Posted                          

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.

--------------------
We are punished by our sins, not for them.
--Elbert Hubbard

Posted                       

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.

---

Posted                          

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.

---

Posted                       

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                      

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."

---

Posted                       

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.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

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

---

Posted                       

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                          

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.

---

--------------------
We are punished by our sins, not for them.
--Elbert Hubbard

Posted                       

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?

---

Posted                          

quote:

---

Originally posted by monkeylizard:

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

---

Posted                       

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.

---

Posted                          

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.

---

Posted                          

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???

---

Posted                       

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? ...

---

Posted                          

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.

---

Posted                      

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.

---

Posted                          

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.

---

Posted                       

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?

---

Posted                          

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.

---

Posted                       

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.

---

Posted                       

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. ...

---

Posted                          

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.

---

Posted                       

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?)

---

Posted                      

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.

---

Posted                          

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.

--------------------
We are punished by our sins, not for them.
--Elbert Hubbard

Posted                       

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?

---

Posted                          

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?

--------------------
We are punished by our sins, not for them.
--Elbert Hubbard

Posted                      

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.

---

--------------------
Garden. Room. Walk

Posted                          

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                       

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.)

---

Posted                          

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).

--------------------
We are punished by our sins, not for them.
--Elbert Hubbard