quote:

---

I would say that many Americans would make a distinction between just and unjust laws. This is, in large part, a legacy of chattel slavery, segregation, and finally the Civil Rights movement; Americans largely (and yes, I realize there are more than a few exceptions) believe that many, most, or all of these laws were unjust. From what I've read, my guess would be that a law to disarm American citizens would be viewed by many as an unjust law, and hence not a law at all.

---

quote:

---

This would include any number of law enforcement professionals, thereby calling into question the ability of the government to enforce such legislation (Google "oath keepers" for more information).

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Golden Key:
{Note: I DO NOT ENDORSE THIS!!!}

[QUOTE]Our European ancestors were facing trials, tribulations, and persecutions back there. They couldn't follow their God-given faith. (Christianity, of course--nothing else counts.) So these Pilgrims bravely sailed to the New World, guided by the Manifest Destiny that God prepared for them. (Light to the world, etc.)

---

quote:

---

I think we Brits are highly compromised on this issue. We're really a rather warlike people, there's a definite buzz in the air when our forces are engaged abroad. Preferably far abroad where, reputedly, there are different kinds of people who can live with bombs and bullets. But weapons on home turf? Routinely armed police? No no no no no. Not the British way at all.

---

quote:

---

I've heard it argued, have no idea how fairly, that, far from fleeing religious intolerance, the Pilgrim Fathers were disgusted at the tolerance in England of varying (albeit Protestant Christian) traditions, and wanted to set up their own colony of Pristine Puritan Probity.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jane R:
We usually throw eggs at politicians when we're annoyed with them. Gets the point across, makes a mess of their clothing and leaves them alive afterwards to be mercilessly mocked by the press.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jane R:
I think it's the first time for years that we haven't jumped into a war with both feet when the Americans told us to.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tea:
Magic Wand's gun confiscation scenario is a red herring.

Those calling for an end to gun violence aren't calling for an end to gun ownership. As one progressive campaign group put it:

quote:

---

If you own guns, no one is coming to take them. If you are a law-abiding citizen who wants to legally buy a gun, no one is trying to prevent that.

---

Trying to shift the discussion from a reasoned debate about gun control measures - such as background checks or ending sales of assault weapons - to the evocation of lurid scenes of federal agents killing children is a standard move in the right-wing playbook.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tea:


Originally posted by Magic Wand

quote:

---

I would say that many Americans would make a distinction between just and unjust laws. This is, in large part, a legacy of chattel slavery, segregation, and finally the Civil Rights movement; Americans largely (and yes, I realize there are more than a few exceptions) believe that many, most, or all of these laws were unjust. From what I've read, my guess would be that a law to disarm American citizens would be viewed by many as an unjust law, and hence not a law at all.

---

Are you seriously suggesting that background checks or limits on magazine capacity are as unjust as slavery or Jim Crow laws?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tea:

quote:

---

This would include any number of law enforcement professionals, thereby calling into question the ability of the government to enforce such legislation (Google "oath keepers" for more information).

---

I did, and here are some of the results:

This Mother Jones article from 2010 identified the Oath Keepers as a group of extreme right wingers.

This summer 2013 report from the Southern Poverty Law Center shows how the Oath Keepers are part of a radical right who feed on bizarre conspiracy theories regarding measures to prevent gun violence.

Here we learn that Charles Dyer, whom the Oath keepers identified as their "official liaison to the U.S. Marine Corps" is now one year into the lengthy prison sentence he is serving for the rape of his seven year old daughter.

As this sermon makes clear, Chuck Baldwin, the official "Chaplain for Oath Keepers," is a raving antisemite.

Seriously, it's the courts, not law enforcement officers, that get to decide whether or not a law is constitutional.

I am fairly sure that these courts would agree with most Americans that the right of the individual to own a gun is compatible with reasonable regulation and restrictions.

Of course, rightwingers have worked hard to obfuscate the issue; shifting the debate to the confiscation scenario is one of their obfuscatory tactics.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Golden Key:
Magic Wand--

When/where did SPLC say that traditionalist Catholics are terrorists? And of what particular group were they speaking? Tridentines? The group Mel Gibson's father is in? Violent protesters against abortion?

Thanks.

---

quote:

---

These are hate groups according to the SPLC. The claim to make a distinction between "radical" traditionalist Catholics and ordinary traditionalist Catholics, but some of the groups they name are fairly mainstream within the traditionalist community, e.g. The Fatima Crusader and IHS Press. You'd have to ask them what qualifies a particular group; they speak only in vague generalities when identifying hate groups.

---

quote:

---

The Catholic's quarrel with Judaism has nothing to do with race, but is religious in essence.

---

quote:

---

Muslims, Jews and all non-Catholics, according to the defined dogma of the Catholic Church, are, in the objective order, not part of the kingdom of God and are therefore part of the kingdom of Satan.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by orfeo:
Make it a planning challenge.

---

I hereby submit that, due to an utter lack of rational suggestions, 'gun control' as a topic on the SoF is beyond dispute demonstrably a dead horse.

I am oiling (it was perpetually damp last week and I trusted the stainless steel too much ) my North American Arms .22 mini-revolver hoping against hope I'll never need to use it to protect innocent life; alas, the possibility remains.


 

---

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Magic Wand:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Golden Key:
Magic Wand--

When/where did SPLC say that traditionalist Catholics are terrorists? And of what particular group were they speaking? Tridentines? The group Mel Gibson's father is in? Violent protesters against abortion?

Thanks.

---

These are hate groups according to the SPLC. The claim to make a distinction between "radical" traditionalist Catholics and ordinary traditionalist Catholics, but some of the groups they name are fairly mainstream within the traditionalist community, e.g. The Fatima Crusader and IHS Press. You'd have to ask them what qualifies a particular group; they speak only in vague generalities when identifying hate groups.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by moron:
I hereby submit that, due to an utter lack of rational suggestions, 'gun control' as a topic on the SoF is beyond dispute demonstrably a dead horse.

---

quote:

---

I am oiling (it was perpetually damp last week and I trusted the stainless steel too much ) my North American Arms .22 mini-revolver hoping against hope I'll never need to use it to protect innocent life; alas, the possibility remains.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by moron:
I am oiling (it was perpetually damp last week and I trusted the stainless steel too much ) my North American Arms .22 mini-revolver hoping against hope I'll never need to use it to protect innocent life; alas, the possibility remains.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Soror Magna:
There are lots and lots of rational suggestions.

---

Please list your top three. Bonus points if any are not already in place.

There's an obvious one which, even though it's highly unlikely to do what you want it to do, is one I've already suggested on another thread could be argued makes some sort of sense... good luck!

quote:

---

Takes the edge off being Walter Mitty, I suppose.

---

You oughtta know as your Mittyish fantasy is distinguishable from mine largely in that I've taken steps which will NEVER infringe on another human's freedom to live as they please as long as they don't harm innocents.

Unfortunately you take another approach.


 

---

Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by moron:
You oughtta know as your Mittyish fantasy is distinguishable from mine largely in that I've taken steps which will NEVER infringe on another human's freedom to live as they please as long as they don't harm innocents.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by moron:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Soror Magna:
There are lots and lots of rational suggestions.

---

Please list your top three. Bonus points if any are not already in place. ...

---

quote:

---

... I've taken steps which will NEVER infringe on another human's freedom to live as they please as long as they don't harm innocents ...

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Doc Tor:
Unfortunately, all the statistics show that your gun is more likely to be used to kill or injure an innocent than to prevent their death or injury.

---

Well, statistics would, wouldn't they.

Maybe you could provide examples of laws which would work?

Please? Someone?
 

---

Posted by moron (# 206) on :
 
Cross post

quote:

---

Originally posted by Soror Magna:
1. Universal background checks

---

quote:

---

2. Limit ammo purchases and magazine sizes

---

quote:

---

3. Eliminate concealed-carry permits

---

quote:

---

Yeah, well, it's not working. You do know that the purpose of a gun is to infringe on someone's or something's freedom to live, right?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by moron:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Doc Tor:
Unfortunately, all the statistics show that your gun is more likely to be used to kill or injure an innocent than to prevent their death or injury.

---

Well, statistics would, wouldn't they.

Maybe you could provide examples of laws which would work?

Please? Someone?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Doc Tor:
And I genuinely don't know of any laws that would pass on Capitol Hill that would rein in this madness.

---

quote:

---

But you giving up your gun voluntarily would be a start.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by moron:
A start to changing the balance of gun ownership from good guys to bad guys, making the US even more dangerous.

You'll understand why I'll keep mine.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by moron:

quote:

---

1. Universal background checks

---

So you mean require them when private sellers sell guns?

---

quote:

---

quote:

---

2. Limit ammo purchases and magazine sizes

---

Fail.

---

quote:

---

quote:

---

3. Eliminate concealed-carry permits

---

Fail.

---

quote:

---

No - could you please explain how my guns infringe on innocent's right to live freely?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Soror Magna:
As for statistics, it is very hard to obtain reliable statistics on gun violence.

---

But of course those we do have indicate my ownership of guns is BAD BAD BAD.

quote:

---

2. Limit ammo purchases and magazine sizes

---

quote:

---

3. Eliminate concealed-carry permits

---

quote:

---

Your guns, and everyone else's guns, are a public health risk to everyone, including yourself.

---

quote:

---

Anything that slows the process of buying a gun, loading it, and shooting it, will save lives.

---

Can't remember who posted this originally but it makes a good point: 12 shots using a 6 chamber revolver in under 3 seconds

My own experience with speedloaders back in the day demonstrate Jerry is a bit more skilled than I am.

quote:

---

And I almost completely forgot: the zeroth step to reducing gun violence in the USA would be to legalize and control recreational drugs the same as tobacco and alcohol.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by moron:
My guns, at most, are a public risk to anyone who happens to be in their range which is not quite *koff* everyone. Hyperbole much?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Doc Tor:
It's not a good argument to use, given the deep penetration of guns within US society.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by moron:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Doc Tor:
It's not a good argument to use, given the deep penetration of guns within US society.

---

You seem quite confident about argument quality.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by moron:
... And I'm well trained in their use and care, TYVM, so your scenario is little more than ill-informed scare mongering....

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Soror Magna:
Well-trained, experienced police officers regularly miss their targets and/or hit the wrong targets. That's not a scenario, that's real life.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Doc Tor:
You seem entirely unconcerned.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by moron:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Doc Tor:
You seem entirely unconcerned.

---

Why would I concern myself with you overstating your case?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
The following is an actual question, not some kind of rhetorical debating point. ... Do you know what kind of training and experience these inaccurate police officers have? Do they train every week, or qualify with their service weapon twice a year? ... Do any states require CCW holders to take the same test? If so, how do CCW-holders' scores compare to those of police officers?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Doc Tor:
Call me old-fashioned, but when presented with good evidence that my owning a gun puts mine and my family's lives in greater danger than if I didn't own a gun, it behooves me to at least consider my previous pro-gun attitude.

YMMV.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
Do you know what kind of training and experience these inaccurate police officers have?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by moron:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Doc Tor:
Call me old-fashioned, but when presented with good evidence that my owning a gun puts mine and my family's lives in greater danger than if I didn't own a gun, it behooves me to at least consider my previous pro-gun attitude.

YMMV.

---

I consider that my personal experience with guns trumps your 'good evidence'.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Doc Tor:
There's a good chance I'll be invited to attend a US SFF convention as a guest of honour in a year or so. I have to decide whether I want to be in the same country as people who think just like you.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by moron:
... And Olivia: knock yourself out believing otherwise - I'm sure you'll have your reward.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
Do you know what kind of training and experience these inaccurate police officers have?

---

Or could it be that they're the best-trained gun users in the general population, and it simply isn't possible for humans in a high-pressure situation (such as, say, one where someone else is shooting at you) to achieve anything like perfect accuracy?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Soror Magna:
I've changed my displayed name. I hope you're more observant when you're shooting.

---

quote:

---

#3: You didn't answer my question. Why is your gun different than your car?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by moron:
Will 'my gun(s) are much smaller and designed to project small projectiles at high velocity rather than transport humans' work?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by moron:
Would you mind if I use SM?

---

quote:

---

And the more I think about the more odd I reckon it is: you insist on me answering your questions when you haven't answered mine. Why is that?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Soror Magna:
Now it's your turn: Why do you buy insurance for your car but not for your gun? In other words, why do you believe that there is a possibility you may be in a car crash one day but there is ABSOLUTELY no possibility you will ever misuse your gun? And why should anyone else believe you?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by PaulBC:
Until the 2nd amendment is scrapped, no. And that won't happen US Congress would not let
that happen.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by moron:
Why do you assume I don't buy insurance for my guns?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Soror Magna:
I'm talking about liability insurance. If someone comes to your house for dinner, and gets shot accidentally with your gun, do you have insurance for their medical expenses, lost income, disability, and/or death?

---

I might as part of homeowners insurance but am making a point of NOT finding out as, just like my auto insurance (I ONLY buy liability rather than comprehensive), I rely on knowledge and skill more than insurance.

Your turn: when will you admit you've lost the argument for more 'gun control'?

Hmmmm?


By my reckoning this thread has killed at least three perfectly healthy horses.
 

---

Posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard (# 368) on :
 
moron
 

---

Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by moron:
I consider that my personal experience with guns trumps your 'good evidence'.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard:
moron

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard:
moron

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard:
I couldn't resist

---

quote:

---

Please forgive me.

---

I have a hunch I'll get over it

having been insulted here by entities I respect much less.
 

---

Posted by no prophet (# 15560) on :
 
I listened to a rebroadcast of CBC's The Current on
Gun Rights or Gun Control today. Quotable;

quote:

---

CBC The Current:
Many Americans seem to have an almost religious devotion to gun ownership; the tools that are believed to ensure their safety and freedom. But the gun culture did nothing to protect the victims of Sandy Hook Elementary School.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by no prophet:
I listened to a rebroadcast of CBC's The Current on
Gun Rights or Gun Control today. Quotable;

quote:

---

CBC The Current:
Many Americans seem to have an almost religious devotion to gun ownership; the tools that are believed to ensure their safety and freedom. But the gun culture did nothing to protect the victims of Sandy Hook Elementary School.

---

Sandy Hook or anywhere else. Makes me rant.

---

quote:

---

... you're exporting your morally bankrupt and ethically vacuous worship of your erections to us.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dave W.:

quote:

---

Originally posted by no prophet:
I listened to a rebroadcast of CBC's The Current on
Gun Rights or Gun Control today. Quotable;

quote:

---

CBC The Current:
Many Americans seem to have an almost religious devotion to gun ownership; the tools that are believed to ensure their safety and freedom. But the gun culture did nothing to protect the victims of Sandy Hook Elementary School.

---

Sandy Hook or anywhere else. Makes me rant.

---

You don't say!

quote:

---

... you're exporting your morally bankrupt and ethically vacuous worship of your erections to us.

---

So when was it that Canadians lost their moral agency and ability to think for themselves? It must be terribly frustrating to live in a society consisting of such inherently good yet tragically weak-willed inhabitants...

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dave W.:
So when was it that Canadians lost their moral agency and ability to think for themselves? It must be terribly frustrating to live in a society consisting of such inherently good yet tragically weak-willed inhabitants...

---

It comes from too much poutine. And Molson. Add a few hockey concussions, and what do you expect?

[ 07. November 2013, 13:41: Message edited by: jbohn ]
 

---

Posted by Dave W. (# 8765) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by jbohn:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dave W.:
So when was it that Canadians lost their moral agency and ability to think for themselves? It must be terribly frustrating to live in a society consisting of such inherently good yet tragically weak-willed inhabitants...

---

It comes from too much poutine. And Molson. Add a few hockey concussions, and what do you expect?

---

quote:

---

originally posted by no prophet:
and you're exporting your morally bankrupt and ethically vacuous worship of your erections to us.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:

quote:

---

originally posted by no prophet:
and you're exporting your morally bankrupt and ethically vacuous worship of your erections to us.

---

You've got plenty of time. Marion Barry got caught doing coke in 1990. A Canadian mayor of a major city didn't get caught doing coke until 2013. Canada is over 20 years behind the times. Who even smokes crack anymore?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by no prophet:
I understand all of you, or in USAian speak youall

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by no prophet:
, are busy drinking corn beer,

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by no prophet:
eating grits,

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by no prophet:
shooting possums for supper and

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by no prophet:
marrying your cousins.

---

Only if she's really hot. Again, though, this may be a regional thing.
 

---

Posted by Dave W. (# 8765) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by no prophet:
Too late. The company is Molson-Coors and headquartered in Denver in the Excited States. So you're swilling it already. Poutine? That's an eastern thing, never tried it. I understand all of you, or in USAian speak youall, are busy drinking corn beer, eating grits, shooting possums for supper and marrying your cousins.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dave W.:

quote:

---

Originally posted by no prophet:
Too late. The company is Molson-Coors and headquartered in Denver in the Excited States. So you're swilling it already. Poutine? That's an eastern thing, never tried it. I understand all of you, or in USAian speak youall, are busy drinking corn beer, eating grits, shooting possums for supper and marrying your cousins.

---

If you're simply looking for an opportunity to insult Americans, or perhaps a venue to demonstrate that Canadians can too be just as bigoted as their neighbors to the south, perhaps you might be interested in opening a thread elsewhere? I'm sure you'll be able to find someone to play along with you.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by no prophet:
I listened to a rebroadcast of CBC's The Current on
Gun Rights or Gun Control today. Quotable;

quote:

---

CBC The Current:
Many Americans seem to have an almost religious devotion to gun ownership; the tools that are believed to ensure their safety and freedom. But the gun culture did nothing to protect the victims of Sandy Hook Elementary School.

---

Sandy Hook or anywhere else.

---

Nowhere else seems to be many places.

And as I like to encourage ranting almost as much as I like erections:


Of the 2.5 million times citizens use their guns to defend themselves every year, the overwhelming majority merely brandish their gun or fire a warning shot to scare off their attackers. Less than 8% of the time, a citizen will kill or wound his/her attacker.

snip

Even anti-gun Clinton researchers concede that guns are used 1.5 million times annually for self-defense. According to the Clinton Justice Department, there are as many as 1.5 million cases of self-defense every year. The National Institute of Justice published this figure in 1997 as part of "Guns in America" -- a study which was authored by noted anti-gun criminologists Philip Cook and Jens Ludwig.

snip

Armed citizens kill more crooks than do the police. Citizens shoot and kill at least twice as many criminals as police do every year (1,527 to 606).[6] And readers of Newsweek learned that "only 2 percent of civilian shootings involved an innocent person mistakenly identified as a criminal. The 'error rate' for the police, however, was 11 percent, more than five times as high."

 

---

Posted by Jay-Emm (# 11411) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by moron:

And as I like to encourage ranting almost as much as I like erections:
...
snip

---

quote:

---

...
police. Citizens shoot and kill at least twice as many criminals as police do every year (1,527 to 606).[6] And readers of Newsweek learned that "only 2 percent of shootings [by civilians declared and believed as attempting to kill a criminal, i.e. the 1527*] involved an innocent person mistakenly identified as a criminal. The 'error rate' for the police, however, was 11 percent, more than five times as high."

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by jbohn:
Depends on where y'all are. Up here, not much grits - but lots of corn and 'taters. Down where monkeylizard, for instance, lives - definitely plenty o' grits.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by moron:
guns from dealers have been Federally registered since Form 4473 came into existence in 1968.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by monkeylizard:
So there's kind-of-sort-of federal registration.

---

Fair enough... I wondered if I'd get called on that. You learn not to expect all that much from anti-gunners here and can get sloppy, shooting from the hip.

I presume once on-line background checks came into widespread use sometime in the early-mid 1990s you could reasonably assume EVERY new gun purchaser since that time had a background check?

I can see the point of wanting them on used gun sales but remain the teensiest bit skeptical koff it would do much more than employ bureaucrats.

Not that I don't love bureaucrats.
 

---

Posted by moron (# 206) on :
 
A tangent: I recently bought one of these, partly merely to experience the process, as it's been a while.

Form 4473 is now done completely on-line and is somehow connected to whatever background check TPTB do.

Now I kind of want to sell the thing 'off-line', so to speak, to profit from it having purchased it on sale.

I remain most of the problem and am damn glad to serve.
 

---

Posted by jbohn (# 8753) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by monkeylizard:

quote:

---

Originally posted by jbohn:
Depends on where y'all are. Up here, not much grits - but lots of corn and 'taters. Down where monkeylizard, for instance, lives - definitely plenty o' grits.

---

Mmmm grits.....paste without the taste.

---

 

---

Posted by monkeylizard (# 952) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by moron:
I presume once on-line background checks came into widespread use sometime in the early-mid 1990s you could reasonably assume EVERY new gun purchaser since that time had a background check?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by monkeylizard:

2) Some states don't require a background check for purchases by carry permit holders.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by monkeylizard:
There's a twing of irony that the e-Form that makes tracking easier and more likely also makes it possible for dealers to sell the large volumes that we've seen over the past few years.

---

quote:

---

There are 114 million households in the U.S., so a 1 percentage-point increase in ownership means approximately 1.1 million more households with guns. Since there are relatively few suicides, this translates into 345 more suicides, at most. In this sense, guns are relatively benign. Most guns are never involved in a suicide or a homicide.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Soror Magna:
So for those who subscribe to insurrectionist theory -- the notion that citizens need guns to resist tyrannical government -- what exactly is the 2nd Amendment remedy to vast and sometimes illegal government surveillance? If Edward Snowden had a gun, he could have led a revolt against the tyrannical government instead of hoofing it to Russia. Right? Right???

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by jbohn:
... I'm not making a suggestion either way here, but given that the number is so low, percentage-wise, is it worth giving up rights held by all Americans to benefit relatively few? ...

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by jbohn:
I'm not making a suggestion either way here, but given that the number is so low, percentage-wise, is it worth giving up rights held by all Americans to benefit relatively few?

It's a question worth considering, for both sides of the debate.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Horseman Bree:
I'm mildly puzzled that, on a !gasp! Christian-inspired site, someone could blithely write off 345 people to suicide just to proclaim the right of any untrained mouthbreather to wave his gun around.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Soror Magna:
Ordinary Americans have already "given up" the right to have machine guns, torpedoes, tanks, and mortar launchers, to name a few.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Soror Magna:
Changing laws to improve gun safety is a matter of adjusting the boundaries of those rights - of tweaking the various knobs available, whether it's background checks, magazine or ammo restrictions, restricting areas where people may bring in guns,

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Soror Magna:
physicians questioning their patients about guns in the house

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Soror Magna:
and lots of other possibilities.

---

Which is exactly what interests me, as it turns out.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Horseman Bree:
I'm mildly puzzled that, on a !gasp! Christian-inspired site, someone could blithely write off 345 people to suicide just to proclaim the right of any untrained mouthbreather to wave his gun around.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by NJA:
It's not called "The You Nigh Dead States" for nothing!

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Boogie:
Never mind the ITTWACW - I can't understand how anyone could do that.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by orfeo:
Everything is a cost-benefit analysis. The most annoying thing that some people do, on this issue and also on climate change, is pooh-pooh any measure that doesn't 'solve' the problem as if the goal has to be to completely eliminate an issue.

<snip>

The more rational questions are always: 1. Does this help? 2. How much does it help? 3. What does it cost?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by orfeo:
Frankly, when it comes to guns I have a very hard time with a lot of the arguments that try to suggest that there's some great cost involved in people giving up their guns. Most people don't need guns. It's as simple as that. The 'cost' of taking guns out of the hands of most people is tiny.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by orfeo:
I suggest that a very large percentage of those Americans who think they need guns are either kidding themselves and/or have been brainwashed by clever advertising into thinking they need guns, either for problems they don't actually have or for problems where a gun isn't actually a very good solution.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Soror Magna:
So for those who subscribe to insurrectionist theory -- the notion that citizens need guns to resist tyrannical government -- what exactly is the 2nd Amendment remedy to vast and sometimes illegal government surveillance?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by jbohn:
That's subjective, of course. For one, it depends on a lot of factors - where one lives, say, or how one sustains oneself, as easy examples.

---

quote:

---

Though, as the gun-rights side would point out, completely eliminating the right to own firearms is a stated goal of the anti-gun side in the U.S.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by moron:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Soror Magna:
So for those who subscribe to insurrectionist theory -- the notion that citizens need guns to resist tyrannical government -- what exactly is the 2nd Amendment remedy to vast and sometimes illegal government surveillance?

---

A starting point.

You'll understand the first guy they send out to take my guns will be Billy Bob the apprentice deputy sheriff (ranks lowest on their totem pole) who will largely agree with my take on gun ownership. We'll hoist a couple and his report will say 'No guns were visible'. ...

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by jbohn:
...

quote:

---

Originally posted by Soror Magna:
physicians questioning their patients about guns in the house

---

Here I disagree - not their job, nor their business, to my mind. ...

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by orfeo:

quote:

---

Originally posted by jbohn:
That's subjective, of course. For one, it depends on a lot of factors - where one lives, say, or how one sustains oneself, as easy examples.

---

I certainly agree it depends on factors, and I have no problem with farmers or hunters requiring guns.

I don't think that means it's simply 'subjective'.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by orfeo:
Most people don't need guns. It's as simple as that. The 'cost' of taking guns out of the hands of most people is tiny.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jane R:
jbohn:

quote:

---

Though, as the gun-rights side would point out, completely eliminating the right to own firearms is a stated goal of the anti-gun side in the U.S.

---

I doubt it's their most important one.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jane R:
On the subject of suicides, it is illegal here to sell someone a lethal dose of paracetamol. It's sold in packs of 16 tablets and you are only allowed to buy two packs at a time. This is to make it harder for people to commit suicide with paracetamol, and when the law changed I thought it was silly because if you were really determined to do it all you had to do was go to several different shops to get your lethal dose.

But what do you know, the suicide-by-paracetamol rate DID go down. Making it harder for people to commit suicide on impulse really does reduce the death rate.

---

I'd be curious to know if the overall suicide rate dropped, or just the rate by that particular method. (i.e., did folks who wanted to kill themselves not do so, or did they pick another way of going about it?)

Here, they regulate you to getting 28 antihistamine tablets per month (so for most months, not enough to have one/day - hell in allergy season), to keep you from cooking methamphetamine. They've got it linked to a central database and scan your ID, so you can't just go to the next shop, either.

Result? Local meth labs decreased markedly. Local meth usage? Not so much - it's now imported from Mexico...

quote:

---

Originally posted by Soror Magna:
Consider this: A patient presents with severe depression and expresses the desire to shoot him/herself. Asking whether the patient actually has the means to do so is no different than asking whether s/he has been saving up pills, made a will, or given away their pets. Keeping patients from killing themselves (or others)is an integral part of a doctor's job.

---

quote:

---

I'd be curious to know if the overall suicide rate dropped, or just the rate by that particular method. (i.e., did folks who wanted to kill themselves not do so, or did they pick another way of going about it?)

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jane R:
jbohn:

quote:

---

I'd be curious to know if the overall suicide rate dropped, or just the rate by that particular method. (i.e., did folks who wanted to kill themselves not do so, or did they pick another way of going about it?)

---

I think the overall rate went down as well but it's a while since the legislation came in and I don't have time to Google the stats to check, so couldn't swear to it.

---

quote:

---

Despite the reduction in deaths from paracetamol, the study found there had been no decline in overdose cases after 1998.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by orfeo:
It doesn't appear that America is a land so full of farmers and hunters so as to explain why you have twice the gun ownership of Yemen. I think it must be because America is twice as dangerous as anywhere else on the planet.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by orfeo:
Because remember, a lower rate of gun ownership means safer. Because the need for guns is less.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by orfeo:
Or we could just go back to the original premise and accept that American gun ownership is totally out of proportion with the actual American need for guns. Your choice. Is it that, or is it that you live in the most insanely dangerous country on the planet?

---

The raw number of guns/person is probably a peculiarity of American society, I'll grant you that - we also have, globally speaking, a high rate of ownership of a lot of other things (cars, computers, etc.). A relatively wealthy society with an obsession with material goods tends to do that.

That said, you've conveniently ignored my point above about who defines "need", and what sort of "need" we're talking about. A psychological need, irrational (or not) as it may be, is still very real to the person who has it. I know several folks who collect firearms, as others might collect stamps, swords, or bottle caps. Their reasons for doing so I'm not qualified to state authoritatively, but I suspect enjoyment may be among them, as might be investment - some firearms become quite valuable over time. As far as self-defense goes, it really doesn't require a massive collection, so that's not likely the entire reason.
 

---

Posted by Soror Magna (# 9881) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by jbohn:
Though, as the gun-rights side would point out, completely eliminating the right to own firearms is a stated goal of the anti-gun side in the U.S. ... I couldn't say how important they find it - only that both Sarah Brady and Sen. Dianne Feinstein have publicly said so in previous years.

---

quote:

---

That said, you've conveniently ignored my point above about who defines "need", and what sort of "need" we're talking about. A psychological need, irrational (or not) as it may be, is still very real to the person who has it. ...

---

quote:

---

As an aside, have I mentioned I love your .sig?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Soror Magna:
Both women have been affected by gun violence in ways that most of us cannot imagine. Dianne Feinstein took over from Mayor Moscone after he was shot in his own office. Jim Brady took a bullet in the head for NRA member Ronald Reagan. I wouldn't be surprised if they may have made such hyperbolic statements. But seriously, eliminating the right to own firearms in the USA? There are two chances of this happening: fat and slim.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Soror Magna:
Well, if gun-totin' Americans deserve to have their psychological needs Constitutionally protected - not just their right to self-defense -- then I want a pony.

---

I'll get right on that. What color?
 

---

Posted by Soror Magna (# 9881) on :
 
Gunmetal grey, of course.
 

---

Posted by jbohn (# 8753) on :
 
Well played.
 

---

Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :
 
I don't want a pony. I need a tiger. No, wait, LOTS of tigers.

And sure, my backyard fence might not be quite high enough, and there's a chance they'll get out and eat the toddler next door, but let's not worry about that. Let's focus on my deep-seated desire for tigers. I need them. No-one can tell me I don't.
 

---

Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by orfeo:
I don't want a pony. I need a tiger. No, wait, LOTS of tigers.

And sure, my backyard fence might not be quite high enough, and there's a chance they'll get out and eat the toddler next door, but let's not worry about that. Let's focus on my deep-seated desire for tigers. I need them. No-one can tell me I don't.

---

 

---

Posted by jbohn (# 8753) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by orfeo:
I don't want a pony. I need a tiger. No, wait, LOTS of tigers.

And sure, my backyard fence might not be quite high enough, and there's a chance they'll get out and eat the toddler next door, but let's not worry about that. Let's focus on my deep-seated desire for tigers. I need them. No-one can tell me I don't.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by jbohn:
... Our difference lies, I suspect, in belief about whose choice that ought to be: mine, or my government's. Given my government's inability to keep itself funded without shutdowns and sequesters, you'll forgive some folks in the US of being a bit leery of giving it more powers to royally screw up with. Your mileage may vary. (And obviously does.)

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Soror Magna:
"It", the government of the USA, is supposedly a democracy, of the people, by the people, for the people.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Soror Magna:
So either the citizens of the USA are unable to keep their own government running, or the government has become independent of the will of the citizens.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Soror Magna:
Either way, it's another argument for the end of the American experiment in self-government, and the survivalists have already been proven right.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Soror Magna:
I find it an interesting experiment to replace "the government" with "the neighbours" or "the corporate masters". It helps me figure out what a particular debate is really about. From the outside, the USA gun debate looks like "the neighbours" want e.g. more background checks, but "the corporate masters" want to sell as many guns as possible.

---

As regards this - it depends on whose neighbors. And whose masters.

From the inside, the gun control debate is just one small argument in a larger struggle to determine what direction the country ought to go: more to the left, ala a European-style social democracy, with an expanded welfare state, single-payer health care, etc.; or to the right, more in line with our classic mythos of Ronald Reagan riding out on his horse to take down the evil Soviets, where private industry and unrestrained markets are the means to greater prosperity for everyone (or at least the ones who count).
 

---

Posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard (# 368) on :
 
Well played all round.
 

---

Posted by Mere Nick (# 11827) on :
 
I'm thinking I'll sell off all of my rifles but my little AR-7 and pick up a crossbow and a katana sword.
 

---

Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by jbohn:
Tigers are animate beings - they act without human interaction. They are predators by instinct. (Though I'm not sure if they find human toddlers to be their prey of choice. Fido, on the other hand...) Firearms - and for that matter, swords, sticks, whips, chains, and stern language - are not; they simply don't go attacking people/pets/etc. without a human behind them. Properly stored (away from small children, drunks, and such, obviously; locked up when not in use, with ammunition stored separately, etc.), they are unable to harm anyone.

---

And yet, one finds that in most parts of the world, a lot more people are harmed by improperly stored firearms than by improperly stored tigers...



I'm well aware of the tendency of tigers to go off by themselves, but the point was more about legal responsibility and 'needs' and 'wants'.

Even though weapons should be capable of being properly and carefully stored in a way that means they can't be misused, this doesn't seem to be working in real life. Guns are regularly misused. I think we've dealt before with the statistical claim that 22 out of 23 uses of a gun are misuse. Should we just ignore this and cling to the fact that guns are theoretically capable of being kept perfectly safely?
 

---

Posted by Horseman Bree (# 5290) on :
 
Seems apposite to add this commentary here: "A Perspective on Guns from Attica"
by the John Lennon who killed a man with a gun on 2001.

quote:

---

I do take responsibility for the murder; I’m sorry for taking his life, and all the life he could have had but without a gun I would not have killed… a bold claim that screams rationalization, I know. But God knows I believe this to be true.

If I didn’t have that perfect killing machine I would have had to earn the kill — like a seasoned bow hunter I’d have to hit him just right leaving no room for error. Could I have stabbed him? Strangled him? Bludgeoned him? If I had done so and he hadn’t died, why would that have made me less culpable than I am now, a man who swiftly and cowardly shot another man to death?

---

quote:

---

... Patterson received notice that his concealed carry license was being revoked because in 2007 and 2012, he lied on his permit application when he said he hadn't pled guilty to rape (Mark Patterson, in fact, did). Patterson is fighting back, arguing that even though a 1990 law in Idaho exempts elected officials from having to apply for a concealed permit, having his permit (which he doesn't technically need) taken away because he lied on his application (about being a rapist) is a violation of his rights. ...

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by orfeo:
And yet, one finds that in most parts of the world, a lot more people are harmed by improperly stored firearms than by improperly stored tigers...

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by orfeo:
I think we've dealt before with the statistical claim that 22 out of 23 uses of a gun are misuse. Should we just ignore this and cling to the fact that guns are theoretically capable of being kept perfectly safely?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Horseman Bree:
Apparently, I've killed the thread, but, what the hell.

Here's a stake to drive into its coffin: Mentally Ill? Sure, here are your guns back

No matter how mentally unstable you are, in the US, the police can't keep your guns for more than one year.

Which means: more dead police

---

quote:

---

has been adjudicated as a mental defective or has been committed to any mental institution;

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Soror Magna:
Serial rapist? Want to keep your concealed-carry permit? Come to Idaho and be a state legislator:

---

Just. Flipping. Wow.


 

---

Posted by Horseman Bree (# 5290) on :
 
jbohn:

quote:

---

we need to fix the mess that passes for mental health care in this country.

---

© Ship of Fools 2016


UBB.classic^TM 6.5.0