Happiness is a warm gun

[Stavros]

Two stories from the US this week offer a confusing profile of the state of the nation's guns, a topic that tends to make us shake our heads in disbelief in the UK. One concerns the concealed carry law, the other the actual decline in sales of guns sending Remington to the wall. On the one hand it seems to me that a policy that claims to be about 'freedom' (what happened to rights?) offers disturbed men the opportunity to take it away from people, usually their closest 'loved-ones', while the decline of gun ownership raises the image of a dwindling cohort of madmen bunkered down in their cabins waiting for the apocalypse.

If gun ownership is the foundation of terrorism, should the NRA now be classified a terrorist organization?

Thus, on the one hand the President declared a few days ago

The eight year assault on your Second Amendment freedoms has come to a crashing end.

He was referring to the Concealed Carry Reciprocity Act 2017 which would remove the restrictions States impose on citizens walking around with concealed weapons. The policy that has been promoted by the NRA has been opposed by those States that ban concealed carry, indeed New York Police Commissioner James O'Neill said the proposal was 'insanity' adding

“Right now, we have a good idea of who’s carrying guns. If this law passes, all bets are off. Anybody can come into New York City from any state and carry a weapon.”
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politics/trump-carry-weapons-concealed-permit-reciprocity-guns-permit-new-bill-law-right-a8207536.html

Another analysis offers a different perspective by arguing that as most homicides caused by guns are domestic incidents, repealing the law enables the most common perpetrators of crime to gain even easier access to guns than they did before:

Here’s how this act could be devastating for victims of domestic abuse: if someone with a history of domestic abuse is denied a gun after a background check in one state, he or she could simply go to another state that does not require background checks at the point of purchase or permits for concealed carry, purchase a gun, and carry it across state lines.

in addition-
there is plenty of research to indicate that the best predictor of future violence (http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/medical_examiner/2016/06/the_biggest_predictor_of_future_violence_is_past_v iolence_but_mindfulness.html) is past violence. In addition, research has shown that when there are firearms in the home of someone with a history of domestic abuse, the potential for homicide increases by 500% (http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2014-03-02/news/ct-concealed-carry-domestic-violence-20140302_1_gun-rights-firearms-ban-domestic-abusers).
https://qz.com/1144247/the-concealed-carry-reciprocity-act-of-2017-will-be-devastating-for-victims-of-domestic-violence/

Meanwhile, gun maker Remington has filed for bankruptcy, with a background in the industry of falling gun sales. Robert Spitzer, a Professor in New York State with a special interest in guns is quoted thus:

“Gun ownership has been declining since the 1970s and there are now fewer gun owners than ever,” said Spitzer. Fewer people are hunting, younger people are less interested in gun ownership and the gun industry has had little success in its attempts to appeal to women and minorities.

The US has the highest rate of gun ownership in the world with 88 guns for every 100 people. But just 3% (https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/nov/15/the-gun-numbers-just-3-of-american-adults-own-a-collective-133m-firearms) of the population owns an average of 17 guns each, with an estimated 7.7 million super-owners in possession of 140 guns apiece.
The surge of gun purchases under Obama was largely driven by sales to existing gun owners. Sales spiked on Obama’s re-election and after his calls for new laws (https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/jan/05/obama-gun-control-executive-action-background-checks-licenses-gun-shows-mental-health-funding) in the wake of tragedies like the Sandy Hook massacre in 2012, which claimed the lives of 20 children and six adults.
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2018/feb/13/remington-bankruptcy-guns-trump-slump-sales

[broncofan]

The Concealed Carry Reciprocity Act is without question a terrifying measure, as it would take away from the states the ability to determine how to protect their citizens. The same states' rights/federalism arguments that Republicans have been making for years would be asserted against it in a constitutional challenge if this law were passed. It is also a hypocrisy because the law would be passed under Congress' ability to "regulate commerce" which Conservative jurists have for decades argued (wrongly) should be invoked only for purely commercial reasons and not as a means of achieving broader policy goals. For instance, a commercial type of regulation might set price controls or quotas or in some way regulate competition. The Supreme Court has ruled that a law passed under the commerce clause only needs to involve an issue that substantially affects interstate commerce, so this would not be a problem except under the interpretation of the commerce clause they've made for several decades. This would be a law that interferes with the central activities of the states, which is to protect the health, welfare, and safety of their citizens and so the concerns about what is left exclusively to the states would be reasonable.

It is not just the self-serving hypocrisy of their support for the law that is the problem but also that it creates a terrifying situation. As for gun manufacturers going out of business....I suppose that's a good thing. They are protected in ways that other companies are not and nothing in the second amendment says that Congress has to provide protections to make their racket profitable. It's a very sad situation.

[broncofan]

Here’s how this act could be devastating for victims of domestic abuse: if someone with a history of domestic abuse is denied a gun after a background check in one state, he or she could simply go to another state that does not require background checks at the point of purchase or permits for concealed carry, purchase a gun, and carry it across state lines.

in addition-
there is plenty of research to indicate that the best predictor of future violence (http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/medical_examiner/2016/06/the_biggest_predictor_of_future_violence_is_past_v iolence_but_mindfulness.html) is past violence. In addition, research has shown that when there are firearms in the home of someone with a history of domestic abuse, the potential for homicide increases by 500% (http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2014-03-02/news/ct-concealed-carry-domestic-violence-20140302_1_gun-rights-firearms-ban-domestic-abusers).
https://qz.com/1144247/the-concealed-carry-reciprocity-act-of-2017-will-be-devastating-for-victims-of-domestic-violence/

Banning people who have engaged in domestic violence of any kind from owning weapons is the surest way to regulate gun ownership in a way that's both constitutional and effective. Given that regulation of guns has taken place at the state level and there are not very many safeguards federally, such a law would basically wipe out what few protections exist and make every state as unsafe as the worst regulators. I have not paid attention but I wonder what kind of support this bill has among the Republican base.

[broncofan]

Given that regulation of guns has taken place at the state level and there are not very many safeguards federally, such a law would basically wipe out what few protections exist and make every state as unsafe as the worst regulators.
I probably should have thought of this all up front and put it in one post, but just one afterthought. The reason liberals have argued Congress should be able to pass similarly non-commercial laws under the commerce clause is that a broad scheme may be necessary to organize a particular marketplace rather than subject people to a confusing array of state laws with irreconcilable inconsistencies. The use of federal legislation in such areas makes sense when you are avoiding a "race to the bottom" in which states are incentivized to deregulate because it benefits their local economies to do so. The benefits of a uniform scheme are less compelling when the regulatory framework is less developed and the law interferes with common sense protections imposed by states.

Often when the federal government passes laws that affect commerce, like employee protections and anti-discrimination laws, states are permitted to offer protections that expand those offered federally. For instance, some states have supplemented the civil rights act protections in title vii with laws protecting against sexual orientation discrimination in the workplace. This would be a case where the federal government would be passing a law that supersedes protections at the state level and nullifies them. It is not so much a scheme as a ban on a particular type of regulation....

[broncofan]

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2018/02/14/florida-school-shooting-2018/338466002/

[Stavros]

The Concealed Carry Reciprocity Act is without question a terrifying measure, as it would take away from the states the ability to determine how to protect their citizens. The same states' rights/federalism arguments that Republicans have been making for years would be asserted against it in a constitutional challenge if this law were passed. It is also a hypocrisy because the law would be passed under Congress' ability to "regulate commerce" which Conservative jurists have for decades argued (wrongly) should be invoked only for purely commercial reasons and not as a means of achieving broader policy goals. For instance, a commercial type of regulation might set price controls or quotas or in some way regulate competition. The Supreme Court has ruled that a law passed under the commerce clause only needs to involve an issue that substantially affects interstate commerce, so this would not be a problem except under the interpretation of the commerce clause they've made for several decades. This would be a law that interferes with the central activities of the states, which is to protect the health, welfare, and safety of their citizens and so the concerns about what is left exclusively to the states would be reasonable.


Again this is where my lack of knowledge abut the law benefits from your insight, but again raises questions about this peculiar way you have of importing into one law a clause that is or should be related to another law. I understand to some extent the inter-state commerce issue, I don't know how it worked during prohibition, but I assume there are issues with a state X that sells Marijuana legally that is illegal in the neighbouring state. It would I assume be harder to police than firearms if someone purchasing weapons must be registered in some way but if you have a situation where anyone can buy any amount of weapons over time and then travel to another state concealing those weapons then I guess it makes mass murder that much easier for someone determined enough to do it.

I think Sandy Hook was a defining moment, if your Congress could not be bothered to take action then, few are surprised that nothing will be the result of Parkland, and what could be more perverse than the news of another mass shooting, wherever it is, whoever the victims are, being greeted with a shrug of the shoulders and the dismissive 'that's what Americans do', as if you had paralysis of the brain and are utterly incapable of finding a solution to what looks more like an epidemic. I don't know if the Democrat victory in a supposedly safe Republican seat in Florida yesterday means that party if it gains power will make a real effort to change the status quo, the record does not look promising; neither does the future of your schools where it seems you prefer to spend over $45 million putting armed policemen in them rather than dealing with the cause of gun crime. To cap it all, all the evidence so far suggests people who knew Cruz expected him to go crazy and knew of his obsession with guns.

[buttslinger]

Stavros, your timing is prophetic
God, Guts, and Guns is a monkeygrip credo that apparently no amount of depression can loosen, the gun issue is a hot potato that feeds the Republicans, and burns the Democrats. The Freedom of Guns and Religion the Republicans offer really is free, The Quality Schools, Social Security, and Medicare the Democrats offer costs a ton of money. There are so many different and difficult ways to say "this is all politics" that it gets lost that a few simple unpartisan regulations really could fix days like yesterday. But we all know Trump hates regulations. Adding Insult to Injury. There seems to be no Intelligent solution, there seems to be no Heartfelt Solution, which might be worse.

[Stavros]

Stavros, your timing is prophetic
God, Guts, and Guns is a monkeygrip credo that apparently no amount of depression can loosen, the gun issue is a hot potato that feeds the Republicans, and burns the Democrats. The Freedom of Guns and Religion the Republicans offer really is free, The Quality Schools, Social Security, and Medicare the Democrats offer costs a ton of money. There are so many different and difficult ways to say "this is all politics" that it gets lost that a few simple unpartisan regulations really could fix days like yesterday. But we all know Trump hates regulations. Adding Insult to Injury. There seems to be no Intelligent solution, there seems to be no Heartfelt Solution, which might be worse.

There is nothing prophetic about this, as it is becoming routine, and it is only a matter of time before another mass shooting takes place. As for The Freedom of Guns and Religion the Republicans offer really is free that is not only not true, you wonder where did this 19 year old get the money from to buy weapons and enough ammunition to start a war? Claims that he is linked to a white supremacist group called Republic of Florida and that he trained with them doesn't prove he was supported by them, or he was depressed after the death of mother and breaking up with a girlfriend, and so on. He may or may not tell the truth in court.

The same hypocrite President who talks about mental health issues rather than guns blames the victims tweeting

So many signs that the Florida shooter was mentally disturbed, even expelled from school for bad and erratic behavior. Neighbors and classmates knew he was a big problem. Must always report such instances to authorities, again and again!

And yet he has done more than any recent President to attack mental health services:

the president has rolled back a rule (https://govtrackinsider.com/four-senate-democrats-voted-for-law-expanding-gun-access-to-those-with-severe-mental-illness-923d3a70fe3?gi=7b12110f37f4) that would have made it more difficult for the severely mentally ill to obtain firearms; made it easier for fugitives (http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2017/10/trump-gave-500-000-fugitives-the-right-to-buy-guns.html) to purchase guns; and proposed $12 million (http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2018/02/every-attempt-to-change-gun-laws-under-trump.html) in cuts to America’s background check system. He has also tried to slash $625 million from federal mental health programs (https://www.dailydot.com/layer8/trump-parkland-shooting-tweet/), and $1 trillion from Medicaid, one of the top sources of health insurance for the mentally ill in the United States.
http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2018/02/trump-scolds-shooters-classmates-for-failing-to-report-him.html

The USA is disoriented, going round in circles as it tries to avoid the obvious: Cruz and all the other murderers would not have been able to kill so many had they been armed with a bow and arrow. But mention Guns and the country squeals. Perhaps the fact is that the US has become a country of cowards who refuse to take responsibility for the consequences of their support for gun ownership, and looks the other way when the victims rack up, week after week, month after month. And no sign of leadership on this issue. The problem is that the longer this goes on, the harder it will be to find a rational solution.

[buttslinger]

Stavros, did I miss your Solution in your op-ed????
I think the problem is there's a particular brand of loser who knows the American Dream doesn't include him, and it just takes a bad day, moment, week or year to push him over the edge. In my grade his name was Riffy, he was always stoned, and after a big fight with his Mom one afternoon, he died in a shoot-out with the Police. I was friends with twins in my elementary school, but by high school they became "hoods" and we never really talked much. While skipping school one day, Charles killed himself playing Russian Roulette with his Dad's gun. Years later I would talk with his brother, but high school was a high pressure environment. My Job never gave me three hours of homework.
To be totally honest, but without giving anybody ideas, I'm surprised some troubled soul with some smarts and a whopping Imagination hasn't pulled off a terrorist event that kills hundreds of thousands. Like YodaJazz was eluding to on another post, everybody has a kind of moral gyroscope that limits their kills to a kind of Justice in their own minds. The Columbine kids were bullied, I remember. If a solution to gun violence is found, I would think it would have to be a roundabout solution, like taxes, black people with concealed weapon permits, an end to gerrymandering, or a Russian Scandal so huge the entire Country gets revolted and leans left for a generation. I remember when everybody in the USA smoked cigarettes, how suicidal is that?
Here Stavros, Dylan, Elvis, and Warhol, three of your favorite artists......n'est pas? Like I explained to you before, The USA is #1 because of Nagasaki and Hiroshima. We're Killers, Man, Remember Lexington and Concord?
https://preview.ibb.co/fdPXy7/Elvis.jpg (https://ibb.co/d6pzd7)

[broncofan]

I wonder if our gun problem has gotten so out of control that simple gun control won't have the effect here that limiting availability of weapons has everywhere else. There is no bright line separation between the law and culture. Guns have been a part of our culture and so has paranoia about limiting access to them. As a result, we have so many millions of guns out there and so many people who are gun obsessives, posing with guns, taking them into fields and shooting things with them, imagining they are shooting people and doing something heroic.

Of course we should take whatever measures we can to eliminate gun violence, and that will have some effect, but in other countries I think you not only don't have so many guns on the street, you don't have people fetishizing guns in quite the same way. For every Nicholas Cruz who kills you have at least 50 people who pose with their guns in creepy ways and the guns play an inordinate role in their lives already.

That said, we can see that Congress has not responded at all to these crises like they would any other public health crisis. They did not ban bump stocks after Vegas, when the only purpose of bump stocks (which I had never heard of and has now become part of the American lexicon) is to make semi-automatic guns fire like an automatic. They do stuff like try to pass laws making silencers legal, which I lost track of. There's the law Stavros brought up in the first post, which really is directed towards allowing people to carry weapons like they can in their home state anywhere they go, because this is the biggest priority. And of course there is the Ar-15 which seems to be used in nearly every one of these crises and which people seem unconcerned about. Maybe they think, "well what's the difference between 17 dead and 7 dead if they just had a handgun." Well, ten people! Ten people! Or whatever the difference would be if he had a different weapon and not a war machine. If there's no purpose to own such a thing except to murder, then nobody but the military should have it, but that's just obvious.

[broncofan]

We're Killers, Man, Remember Lexington and Concord?

The death totals on both sides indicated they weren't using Ar-15s. Let's bring back muskets.

[buttslinger]

The death totals on both sides indicated they weren't using Ar-15s. Let's bring back muskets.

That was just my Ugly American cheap shot at Stavros for running down my Country. Only WE have the right to run down our Country!!!
Many Hunters do use a bow and Arrow to hunt, although those compound bows they make now probably are more deadly than a musket.
It seems like yesterday was the day to be bummed out, I woke up this morning in a really down mood, today was the day to get mad. These fuckin Republican Fatcats hiding behind the second amendment to line their pockets with NRA bucks needs a look. Little Kids getting murdered and they're accusing the Democrats of politicizing it. The stats on guns are unbelievable!!! No way could they exist without Political Cover. I can't say the Republicans are directly responsible for a Gun Crazy USA, but I would go out on a limb and say the children are innocent. Maybe we need an Amendment to the Constitution that says we should look out for our kids.
Obama said talking to the parents of the Sandy Hook Kids were his hardest days. God, I miss that guy....

https://preview.ibb.co/euXcFn/0000.jpg (https://ibb.co/gDQxFn)
upload image gif (https://imgbb.com/)

[broncofan]

That was just my Ugly American cheap shot at Stavros for running down my Country. Only WE have the right to run down our Country!!!
Many Hunters do use a bow and Arrow to hunt, although those compound bows they make now probably are more deadly than a musket.

I thought it was! Now's not a good time for us. During the Obama years it was obstructionism and rising racism. But now it's peak racism, treason, and massacres. We know who we are, but it's impossible for other folks to not wanna let us know what they're seeing. It's not a pretty picture.

When I was 12 I fired some sort of ancient gun at summer camp. It's the only time I shot a gun, other than a paintball gun. I can tell you this, I definitely wouldn't be able to figure out how to work one of those muskets. They have powder and a flask and musketballs.....

The NRA problem is tied to another problem which is money in politics. Are we going to have to come up with bigger bribes to Republicans to save our kids?

[buttslinger]

Republicans already have a surefire gun control system: Move to an ULTRA-RICH Neighborhood.

[Stavros]

I think the problem is there's a particular brand of loser who knows the American Dream doesn't include him, and it just takes a bad day, moment, week or year to push him over the edge. In my grade his name was Riffy, he was always stoned, and after a big fight with his Mom one afternoon, he died in a shoot-out with the Police. I was friends with twins in my elementary school, but by high school they became "hoods" and we never really talked much. While skipping school one day, Charles killed himself playing Russian Roulette with his Dad's gun. Years later I would talk with his brother, but high school was a high pressure environment. My Job never gave me three hours of homework.
To be totally honest, but without giving anybody ideas, I'm surprised some troubled soul with some smarts and a whopping Imagination hasn't pulled off a terrorist event that kills hundreds of thousands. Like YodaJazz was eluding to on another post, everybody has a kind of moral gyroscope that limits their kills to a kind of Justice in their own minds. The Columbine kids were bullied, I remember. If a solution to gun violence is found, I would think it would have to be a roundabout solution, like taxes, black people with concealed weapon permits, an end to gerrymandering, or a Russian Scandal so huge the entire Country gets revolted and leans left for a generation. I remember when everybody in the USA smoked cigarettes, how suicidal is that?
Like I explained to you before, The USA is #1 because of Nagasaki and Hiroshima. We're Killers, Man, Remember Lexington and Concord?


There is nothing personal about this, what puzzles a lot of us outside the USA is how you can do so many things at world class level, while in other areas you undermine that quality of performance -race relations and gun ownership being two outstanding causes. You could argue at the cultural-historical level that violence has been endemic in American life since Jamestown, that without Lexington and Concord there would be no USA, but that doesn't make it necessary today and the USA's greatest achievements did not necessitate murdering people in their thousands, and nor is the US number 1 as you depict it, given that per capita it is more dangerous today to live in Honduras, El Salvador and Syria than it is in Florida. Parkland was the safest town in Florida before this incident.

I agree that it is often the case that resentment of one kind or another motivates lethal violence, and that you can't legislate for that. But what you can do is use the law to make it harder for people with seething rage and resentment to go into a shop or visit a gun show or purchase online the weapons that give practical expression to that rage and resentment and results in multiple deaths of innocent people -or family members as is the case with so many gun-related homicides.

Watching the President yesterday was to witness a sickening hypocrisy from a man who says there is a mental health problem having made it easier, rather than harder for such people to buy weapons. When is this man going to be subjected to the robust face-to-face grilling that our Prime Minister and Leader of the Opposition is subjected to in the UK?

An 18-year old Cruz was able, legally to buy a semi-automatic weapon, but not old enough to buy a beer. Why make one illegal but not the other?

[trish]

...It seems like yesterday was the day to be bummed out, I woke up this morning in a really down mood, today was the day to get mad. These fuckin Republican Fatcats hiding behind the second amendment to line their pockets with NRA bucks needs a look. Little Kids getting murdered and they're accusing the Democrats of politicizing it. The stats on guns are unbelievable!!! No way could they exist without Political Cover. I can't say the Republicans are directly responsible for a Gun Crazy USA, but I would go out on a limb and say the children are innocent. Maybe we need an Amendment to the Constitution that says we should look out for our kids.
Obama said talking to the parents of the Sandy Hook Kids were his hardest days. God, I miss that guy....

I can’t say either that the Republicans are directly (or indirectly) responsible for a Gun Crazy USA, but they are responsible for current policy and the current sorry state of our laws relating to firearms.


I do not believe the US has more ‘crazies’ than any other nation. Take any other wealthy nation, give them our gun-laws, our healthcare system, our collapsing pension system etc. and you will probably find school shootings and other gun violence rises to the proportion we find in the US.
Violence in the US is a symptom of our failure to develop successful policies for dealing with all of these other issues; that failure is primarily due to our failure to see beyond ourselves, our own self-interests, our failure to empathize with others and allowing corporations to essentially codify this attitude into (if not a national philosophy, then) the philosophy one of our major political parties.

[buttslinger]

Trish and Stavros:
I'm painting with a broad brush here, but Republicans taking away guns from poor white trash would be like Democrats taking Welfare Checks away from Poor black Single Mothers. There really is two USAs, not Republican and Democrat, Rich and Poor. It's not the guys with huge Historic Gun Collections in their Basements, It's more about inner city poor kids, and poor people in "flyover" USA. People with shit jobs, no future.
They once polled "poor" Republicans, and found out they don't have poor Republicans, they have WORKING CLASS Republicans. One of my Street Whores told me she could get me underage girls, drugs, machine guns,....anything I wanted if I looked out for her. The same people who buy 50 Lottery tickets buy guns. They say Americans are the only people in the World who think they are ENTITLED to happiness.
I'll explain gun violence to you two when you explain to me why two such highly intellectual individuals are hangin' on a debate page peppered with mind numbing tittlating shemales!!!
Hey, if this was an easy fix, it would be fixed. It is what it is. A Mystery is what it is. All those Republicans who got huge checks from the NRA were so upset in their tweets yesterday. Trish and Stavros, I agree with both of you, your are right. But I am more right. Because my Mental Disease allows me to see the Despair more clearly. And Revel in it.
If the USA didn't rise as ONE after Sandy Hook and Columbine, it's every man for himself. I don't know, I really don't know. How did we get Trump as President? I haven't figured that one out either, but I'd bet the answer is not good. Even if you can explain the problem, you would have to fix a problem that doesn't want to be fixed. Everybody has an amulet around their neck with pain, misery, death, taxes. The solution is sometimes not to think about it. For all it's riches, America has a cancer.

[Stavros]

Trish and Stavros:
I'm painting with a broad brush here, but Republicans taking away guns from poor white trash would be like Democrats taking Welfare Checks away from Poor black Single Mothers. There really is two USAs, not Republican and Democrat, Rich and Poor. It's not the guys with huge Historic Gun Collections in their Basements, It's more about inner city poor kids, and poor people in "flyover" USA. People with shit jobs, no future.


I cannot write with much authority on the US as I don't live there, but the danger in referring to a 'coastal' and 'flyover' America is that repeated enough times it creates a division that is not there. The supposedly 'liberal' complexion of Boston and New York on the East Coast, San Francisco and LA on the West, sits uneasily with the coastal regions of Florida and Texas and in any case this is the wrong analogy to use. Although it may be a given that the USA is divided, so are most countries that I can think of including the UK. It sounds philosophical but I think part of the problem is that if you ask Americas what does America mean, you get a diverse range of answers. They may all agree on the importance of the Constitution and the rule of law, but not agree on what the Constitution means, or judge that the rule of law is fair in the sense that everyone is equal before the law. One could get lost in a labyrinth of contested interpretations of 'What America means to me' and yet this has been the source of its politics since 1776.

Gun control thus may be seen in this context, and whether or not it is an optional extra or a necessary part of what it means to be an American. I see it as an affront to the authority of the State, for if the State concedes its monopoly on the legitimate use of force to citizens on the basis of trust, but only that basis, it cannot in fact control its society if gun owners challenge state authority indeed, repudiate the authority of the government and law enforcement agencies. As the USA provides its citizens with protection from external attack through its military and intelligence agencies, and protection from domestic attack through its police services, there can be no justification for the widespread ownership of firearms, just as the first ban on the ownership of such weapons was introduced after the Civil War when fears that freed slaves would run rampage across the south killing all in their path.

I suggest a major contradiction has now opened up between the authority of the state and its law and order regime, and the widespread ownership of firearms by Americans who have not only lost faith in their own governing system, but may resort to the use of those weapons at some future date if they believe their inherited privileges are being undermined by an America they do not recognize as their own. 'A well regulated militia' may have been written into the Constitution to protect the country against another British incursion (as indeed happened), but it no longer applies and if anything is now a direct threat to the survival of the USA as an integrated union of 50 states.

Hence the question: can the 2nd Amendment be repealed or replaced? Maybe it is time to stop tinkering and go for the core justification that is no longer relevant, or is a threat to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness if young lives are extinguished before they even have a chance to realise that dream. Happiness is not a warm gun, after all.

[buttslinger]

Nice pensmanship, Stavros, I live in Northern Virginia, and I can tell you if I drive an hour and a half south it's a different world. That's about the same distance it would take me to legally discharge a firearm.
I'm sure you could amend the Constitution to make pink hats mandatory, but that's not going to happen.
Marshall Law, that's not going to happen.
Sometimes you'll get a Brady Bill, like after Reagan was shot, and one time Reagan imposed gun laws during the time the Black Panthers used to walk around with rifles in their neighborhoods.
They had a list of the Republican Senators that received NRA money last election, as much money as the Russians spent, the NRA spent more. We've got overlapping problems going on here.
Americans have a fascination with guns.
If the Military, the Police, the Red Cross, Medicare, Social Security all had more money, living in the USA would be Heaven on Earth.
As it is, the book goes out the window when the demands exceed the ability. This is what a twenty trillion deficit looks like.
Try to look at the bright side, that's the best I can offer. I'm stressed out of my mind lately.

[Stavros]

No surprises that the pathetic response of the President is to blame everyone else. Blame the FBI for not taking action against Cruz, blame Obama and his supporters for not passing stronger anti-gun laws in their first term, as if he supported such things. Nothing about guns, a refusal to publish any photos of him signing away the Obama era ruling making it harder for people with mental health issues to buy guns, and not a word of criticism of the NRA or the gun show that opened this weekend just miles away from Parkland.

And yet, is this a turning point, as students plan their own march on Washington DC? Is Emma Gonzalez the face of a new movement led by women that is transforming the public sphere in the US? Or is this just a spasm of rage that the NRA and its supporters will see through while passing Conceal and Carry and turning every school, hotel, mall, cinema, hospital and station into an armed fortress, increasing the number of guns in society? One wonders if it is, or if Bannon was right to claim, in somewhat hysterical fashion that the #metoo movement was women putting an end to 10,000 years of history dominated by men, though I am not sure where the 10,000 came from.

On the one hand the US has been here before, on the other hand maybe it is too soon to predict, and we may be surprised....

[Murmdrum]

I like my guns...im a licensed gun owner who locks his guns up in accordance to the laws of my shitty state
( Massachusetts) Everyone screaming for gun control of a certain type of gun( which is not an assault rifle, Armalite Rifle = AR........) thinks that this will magically stop any future mass shooting and they are painfully wrong. It won't. Will never happen. This stuff will keep happening . I dont want my guns banned because I am a responsible gun owner and I can bet my balls on it that I will never go out and shoot up a work place or school. I carry a gun for self defense. I am licensed for that. I never ever want to have to use my gun...but I am trained to do so if needed. It chaps my ass when someone says " no one needs a gun like that"....Dont tell me what I need.....

[trish]

I like my guns...im a licensed gun owner who locks his guns up in accordance to the laws of my shitty state
( Massachusetts) Everyone screaming for gun control of a certain type of gun( which is not an assault rifle, Armalite Rifle = AR........) thinks that this will magically stop any future mass shooting and they are painfully wrong. It won't. Will never happen. This stuff will keep happening .

No one. Absolutely no one is saying gun control “will magically stop any future mass shooting,” so please don’t set up any more straw men. We’re all intelligent enough to see through that.

One: gun control has effectively reduced the number mass shootings, familicides, suicides and just plain stupid accidents in other nations and it can (and eventually will) do so here.
Two: It’s not magic. Ban semi-automatic assault-like firearms (whatever the fuck you want to call them) and fewer people will be shot with them.


It chaps my ass when someone says " no one needs a gun like that"....Dont tell me what I need.....

If you’re still talking Armalite AR......., then you don’t fucking need a gun like that. I grant you may want it. You may want it real bad, but I even doubt that. You don’t need it.

[buttslinger]

If they didn't give a gun to the people who mark YES on the "I am an Asshole" question on their registration application, I think we could clean this whole mess up in no time.

[dreamon]

No one. Absolutely no one is saying gun control “will magically stop any future mass shooting,” so please don’t set up any more straw men.

Supporters of an assault weapons ban, like Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.), say that the goal of the bans is to prevent horrific mass shooting incidents, not stop the run-of-the-mill gun violence that kills dozens of Americans each day.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2018/02/15/its-time-to-bring-back-the-assault-weapons-ban-gun-violence-experts-say/?utm_term=.dd6272f41af0

[Murmdrum]

If you’re still talking Armalite AR......., then you don’t fucking need a gun like that. I grant you may want it. You may want it real bad, but I even doubt that. You don’t need it.

you dont know a thing about me or what I do....so to say I dont fucking need a gun like that is rubbish...

[Murmdrum]

Supporters of an assault weapons ban, like Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.), say that the goal of the bans is to prevent horrific mass shooting incidents, not stop the run-of-the-mill gun violence that kills dozens of Americans each day.


if they do ban these extra Killy black rifles and the mass shooting continue, which they will, they will see how futile their efforts were. No one ever mentions the slaughterhouse that Chicago is yearly....wonder why?

[Murmdrum]

One: gun control has effectively reduced the number mass shootings, familicides, suicides and just plain stupid accidents in other nations and it can (and eventually will) do so here.
Two: It’s not magic. Ban semi-automatic assault-like firearms (whatever the fuck you want to call them) and fewer people will be shot with them.

.

yes because every one will turn them in, even all the criminals who illegally have them and follow all the laws.....

[Stavros]

No one ever mentions the slaughterhouse that Chicago is yearly....wonder why?

In fact Chicago has been the model for the President's 'American carnage' rhetoric that masks the fact that he and Attorney General Sessions manipulate crime figures in Chicago as part of their blanket of lies-

Last February, Mr. Trump claimed that “the murder rate in our country is the highest it’s been in 47 years.” Wrong: The national rate remains at an all-time low. (http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2017/feb/08/donald-trump/donald-trump-wrong-murder-rate-highest-47-years/) It’s true that the 10.8 percent increase in murders between 2014 and 2015 was the largest one-year rise in more than four decades, but the total number of murders is still far below what it was in the early 1990s.
For his part, Mr. Sessions has repeatedly hawked a nationwide crime wave (http://www.newsweek.com/jeff-sessions-crime-statistics-misrepresented-747409) that doesn’t exist, and he has called crime spikes in certain areas a “dangerous, permanent trend that places the health and safety of the American people at risk” — despite the lack of any evidence that recent upticks will last. To the contrary, in 2017 the crime rate in the nation’s 30 biggest cities actually went down.
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/02/17/opinion/sunday/donald-trump-and-the-undoing-of-justice-reform.html (https://www.brennancenter.org/analysis/crime-2017-updated-analysis)

Ask yourself why Chicago is 'the model' and not Boston, New York City or Washington DC and you might find that there is a marked difference between the outcomes of confrontational policing in one -high rates of crime- and a lower rate in more community-oriented policing in the others-but that smacks of pinko liberals doing good. That was Obama, and everything Obama did must be undone, reversed, trashed.

[Jericho]

you dont know a thing about me or what I do....so to say I dont fucking need a gun like that is rubbish...

Go on then, tell us, in civilian life, *why* do you need an assault rifle?
(I'm not having a go at you, I'm genuinely curious).

[trish]

you dont know a thing about me or what I do....so to say I dont fucking need a gun like that is rubbish...
You don't need a fucking gun like that.

[Murmdrum]

Go on then, tell us, in civilian life, *why* do you need an assault rifle?
(I'm not having a go at you, I'm genuinely curious).

thanks for not having a go at me like this other twat who I will not acknowledge, this will be my last post in here anyway. I am a state certified instructor for gun safety...I help people learn about guns in the safest ways, instructional shooting techniques, how to get properly licensed and handle all firearms in the safest manners...I need knowledge on all kind of firearms and there are many different types of guns. People own or want to own AR-15's wether some agree or not...its just life. I have half a dozen other guns that do the same thing as an AR but they do not look like the dreaded " assault" rifle...anyway thats it...thanks and have a good day

[broncofan]

thanks for not having a go at me like this other twat who I will not acknowledge, this will be my last post in here anyway. I am a state certified instructor for gun safety...I help people learn about guns in the safest ways, instructional shooting techniques, how to get properly licensed and handle all firearms in the safest manners...I need knowledge on all kind of firearms and there are many different types of guns. People own or want to own AR-15's wether some agree or not...its just life. I have half a dozen other guns that do the same thing as an AR but they do not look like the dreaded " assault" rifle...anyway thats it...thanks and have a good day
So you need the gun to show other people how to use the gun which they need because.....

[trish]

Supporters of an assault weapons ban, like Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.), say that the goal of the bans is to prevent horrific mass shooting incidents, not stop the run-of-the-mill gun violence that kills dozens of Americans each day.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2018/02/15/its-time-to-bring-back-the-assault-weapons-ban-gun-violence-experts-say/?utm_term=.dd6272f41af0

And it will. She didn’t say “all” and she didn’t say “magically”. Good article by the way. The chart included demonstrate the ten year ban from 1994 to 2004 was indeed effective.



yes because every one will turn them in, even all the criminals who illegally have them and follow all the laws.....

No, not everyone would turn in their AR-15’s etc. Who said they would? But there WOULD be fewer on the street and consequently fewer used in shootings. Also not turning them in would be a criminal offense.

[buttslinger]

.... this will be my last post in here anyway.....

Before you go, and I'm truly seriously curious also....what were your SAT scores?

[Stavros]

Having been told over the weekend the President was now considering gun control measures, after chatting to guests at Mar-a-Lago, presumably because he has no ideas of his own, it emerges a ban on bump stocks is the best he can propose; while students from Parkland made the trip to state capital in Florida to watch the state congress sit on its hand rather than take action to limit gun ownership in the state. On Sunday that devout Christian Marco Rubio said Cruz should be executed if found guilty of the murders. I guess that is what American Christians call forgiveness. Sounds like cowardice all round from where I am.

Like Joe the Plumber said:

your dead kids don’t trump my Constitutional rights

[Stavros]

An article in the New York Times offers an explanation for the high number of mass killings by guns in the US compared to other countries, and concludes the volume of guns in private ownership must be considered a factor, being even more relevant than issues of mental health or race, thus:

The only variable that can explain the high rate of mass shootings in America is its astronomical number of guns.

and

Americans make up about 4.4 percent of the global population but own 42 percent of the world’s guns. From 1966 to 2012, 31 percent of the gunmen in mass shootings worldwide were American, according to a 2015 study by Adam Lankford (http://adamlankford.com/research.htm), a professor at the University of Alabama.

Adjusted for population, only Yemen has a higher rate of mass shootings among countries with more than 10 million people — a distinction Mr. Lankford urged to avoid outliers. Yemen has the world’s second-highest rate of gun ownership after the United States.

One has to agree with the conclusion, echoing a remark I made in an earlier post:

“In retrospect Sandy Hook marked the end of the US gun control debate,” Dan Hodges, a British journalist, wrote in a post on Twitter (https://twitter.com/dpjhodges/status/611943312401002496?lang=en) two years ago, referring to the 2012 attack that killed 20 young students at an elementary school in Connecticut. “Once America decided killing children was bearable, it was over.”
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/11/07/world/americas/mass-shootings-us-international.html

Maybe it is time for the US to enter the 21st century and scrap the 2nd Amendment.

[dreamon]

And it will. She didn’t say “all” and she didn’t say “magically”. Good article by the way. The chart included demonstrate the ten year ban from 1994 to 2004 was indeed effective.

Except it wasn't.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2013/01/24/the-last-assault-weapons-ban-didnt-work-will-the-new-one-be-different/?utm_term=.05c7334af0ce

http://www.latimes.com/opinion/op-ed/la-oe-winkler-folly-of-assault-weapon-ban-20151211-story.html

https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2004/aug/16/20040816-114754-1427r/

https://townhall.com/columnists/douggiles/2012/12/30/the-assault-weapons-ban-didnt-work-then-and-it-wont-work-now-n1476009

[dreamon]

Maybe it is time for the US to enter the 21st century and scrap the 2nd Amendment.

Aren't you from England? Don't you guys get ID'd to buy plastic cutlery? Bold talk about "entering the 21st century".

[broncofan]

Aren't you from England? Don't you guys get ID'd to buy plastic cutlery? Bold talk about "entering the 21st century".
They're not the ones cleaning up blood at their high schools and talking about arming teachers when there are very simple legislative solutions.

WE ARE LITERALLY THE ONLY FUCKING INDUSTRIALIZED COUNTRY WHERE THIS ROUTINELY HAPPENS!!! COULD IT HAVE SOMETHING TO DO WITH THE AVAILABILITY OF GUNS? Everybody else has fewer guns and less dangerous weapons and restrictions on who can purchase. And nobody else has dozens of these massacres per year. And you fucking geniuses want to arm teachers?

It doesn't matter how many times you dislike other people's posts, it doesn't change the facts. Children's lives are more important than your inferiority complex.

[Stavros]

Aren't you from England? Don't you guys get ID'd to buy plastic cutlery? Bold talk about "entering the 21st century".

I live in the UK, and yes, the English part. And comment is free, just as you are free to comment on anything that happens in the UK that you are interested in, something I welcome. You can pick up plastic knives, forks and spoons for free at the checkout in the food halls in Marks & Spencer stores, no ID required, though there are now stores that will not sell kitchen knives to under-18 year olds and the law may get tougher given that knife crime is a serious problem in some cities.

It is not bold, but certainly a challenge to you as an American to ask if the time has come to completely re-think your relationship to weapons of mass destruction, because that it what semi-automatic weapons are. Look again at the figures from the Las Vegas incident: 58 dead, 851 wounded -the Wikipedia figure- other sources are smaller but over 500. Estimated time it took to achieve this: 10 minutes. Is it any wonder that we sit here and shake our heads, and some say 'Americans are mad'.

But look again at the arguments that are presented by people like Wayne LaPierre and you wonder if the USA is in the grip of civil war, as if the President's use of the term American Carnage was a description of everyday life as lived by Americans across the country, with tattooed gangs armed with guns and knives prowling the streets of your cities selling drugs, shooting up bars, turning whole blocks into no-go zones. And then to use this image of permanent war into a recipe that is more likely to increase it than reduce it.

There was an armed officer at the Parkland school, but he chose to stay outside rather then enter the building and confront the shooter, assuming he could have done that. To arm 'gun adept' teachers marks a low point in history when the Chief Executive of the USA, backed by some hysterical morons in effect says he cannot produce a solution to the gun problem except to increase their availability. Wayne LaPierre then takes on the FBI, the 'media', the Democrats as if these were all enemies of America. But maybe that it is his point: they are the enemies of his America. His America is a country where Black people know their place, they don't complain, they don't vote, they don't have guns, and they don't occupy the White House.

Wayne LaPierre should tell the truth. If the US elects another Black man, or a Latino, or a woman, and presents the country with what he calls 'Socialism', he and his people will declare war on the Federal Government, and they have their weapons to engage. That millions of Americans may actually vote to reduce gun ownership will not be democracy in action but 'socialism' or whatever label is handy to dismiss it as a genuine concern of American citizens, and the signs are that a new generation of young Americans is taking a very different view of their country from LaPierre, and they are not actors, but real people too.

In the end this is not just a debate about guns, it is about what you think the USA is, and what you would like it to be. In the UK we are engaged in the same question, but it is about the exit from the EU and the consequences for us as a country, and there are solutions to both. It is up to you as an American to either stay silent, or engage. We don't want to see any more dead children than you do, so what are you going to do about it?

[trish]

Except it wasn't.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2013/01/24/the-last-assault-weapons-ban-didnt-work-will-the-new-one-be-different/?utm_term=.05c7334af0ce...

In regard to the assault weapons ban, the 2013 Washington Post article you linked does say,

“A University of Pennsylvania study concluded that these loopholes undermined the 1994 law's effectiveness. (That study also found that the law appeared to have little effect on gun violence, not least because assault weapons were used in just a small portion of gun crimes.)”

So true, the ban was not very effective in stopping gun crimes in general. However, the chart I posted above from the 2018 Washington Post article you also linked DOES show that the ban was effective in decreasing the number of mass shootings and ‘gun massacres’. So yes, the ban was effective. The 2013 article indicates that it could have been more effective. We know from the Australian model (and a multitude of others) just how effective gun regulation can be.

Another good article by the way. Thanks.

[Stavros]

I have just seen a clip from a speech the President gave to the Conservative Political Action Conference in which he says the murder of an American citizen by another American citizen is an acceptable action. No mention of the rule of law, no mention of context, the potential for mistakes, panic attacks, just a fantasy drawn from a Hollywood movie in which the good guy shoots the bad guy. The rule of law no longer matters, the rule of the gun is all. If I were an American, I would suggest this statement alone robs the man of any respect, and would expect him to resign in disgrace or be impeached. At what point does the law matter more than the hysterical, ill-considered rant of a political amateur? But there you have it, more guns, more confrontations, more deaths, more injuries, more misery. He sat there in the White House with his arms folded as the students and relatives of victims from Parkland tried to explain reality to him, but that position said it all: I don't care.

[Stavros]

Oh, and don't forget the Russians, who may have been filtering money through the NRA to help elect their chosen one...are the ones who bray the loudest about being true patriots the ones who took foreign money in their campaign against the American Hillary Clinton?

Activists are demanding the National Rifle Association (http://www.independent.co.uk/topic/nra) (NRA) reveal if it received donations from Russia (http://www.independent.co.uk/topic/VladimirPutin), after it was reported the FBI is investigating whether a Kremlin-linked Moscow (http://www.independent.co.uk/topic/Russia) businessman channelled money to the group’s campaign to help Donald Trump (http://www.independent.co.uk/topic/DonaldTrump) win the election.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politics/fbi-russia-nra-donald-trump-campaign-election-investigation-mueller-banker-money-a8225581.html

https://www.cnbc.com/2018/02/15/nra-russia-and-trump-money-laundering-poisoning-us-democracy-commentary.html

[Stavros]

A few days after the Russian-backed President said it would be a good thing if 'gun adept teachers' murdered Americans, a former infantry officer with service in Iraq and Afghanistan has offered a set of practical reasons why this is a bad idea, not a good one-
Anyone who tells you that arming teachers is a solution is clueless. It’ll cost kids’ lives. Teachers need to be teaching, not training to fight. But they’re up against weapons of war. And that’s on us.
http://www.nydailynews.com/amp/opinion/arming-teachers-classroom-cost-kids-lives-article-1.3835411

Meanwhile there has been strong reaction to the speech made by Wayne LaPierre of the Russian-backed NRA as the organization loses special deals for its members with car hire firms, hotels and such like. LaPierre has responded by describing the boycott movement as 'cowards', but just as he claimed in his speech to the CPAC that the opponent of gun ownership are not just opposed to the 2nd Amendment and 'freedom' they want to introduce 'European socialism' into the US.

But here is a curious thing: two incidents in the UK -Hungerford in 1987, Dunblane in 1996- led to major changes in the law:

In the wake of the 1987 Hungerford massacre, in which one lone gunman killed 16 people, Britain introduced new legislation -- the Firearms (Amendment) Act 1988 -- making registration mandatory for owning shotguns and banning semi-automatic and pump-action weapons.
Within a year and a half of the Dunblane massacre, UK lawmakers had passed a ban on the private ownership of all handguns in mainland Britain, giving the country some of the toughest anti-gun legislation in the world. After both shootings there were firearm amnesties across the UK, resulting in the surrender of thousands of firearms and rounds of ammunition
https://edition.cnn.com/2012/12/17/world/europe/dunblane-lessons/index.html

But was this European Socialism in action? No, as the Prime Minister in 1987 was Margaret Thatcher, and in 1996 it was John Major, though for all I know LaPierre reckons Maggie was a socialist. Consider the odder fact that the Republican Party, which used to be one of the most vocal and severe critics of the USSR, has apparently become obsessed with the strength and purpose of a man who joined the Communist Party of the USSR in his youth, spent most of his career as a young man in its dreaded KGB, and even, when posted to Dresden (based at -believe it- No 4. Angelikastrasse) was involved in an early version of cybercrime at its most basic level -stealing the western technology the USSR did not have-

There is little information about Putin's specific tasks in Dresden, but specialists and documents point to several assignments, including recruiting and preparing agents. The work likely involved Robotron, a Dresden-based electronics conglomerate, which was the Eastern Bloc's largest mainframe computer maker and a microchip research center.
At the time, a major KGB effort was underway to steal Western technology. The Soviet Bloc was so far behind, according to a German specialist, that agents at Stasi headquarters often preferred to work on a Western-made Commodore personal computer rather than on their office mainframe.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/inatl/longterm/russiagov/putin.htm

It is a moot point- is Putin a Communist? He has made all the right noises on markets, but has strengthened the State at the expense of many of the Oligarchs he witnessed looting the country in the 1990s. He has remained loyal to the KGB, admitting it made mistakes in the past but not denouncing its record overall. His buddy in Kiev, Viktor Yanukovich was also a Communist, after a youth of petty crime (the two may go together), which does make one wonder what it is that suddenly turned these Cold War Warriors into puppies of the other President.

The answer is money, and lots of it. And there you have the true test of loyalty. A Russian-backed President who re-tweets claims the Parkland students articulating an alternative vision for the USA are 'actors'; the head of the Russian-backed NRA railing against those who would take away his 'freedom' as 'European Socialists' while pocketing the dollars sent to his organization by a old-style Russian socialist. When people in power will do anything for money, politics has been replaced by commercial transactions; when barter becomes the means of exchange in international relations, something fundamental has been challenged: for those Americans, it is nothing less than the Constitution to which they claim loyalty, when that loyalty can in fact be exchanged for money. If this is corruption at the highest level, is it not also a betrayal of what it means to be an American?

I ask because I am not an American. I live in a country which, even though it has too many guns, has a more sane approach to firearms, and where the claim the Leader of the Opposition was a Soviet Spy who told the Soviets what Margaret Thatcher had for breakfast (not muesli, allegedly), has been exposed as fiction. Some things you can make up, others cannot. So why are people so terrified of telling the truth about money, especially when it is 'their own'?

Follow the money, and you will get to the truth.

[broncofan]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PrnIVVWtAag

This is an old advertisement of the NRA, released I believe about a year ago when there were a lot of Trump protests. I was wondering if someone could put into words for me what is so objectively creepy about what is said and depicted. If not, just view it as a good example of why companies do not want to be associated with the NRA and why they should be shunned.

[broncofan]

I was wondering if someone could put into words for me what is so objectively creepy about what is said and depicted.
Here's my feeble attempt to explain what is disturbing about it:

Beyond of course promoting paranoia, anarchy, civil unrest, and exploiting deep divisions in society doesn't this sound like fascist propaganda being used to vilify a common enemy? Anyone defending the NRA should have to explain why this isn't just an affront to human decency and cross a red line for what is acceptable.

[Stavros]

Here's my feeble attempt to explain what is disturbing about it:

Beyond of course promoting paranoia, anarchy, civil unrest, and exploiting deep divisions in society doesn't this sound like fascist propaganda being used to vilify a common enemy? Anyone defending the NRA should have to explain why this isn't just an affront to human decency and cross a red line for what is acceptable.

It is not so hard to understand: you need to be armed if you are to fight a tyrannical government that is opposed to your freedom, that wants to take that freedom away. The NRA protects your right to be armed. How a tyrannical government is defined, how freedom is defined is of course the key, but you need only watch that video to get a sense of who is most likely to be the target. And now you know why 'they' need guns, and why the NRA can be considered a 'terrorist' organization that, when the time comes, will justify an armed insurrection against a democratically elected President and Congress if the people have names like Jefferson (no, not him), Castro, al-Aziz, Chung and Bernstein. It may be hysterical now, and they have their Russian-backed con-man in the White House, but even he may be about to flip on the age limit for purchasing weapons. The difference now compared to the 19th century is that the demographics over the next 25 years suggest 'white America' is going to be eclipsed, numerically by Americas of different origin, though there is no evidence to suggest they are any less America than Bud or Chuck from Alabama.

[broncofan]

It is not so hard to understand: you need to be armed if you are to fight a tyrannical government that is opposed to your freedom, that wants to take that freedom away. The NRA protects your right to be armed. How a tyrannical government is defined, how freedom is defined is of course the key, but you need only watch that video to get a sense of who is most likely to be the target.
This is definitely true but I think what makes it worse for me is that NRA backers and Republicans currently hold all of the cards in government. So while they claim to be arming the public against a "tyrannical government" and are promoting insurrection, they control the levers of power and are pretending to be powerless against all these forces.

It's in part an exercise in feigned victimhood, where they're only pretending to be a grassroots movement (they only have 5 million members out of 300 million people so they are a concentrated minority interest) but in reality could not be more entrenched and well-financed. And yes, there is a very strong message of "we're white and Christian, watch out for all these scary people with darker skin who are violent and/or dishonest."

[buttslinger]

Don't make the mistake of not giving the Devil his due, the Devil isn't protected by the Constitution, the Devil IS the Constitution, and the Devil is in the details.
Put the first and second amendment in a box and voila, out pops Pierre LaPierre.
While trained Police Officers cower behind their cars in Florida, Montana Schoolchildren are safe and sane because they grew up on Fox TV and religiously fire and clean their guns.
All the NRA does is Lobby for guns, their only natural competitors are sissies and Elites, and if their message sometimes sounds like a blunt force instrument, that's no mistake, that's music to the people who belong.
If the Democrats use their future Political Capital on gun control, the Republicans would use it just like Obamacare, and rally their troops in the midterms.
It's crazy.

https://preview.ibb.co/kWFL2c/22.jpg (https://ibb.co/k0OUvx)

[Stavros]

It's in part an exercise in feigned victimhood, where they're only pretending to be a grassroots movement (they only have 5 million members out of 300 million people so they are a concentrated minority interest) but in reality could not be more entrenched and well-financed.

I suppose it is an odd situation where a small lobby appears to have such extensive support in Congress, more so than many worthy causes. I looked up referendum US to see if it can be done, and although there is no provision for a nationwide referendum on a single issue, the 21st Amendment that repealed the 18th (Prohibition) in 1933 was the outcome of what I think is called a 'state ratifying convention'. It raises the question, if the repeal of the 2nd Amendment was put to 50 states in a special convention, would the overall vote be for repeal or retain? I don't expect it to happen, but it seems to me that as the 2nd Amendment is at the core of the argument on gun ownership there can not be a proper national debate if the arguments are only presented by the NRA and some Democrat politicians. The argument needs to be addressed more broadly across American society, for otherwise how can anyone know what the average American thinks about the issue?

[buttslinger]

I believe I told the story here before about a guy I worked with a couple of years who one day casually remarked that he had earned three silver stars in three different wars. To get a silver star you basically have to storm a machine gun nest. But his remark about THE ARMY is probably right about everything else: The are rules and regulations for every thing, and exceptions for every rule and regulation.
Even Bernie Sanders argues with the NRA sometimes because Vermont has so many hunters. And I would say, at it's essence, the Constitution is all about Individual Rights. Everybody knows (70%) that any gun that shoots more than 6 shells is not needed for hunting or home defense. Congress could enact a law right now that would make AR-15s regulated into non-existence. But as I have said a hundred times before on several topics, IT"S THE REPUBLICAN'S FAULT!!! They will never give up an issue that would cost them heavily at the voting booth.
If Congress and the Political shows ever focus on the National Debt, and admit what we need to do to fix it, the whole country will put a gun to it's head. Who cares about moral decay when you're dying of cancer?

[broncofan]

I suppose it is an odd situation where a small lobby appears to have such extensive support in Congress, more so than many worthy causes. I looked up referendum US to see if it can be done, and although there is no provision for a nationwide referendum on a single issue, the 21st Amendment that repealed the 18th (Prohibition) in 1933 was the outcome of what I think is called a 'state ratifying convention'. It raises the question, if the repeal of the 2nd Amendment was put to 50 states in a special convention, would the overall vote be for repeal or retain? I don't expect it to happen, but it seems to me that as the 2nd Amendment is at the core of the argument on gun ownership there can not be a proper national debate if the arguments are only presented by the NRA and some Democrat politicians. The argument needs to be addressed more broadly across American society, for otherwise how can anyone know what the average American thinks about the issue?
In order to propose an amendment 2/3 of both houses of congress or 2/3 of the state legislatures have to support it. That's is unlikely but at least within the realm of possibility. But in order to ratify an amendment that has been proposed, 3/4 of the state legislatures need to support it. That's just never going to happen given that there are more red states than blue and the second amendment as a general matter has more support than the NRA. I would analogize second amendment proponents to the NRA as follows: like comparing those who are pro-life to those who think that women who seek an abortion should be locked up. The latter is a more extreme and probably far less numerous group than the former.

The NRA as you have said elsewhere is an extremist organization that supports the sale of silencing devices for guns and the continued use of assault weapons and many other things we can legally ban without doing away with the second amendment. Someone correct me but I think they even fought against making bump stocks illegal which is an absolute disgrace.

I myself am not convinced that the second amendment belongs with the other rights it is classed with but procedurally it is too difficult to get rid of and culturally we have an attachment to anything numbered among the first ten amendments. I do think the second amendment is a legitimate obstacle to gun control but the primary obstacle now is put up by those who interpret it as being broader than even the Supreme Court's broad construction. There are some who think it means no limits whatsoever can be placed on gun ownership, which it has never meant.

[broncofan]

The argument needs to be addressed more broadly across American society, for otherwise how can anyone know what the average American thinks about the issue?
This is really important to find out because it's easy for positions here to be polarized. I'm sure there are a lot of gun enthusiasts who, if the issue were framed in an honest way, would consider gun control measures. I believe it is a testament to the effectiveness of the NRA that the issue is always framed in the most hysterical terms and never sensitive to what they are actually doing. One would not know from the broader rhetoric of the NRA that they are fighting against the effectiveness of mental health regulations and the prohibition of devices to convert weapons into de-facto machine guns or to silence a gun which really only has use as a tool of assassination. It would be nice to get some sense of where people stand without the distorting effect of the NRA.

[Stavros]

Further to the above is this perceptive comment in the NYT about the positive and negative aspects of the issue in elections:

In recent years, both major parties have honored something of a nonaggression pact. As the Republican Party’s moderates thinned out, few Republicans strayed from the gun-rights line, and Democrats in competitive regions deliberately avoided making guns central, fearing that it was far more of a voting issue for gun advocates than gun control supporters. In Congress and in most states, gun policy was largely kept off the legislative agenda.
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/02/27/us/politics/parkland-gun-control-politics-midterms.html?hp&action=click&pgtype=Homepage&clickSource=story-heading&module=first-column-region&region=top-news&WT.nav=top-news

The dilemma now appears to be affecting both parties as they woo the voters -but is it a 'tipping point' and a 'game changer'? Should candidates be fearless or pragmatic? This may be the only way to get a better sense of what Americans want with regard to gun law. But there does seem to be a turn against the NRA.

[Stavros]

A week used to be a long time in politics, now two days makes it. Thus, on Wednesday the world was in shock as the President appeared to endorse tougher measures on gun ownership, by Thursday the NRA appeared to have changed his mind-

The top lobbyist for the National Rifle Association claimed late Thursday that President Trump had retreated from his surprising support a day earlier for gun control measures (https://www.nytimes.com/2018/02/28/us/politics/trump-gun-control.html) after a meeting with N.R.A. officials and Vice President Mike Pence in the Oval Office.
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/03/01/us/politics/trump-republicans-gun-control.html?hp&action=click&pgtype=Homepage&clickSource=story-heading&module=first-column-region&region=top-news&WT.nav=top-news

One suspects that the President has never really had much grasp of policy, and can be persuaded to change his mind depending on who is in the room at the time. But does it look good on TV? Maybe that it is the key to what he says and does.

[trish]

One suspects that the President has never really had much grasp of policy, and can be persuaded to change his mind depending on who is in the room at the time. But does it look good on TV? Maybe that it is the key to what he says and does.

I don’t think he ever changed his mind. One on one he is aways affable and nods in agreement at what you say. We saw this when he met with Pelosi and Schumer on DACA. We just witnessed this behavior again with the Parkland survivors on the issue of gun regulation.

Here’s what I think the base sees: The President was emotionally overwhelmed by the first person testimony of the children he met with. He took Congress to task for being afraid to take on the NRA and tells them that the NRA isn’t difficult to deal with. Donald strong. Congress weak. NRA good. A brief time later he gets past the tragedy, sees through the tears and stands by the Second Amendment.

[buttslinger]

Listen, I wouldn't put it past this prick to casually mention a steel tariff on-mike so his insider golf buddies can make a ton of cash on the stock market. Trump's insane tweets can make the markets go crazy with a guessing game on AR-15s. Scare everyone into selling, then BUY right before he signs a Govt Contract to arm teachers.
Conservative Media lately is headed for the psychiatrist's couch. Messing with the NRA is something they draw the line on, Trump or no Trump.
Stay tuned til the next episode..............Are we fools to stay on the edge of our seats for this Reality Show President? Why can't we fast forward to the part where he goes to Leavenworth? I love a Happy Ending, a feel good story.

[Stavros]

Listen, I wouldn't put it past this prick to casually mention a steel tariff on-mike so his insider golf buddies can make a ton of cash on the stock market.

I assume you are not referring to his buddy Carl Icahn-

A week before President Trump announced his intention to impose a 25 percent tariff on steel imports, his longtime confidant and one-time adviser Carl Icahn had already cut almost 1 million shares of Wisconsin-based crane manufacturer Manitowoc Company Inc., ThinkProgress reports (https://thinkprogress.org/trump-ichan-steel-imports-cf7deb8beaf0/). The timing of Icahn's $31.3 million dump is suspect, because Manitowoc is a heavily steel-dependent company.
http://theweek.com/speedreads/758686/trumps-pal-carl-icahn-dropped-almost-million-shares-steeldependent-company-days-before-tariff-talk-began

Anyone for tennis? Bring your own racquets.

[dreamon]

This is really important to find out because it's easy for positions here to be polarized. I'm sure there are a lot of gun enthusiasts who, if the issue were framed in an honest way, would consider gun control measures. I believe it is a testament to the effectiveness of the NRA that the issue is always framed in the most hysterical terms and never sensitive to what they are actually doing. One would not know from the broader rhetoric of the NRA that they are fighting against the effectiveness of mental health regulations and the prohibition of devices to convert weapons into de-facto machine guns or to silence a gun which really only has use as a tool of assassination. It would be nice to get some sense of where people stand without the distorting effect of the NRA.

The reason the NRA has to take such a hard stance is that every time gun control is passed, it is never enough for those that oppose Second Amendment Rights. Every time pro gun rights legislators compromise, that compromise becomes tomorrow's "loopholes".

They actually came out with a fantastic video earlier this week that covers this.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jyI3uSk1xLw

In all honesty, I don't support the NRA as a whole and am no longer a member. But that has to do with their foray into lobbying for topics other than the Second Amendment, which I find to be unacceptable. But when it comes to protecting our Second Amendment rights, they are still fighting hard.

[dreamon]

...there are now stores that will not sell kitchen knives to under-18 year olds and the law may get tougher...

That is fantastic. I can't imagine living in a country where the government has that much power over your daily life. Our government isn't perfect, but at least we believe in civil rights.

[Stavros]

The reason the NRA has to take such a hard stance is that every time gun control is passed, it is never enough for those that oppose Second Amendment Rights. Every time pro gun rights legislators compromise, that compromise becomes tomorrow's "loopholes".

They actually came out with a fantastic video earlier this week that covers this.
In all honesty, I don't support the NRA as a whole and am no longer a member. But that has to do with their foray into lobbying for topics other than the Second Amendment, which I find to be unacceptable. But when it comes to protecting our Second Amendment rights, they are still fighting hard.

The video justifies gun ownership for protection, but Dom Raso doesn't explain why, just assumes that Americas under threat from whatever that is need a gun -in his view, the right gun for the right purpose- and presumably so they can then use it. In a modern democracy like the USA, a citizen feeling threatened can call 911, which is what the police are there for. The idea that 'gun law' is acceptable thus undermines the purpose of law enforcement, and more often than not 'protection' or even 'self-defence' turns out to be murder with the murderer set free by a lenient court. When George Zimmerman was 'threatened' by Trayvon Martin, assuming he was, he shot Martin dead, even though his victim was unarmed.

Dom Raso has concocted a bogus argument, but is right about one thing: all guns should be banned, and the 2nd Amendment repealed.

[Stavros]

That is fantastic. I can't imagine living in a country where the government has that much power over your daily life. Our government isn't perfect, but at least we believe in civil rights.

In fact the US, at the Federal and State level, as with the UK and many other countries has numerous categories of knives and blades that are banned. You probably need to explain how been prevented from purchasing a lethal weapon violates your civil rights -?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Knife_legislation

[trish]

I call bullshit on Dom Raso. I don’t know anyone who wants to “get rid of every gun in America.” The real myth is that people buy AR-15s and like weapons to protect themselves.


The reason the NRA has to take such a hard stance is that every time gun control is passed, it is never enough for those that oppose Second Amendment Rights. Every time pro gun rights legislators compromise, that compromise becomes tomorrow's "loopholes"...

You aren’t really falling for the slippery slope fallacy, are you? As if gun enthusiasts and the NRA can hold the line with AR-15s, thirty round magazines, concealed and open carry, but one compromise and it’s all over - no guns for anyone. Give me a break.

The reason the NRA takes a hard stance on firearm regulation is that it’s the lobbying arm of the arms industry and the reason people buy AR-15s isn’t for protection, it’s because they like them. Except for killing other human beings, there’s no practical function for such a weapon. There is no sport in hunting with them, unless you’re hunting humans. There is, I will grant, the pleasure of shooting targets, the pleasure feeling the rapid fire discharges vibrating through your arm and shoulder. There is the pleasure of owning one and let’s not forget the daydream of being a hero in a fantasy rebellion against a federal government turned socialist. These are the real reasons people buy and own civilian weapons that simulate militaristic assault weapons. And it is in the service of these trivial pleasures that children are dying.

[dreamon]

In a modern democracy like the USA, a citizen feeling threatened can call 911, which is what the police are there for.

If you have seven minutes, sure.

https://www.asecurelife.com/average-police-response-time/

[dreamon]

I call bullshit on Dom Raso. I don’t know anyone who wants to “get rid of every gun in America.”


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WCRKv-szJlo


You aren’t really falling for the slippery slope fallacy, are you? As if gun enthusiasts and the NRA can hold the line with AR-15s, thirty round magazines, concealed and open carry, but one compromise and it’s all over - no guns for anyone. Give me a break.

The "gun show loophole" was one of the compromises that allowed the Brady Bill to pass. If that "loophole" is closed, which compromise do you target next?

[Erika1487]

The gun banners are pussies plain and simple

[broncofan]

The gun banners are pussies plain and simple
Hey Dreamon, Erika, a self-proclaimed national socialist thinks you're on the right side of history. This doesn't always mean you're wrong but it can sometimes make one re-think their position.

[trish]

The "gun show loophole" was one of the compromises that allowed the Brady Bill to pass. If that "loophole" is closed, which compromise do you target next?

Assuming the “gun show loophole” is what allowed the Brady Bill to pass, you should know the Brady Bill didn’t “get rid of every gun in America.” There were no dominoes, no sliding, no slippery slope.

But to answer your question: 1) close the loophole, 2) have a registry for all guns and 3) require liability insurance for every gun just like for cars. 4) No “assault” weapons (we can figure out what that means when - if ever - the bill banning them is written).

Currently there are very very few people who oppose the 2nd Amendment. The argument is over interpretation, implementation and regulation. But as more schools, theaters, concerts and more CHILDREN get shot up by sick fucks competing for the highest body count using “rifles” intended to simulate military assault weapons, you may find the 2nd Amendment falling more and more into disfavor. I would contend the AR-15 and like weapons are the 2nd Amendment’s worst enemy.

[buttslinger]

If you look at the statistics, you'd find out that Wayne LaPierre would charge you more for Home Insurance if you had a gun in the house, if Wayne LaPierre sold Home Insurance instead of selling Guns. But I'm an Optimist, I think all the people who have been talked into the NRA can be talked out of the NRA. You may have to dumb down your message to get through, though.
By the VietNam War, they had to shoot 200,000 rounds for every one fatality. It seems like the Kill Rate is a lot better in School, maybe we should eliminate School. So it would never happen again. Why should our tax dollars go to babysitting brats all day? I don't have any kids, why should I pay for some Dreamer?
There are about 250 justified Homicides per year in the US. Check the stat, if you're ambitious, I wonder how many of those justified shootings were with an Assault Rifle? Or how many were against an armed felon?
For me, Sandy Hook confirmed our Nation has lost it's Heart, Jesus.
Erika, the first Assault Weapons were used by the Nazis in '44. At first Hitler hated the idea, but after rave reviews on the Eastern Front, he came to love them.
He used a Walther PPK on himself.
Probably a good career move at the time.....
https://preview.ibb.co/e1w8f7/Sturmgewehr_44_762x350.jpg (https://ibb.co/fRpiDS)

[dreamon]

Hey Dreamon, Erika, a self-proclaimed national socialist thinks you're on the right side of history. This doesn't always mean you're wrong but it can sometimes make one re-think their position.

Well she's fucking stupid. If she's actually a national socialist, perhaps she should study up on the NSDAP's gun control policies.

[dreamon]

Assuming the “gun show loophole” is what allowed the Brady Bill to pass, you should know the Brady Bill didn’t “get rid of every gun in America.” There were no dominoes, no sliding, no slippery slope.

Literally 10 months later they passed an "assault weapons" ban.

And yes, there was a "slippery slope". A compromise that anti-gun legislators believed in when they passed the Brady Bill is now considered a "loophole". Every time Second Amendment defenders give an inch, the anti-Second Amendment lobby takes a mile.

[smalltownguy]

Well she's fucking stupid. If she's actually a national socialist, perhaps she should study up on the NSDAP's gun control policies.

i think same ...she is fucking stupid

[broncofan]

Well she's fucking stupid.
This is the only thing we agree on. I find your need to dislike every post that upsets you a bit weird. In the Las Vegas Lounge thread everything I said about the O'Connor case was absolutely true and non-partisan, yet your lizard brain lit up and your hasty little trigger finger couldn't avoid not liking it for that reason. I hope you have more self-control with your firearms.

I noticed you're talking about the Nazis gun control policies as though this would have made a difference to the fate of Jews in Germany. Besides this being untrue, my concern with this argument is that I don't really believe the NRA does much to stand up for the right of minorities in general or as gun-owners in particular. Their response to the Philando Castile shooting was pathetic in my view and insensitive to the point where I have major doubts about their commitment to African-American gun owners. Castile told the police officer in that case he had a weapon, then told the officer he was not reaching for the weapon. The officer who never saw a weapon shot him seven times and claimed he was partly justified because he smelled marijuana in the car.

Dana Loesch's response was to claim that the smell of marijuana meant that Mr. Castile was not carrying legally. On the other hand, I find the prosecution's argument much more convincing:
"Philando Castile was not resisting or fleeing.""There was absolutely no criminal intent exhibited by him throughout this encounter."
"He was respectful and compliant based upon the instructions and orders he was given."
"He volunteered in good faith that he had a firearm -- beyond what the law requires."
"He emphatically stated that he wasn't pulling it out."
"His movement was restricted by his own seat belt."
"He was accompanied, in his vehicle, by a woman and a young child."
"Philando Castile did not exhibit any intent, nor did he have any reason, to shoot Officer Yanez."
"In fact, his dying words were in protest that he wasn't reaching for his gun"

The reason this should not be a really protracted conversation is that I've often found the NRA's rhetoric about opposing tyranny to be motivated by white self-pity as well as paranoid and delusional beliefs by its members that they are being persecuted when they're not. The NRA are not big supporters of minority rights, nor have they been at the vanguard of these civil rights battles when minorities (particularly African-Americans) have had their rights curtailed severely by the government. Instead, they support people like Cliven Bundy who believes the government should not be able to enforce the law equitably. So I call bullshit on this claim that the NRA or the 2nd amendment has ever been used as a tool to fight oppression. In fact, they've been interested in creating feelings of empowerment to offset the progressive loss of control that members of the majority culture feel as this country becomes more diverse and inclusive.

[Stavros]

Two excellent arguments from Trish and Broncofan that expose fundamental weaknesses with the '2nd Amendment' claims. In the end, it strikes me that too many people want to replace statutory law with gun law, and shoot dead anyone they want to, claiming of course that they are doing so in self-defence, even when the victims is unarmed. Unless, and until the debate is focused on the structural issues, the day to day headlines will divert attention away from what in practical terms can be done to reduce gun crime. But it is up to you Americans to do something about it, and not being terrified of the NRA might be a start, not least as companies across the country are withdrawing their support from it. Now may the best time to act.

[filghy2]

That is fantastic. I can't imagine living in a country where the government has that much power over your daily life. Our government isn't perfect, but at least we believe in civil rights.

Do you ever ask yourself why it is that no other developed, democratic country allows its citizens to freely acquire guns like the US? And why it is that people in these countries remain free and, in fact, much safer despite this? The US has by far the highest rate of gun ownership and also by far the highest murder rate - if having guns makes people safe, why is it so dangerous? You have very strange concept of freedom if you don't understand that peoples' right not to be shot as they go about their lives matters far more than your right to acquire whatever man-toy takes your fancy.

[broncofan]

https://twitter.com/NRATV/status/970402289742618624

Love some of the responses to this garbage.

[filghy2]

Literally 10 months later they passed an "assault weapons" ban.

And yes, there was a "slippery slope". A compromise that anti-gun legislators believed in when they passed the Brady Bill is now considered a "loophole". Every time Second Amendment defenders give an inch, the anti-Second Amendment lobby takes a mile.

The problem with your slippery slope argument is that any further tightening of gun controls would have to go through the same legislative process (and survive legal challenges). The fact that some people might argue for further measures is irrelevant: there can only a slippery slope if it somehow becomes easier to pass further measures after the first one.

The logical implication of your position is that nobody should ever compromise on anything, which means there can only be 'all or nothing' solutions and government could not function at all.

I suspect you are just resorting to one of the standard debating techniques used by people who know they have a weak argument, which is to try to make it an argument about something else. You know you can't mount an argument against reasonable controls (eg on automatic weapons or people with problematic histories) on their own merits, so you use the slippery slope argument to muddy the waters.

[broncofan]

The fact that some people might argue for further measures is irrelevant: there can only a slippery slope if it somehow becomes easier to pass further measures after the first one.
This is true. His argument, strictly speaking doesn't make sense. But what he's really worried about in my view is shifting norms. If you ban assault weapons for a while or bump stocks and impose other restrictions then gun culture is weakened. There will also be more data on the effectiveness of these measures which further weakens that culture because people will know at what cost they play with their toys.

Ultimately it would mean people can't own military style weapons because the public will know they have no utility and wreak havoc, wife beaters won't be able to buy guns, and the dream of holing up in some government building and playing victim evaporates into thin air. Like Dana Loesch's stupid little video shows, it's already clear to professional athletes, artists, and celebrities that there's something very wrong with this culture. Eventually scientists get in on the act and we allow the cdc to study guns as a public health hazard. You begin regulating guns and there's a creeping of norms....you end up with something like a civilized country.

[Stavros]

The latest from Dana Loesch and the NRA:

The National Rifle Association has released a video containing a threatening message to journalists, warning them "your time is running out".
In a video posted on Twitter by NRATV (https://twitter.com/NRATV/status/970402289742618624), conservative political activist and TV host Dana Loesch tells “every lying member of the media” that they have “had enough”.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/nra-video-threatens-journalists-gun-laws-us-florida-shooting-twitter-dana-loesch-a8240341.html

[Erika1487]

Chuck Heston said best!!!!


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5ju4Gla2odw

[trish]

Heston first gave that speech in 2000, just months after the Columbine High School massacre. The gun he held in that first speech was a replica of a flintlock long-rifle. Any floozy flaunting a flintlock can keep it.

[trish]

Wound From Military-Style Rifles? ‘A Ghastly thing to See’: By Gina Kolata and C.J.Chivers in the March 4, 2018 NYT

https://nyti.ms/2CY5mDi

[Stavros]

Wound From Military-Style Rifles? ‘A Ghastly thing to See’: By Gina Kolata and C.J.Chivers in the March 4, 2018 NYT


The destructive power of modern weapons is something that needs to be factored in to the conversation, as the link Trish has provided shows. It is not just the guns, but the bullets they fire, their velocity, their destructive impact. It also begs the question -what is self-defence? Was it in Bowling for Columbine that Heston, when questioned about the misery and death caused to innocent people by guns, rose from his seat in silence and walked out? His reputation shattered.

[Erika1487]

This is how Liberals on this board are behaving


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C8xCYv6MeC8

[trish]

Really? Who? Seems to me it's the conservatives here who are posting their messages in large red fonts (see post #66), or posting videos with gun enthusiasts wearing T’s that say “Crush Everything” and warning us of the slippery slope leading to the end of Democracy and the 2nd Amendment. Or other videos about how the rest of us will have to pry your rifles from your cold dead hands. If there really were such a thing, you guys would get the academy award in the category of crisis acting.

[broncofan]

:razz: Oh no, Lizard man strikes again. I'm gonna thumb down all the posts and show them that semi-automatic weapons with bullets that rip through people at 2000 mph are really good. As the other dude said, they're valuable because you can become an instructor which provides the clear utility of allowing someone to instruct other people on how to shoot these useless, life-destroying, military weapons for rejects.

Silencers? Why not? Tons of law-abiding uses for them. When you want to kill someone in self-defense but don't want to wake the neighbors they're perfect!

[Stavros]

Florida has passed new laws on guns...and the NRA sues...I wonder if they are about to go on a losing streak having had a good run for so many years?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-43352078

[smalltownguy]

Florida has passed new laws on guns...and the NRA sues...I wonder if they are about to go on a losing streak having had a good run for so many years?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-43352078

nra rules...its true..one should join nra as soon as possible

[smalltownguy]

:razz: Oh no, Lizard man strikes again. I'm gonna thumb down all the posts and show them that semi-automatic weapons with bullets that rip through people at 2000 mph are really good. As the other dude said, they're valuable because you can become an instructor which provides the clear utility of allowing someone to instruct other people on how to shoot these useless, life-destroying, military weapons for rejects.

Silencers? Why not? Tons of law-abiding uses for them. When you want to kill someone in self-defense but don't want to wake the neighbors they're perfect!

2000 is ok but wht about 4000 or 6000

[broncofan]

Florida has passed new laws on guns...and the NRA sues...I wonder if they are about to go on a losing streak having had a good run for so many years?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-43352078
Thank you. I didn't know about any of this. The laws look very reasonable and from what I've seen from the article the NRA doesn't have much chance of succeeding in court based on what Scalia has said. He said in Heller that nothing in his opinion should be interpreted to mean assault weapon bans are unconstitutional and that the 2nd amendment codifies the right to own the type of ordinary weapon people use for self-defense.

The other issue they raise is "equal protection." Equal protection prevents the government from using arbitrary classifications to legislate. In particular it prevents them from using these classifications in a way that doesn't remedy the problem and does injury to the proxy group.

For example let's say in order to work somewhere safely it required a person to be 170 pounds and at least 5 foot 8. If instead of just mandating that requirement, they say that women cannot operate machinery because only 10% of women meet those requirements. In equal protection terms the classification would be over-inclusive and under-inclusive. It's over-inclusive because some women are that height and weight and it's under-inclusive because some men aren't.

The NRA is claiming that the age restriction discriminates against adults 18-21. But age has always been a proxy for maturity and they certainly would not want the government to engage in the sort of competency testing that would get more directly to the issue. It's also true that while older people can face invidious discrimination that underestimates their competency it hasn't been much of a problem with younger individuals. As I sort of indicated, equal protection addresses the use of classifications that aren't effective for legislating, but it also looks for an element of discrimination. The age restriction is unfortunately the best proxy we have for most dangerous activities short of stringent licensing and individualized competency testing, and it's not what they call a "suspect classification" where you are somewhat suspicious of the intent behind the classification.

The bigger point behind this is to ask, what does this say about the NRA? Things we already know but that their aim is not to protect the right to own guns for self-defense, but a militia culture that is toxic to our country. It also indicates they don't know how to pick their battles, because unless there is something I'm not seeing here, they're going to lose. They are worried about the laws but as laws determine norms, and as Scalia's opinion kind of uses norms as a benchmark for laws, they don't want this to get away from them.

[broncofan]

The other issue they raise is "equal protection." Equal protection prevents the government from using arbitrary classifications to legislate. In particular it prevents them from using these classifications in a way that doesn't remedy the problem and does injury to the proxy group.
It doesn't say in the article but I just read that the NRA has argued in their briefs that the law discriminates against "women aged 18-21." In other words, because women are much less likely to engage in gun violence, the law is irrational when applied to women.

But would they for instance support a law that prevented men from getting guns until 25 when the brain is fully developed, and women, who are more stable and mature to be able to own guns at 18? I would fully support making women the guardians of guns for men of any age since they are so much less likely to engage in violence. How about it NRA? This wins most disingenuous argument of the year given how frequently women are the victims of violence.

[Stavros]

Thank you. I didn't know about any of this. The laws look very reasonable and from what I've seen from the article the NRA doesn't have much chance of succeeding in court based on what Scalia has said. He said in Heller that nothing in his opinion should be interpreted to mean assault weapon bans are unconstitutional and that the 2nd amendment codifies the right to own the type of ordinary weapon people use for self-defense.
The other issue they raise is "equal protection." Equal protection prevents the government from using arbitrary classifications to legislate. In particular it prevents them from using these classifications in a way that doesn't remedy the problem and does injury to the proxy group.
For example let's say in order to work somewhere safely it required a person to be 170 pounds and at least 5 foot 8. If instead of just mandating that requirement, they say that women cannot operate machinery because only 10% of women meet those requirements. In equal protection terms the classification would be over-inclusive and under-inclusive. It's over-inclusive because some women are that height and weight and it's under-inclusive because some men aren't.
The NRA is claiming that the age restriction discriminates against adults 18-21. But age has always been a proxy for maturity and they certainly would not want the government to engage in the sort of competency testing that would get more directly to the issue. It's also true that while older people can face invidious discrimination that underestimates their competency it hasn't been much of a problem with younger individuals. As I sort of indicated, equal protection addresses the use of classifications that aren't effective for legislating, but it also looks for an element of discrimination. The age restriction is unfortunately the best proxy we have for most dangerous activities short of stringent licensing and individualized competency testing, and it's not what they call a "suspect classification" where you are somewhat suspicious of the intent behind the classification.
The bigger point behind this is to ask, what does this say about the NRA? Things we already know but that their aim is not to protect the right to own guns for self-defense, but a militia culture that is toxic to our country. It also indicates they don't know how to pick their battles, because unless there is something I'm not seeing here, they're going to lose. They are worried about the laws but as laws determine norms, and as Scalia's opinion kind of uses norms as a benchmark for laws, they don't want this to get away from them.

I am unable to match your erudite exposition of the legal position, it seems to me the NRA has for the time being, at least, lost the moral argument, and that is what matters to 'ordinary people', including those who own guns.

[broncofan]

https://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/teacher-gun-student-injured-safety-demonstration

This came across my feed. A specific incident but doesn't bode well for arming teachers.

[dreamon]

https://www.cnn.com/2018/03/20/us/great-mills-high-school-shooting/index.html

Maryland school officer stops armed student who shot 2 others
Blaine Gaskill is a hero.

[filghy2]

Great, the student "only" shot two others, so problem solved. In any normal country that would be counted as a failure, not a success to be celebrated.

[trish]

I’m not quite clear on the story here. Was the shooter on a rampage, or was his goal to kill the 16 year old female student who knew him? Was the 14 year old boy an unfortunate bystander or the first victim of a massacre that was stopped short by a hero. Did the SWAT trained officer stop a suicide or another mass shooting? Either way it was all a tragedy that didn’t have to happen.

“Officials could not say who shot the boy or whether the attacker, 17-year-old Austin Wyatt Rollins, was killed by Gaskill or shot himself with the Glock semiautomatic handgun he brought to the school.” ( https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/school-resource-officer-blaine-gaskill-helped-stop-gunman-at-a-maryland-high-school/2018/03/20/639a8e42-2c66-11e8-b0b0-f706877db618_story.html?utm_term=.a59d185c146b )

“It's not yet clear whether the shooter, Austin Wyatt Rollins, was felled by the officer's bullet or killed himself.” ( https://www.cnn.com/2018/03/20/us/maryland-school-shooting-resource-officer-response-trnd/index.html )

In what direction was Rollins' gun pointed when our hero shot him?

[dreamon]

Great, the student "only" shot two others, so problem solved. In any normal country that would be counted as a failure, not a success to be celebrated.

Seems to me that in England, which has strict restrictions on freedoms such as bearing arms or speech, and is often brought up by anti-Constitution protestors, has plenty of issues.

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/06/03/world/europe/london-bridge-van.html

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/world/deaths-injuries-confirmed-after-explosions-heard-u-k-concert-featuring-n763286

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/03/22/world/europe/uk-westminster-parliament-shooting.html

[broncofan]

Seems to me that in England, which has strict restrictions on freedoms such as bearing arms or speech, and is often brought up by anti-Constitution protestors, has plenty of issues.
Scalia in Heller: “like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited.” It is “not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose.....Nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions on the commercial sale of arms."

By lying you make it clear you depend upon ignorance to make your argument. What Scalia said above does not preclude the regulation of guns. In fact, he explicitly says that conditions on the sale of weapons is permissible under the second amendment.

While we're on the theme of ignorance, why would single data points be more useful than statistics? What is the murder rate in Britain? Are these novel means of killing common enough that with fewer guns just as many people are being killed? Or are they a handful of examples demonstrating that only the most determined killers will find a way to kill without the best means possible, but that others who are less motivated might not if they don't have a killing machine at hand?

Poor guy doesn't understand the Constitution, hasn't read Heller, and doesn't know what a statistic is and why it would be more relevant than a series of examples.

[filghy2]

Seems to me that in England, which has strict restrictions on freedoms such as bearing arms or speech, and is often brought up by anti-Constitution protestors, has plenty of issues.

UK murder rate - 0.92 per 100,000 people. US murder rate - 4.88 per 100,000 people. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_intentional_homicide_rate

UK gun ownership - 6.2 per 100 people. US gun ownership - 101 per 100 people.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Estimated_number_of_guns_per_capita_by_country

Similar disparities can be seen for every other developed country. I asked you to explain this before and I'm still waiting for an answer. What is it about these data that you find so hard to understand?

[buttslinger]

The Maryland shooting was on every local channel where I live, all sensationalism, short on facts, I turned it off, and of course yesterday we had the kid's march, hats off to them, it's a cinch the Republicans and Democrats won't fix the problem, maybe the children can. For me, that time between sixth grade and ninth grade was maybe the time I was most alive, it's no accident surging hormones necessitates it's own two year middle school, with teachers trying to keep a lid on the boiling pot. One of my friends I've known almost my whole life reminded me that life had many more demands in School, much tougher than a JOB where they pretend you're an adult and an equal. But it's the same deal, people still get pushed around by the Powers that Be, and ignored by the people in charge who have their own agenda. To be in charge you have to TAKE charge, and that notion is scarier than guns.

[trish]

A ten year-old boy insists he would give his life to shield his classmates from harm. This story broke my heart.

https://storycorps.org/listen/tanai-benard-and-dezmond-floyd-180323/

Desmond needs to be told his ten year-old body is not a shield. It cannot possibly be a shield. It stands no chance of stopping a bullet from an AR-15 which would pass right through him, eviscerate him In the process and still kill the student he would protect. In the Parkland shooting students who hid behind walls still died.

http://www.miamiherald.com/news/local/community/broward/article201949054.html

[Stavros]

I don't know who Ted Nugent is other than that he is some loud-mouth in the NRA who has attacked the students from Parkland in Florida who are campaigning for radical gun control legislation. His latest attack does reveal his own ignorance even if it underlines the pseudo-religious claims people like him claim as their American heritage, thus, arguing that their level of ignorance goes beyond stupidity, he continues

Again, the National Rifle Association are a bunch of American families who have a voice to stand up for our God-given constitutionally-guaranteed right to keep and bear arms,”
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/ted-nugent-parkland-survivors-no-souls-insult-shooting-nra-board-member-david-hogg-a8283031.html

But while there is a God in the Declaration of Independence, there is no God in the Constitution, as explained here-

Whereas the Declaration explained and justified a rebellion to secure God-given rights, the Constitution is a blueprint for stable and effective republican government in a free country. The Preamble to the Constitution declares that its purposes are “to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty.” These are wholly secular objects; religious references are extraneous in a document drafted to further them.
https://allthingsliberty.com/2016/02/why-god-is-in-the-declaration-but-not-the-constitution/

On the matter of ignorance, and prejudice replacing the truth, Mr Nugent leads us all.

[Stavros]

What is interesting abut this decision is that it is based in part on Scalia's now famous judgement District of Columbia -v- Heller.

A federal judge has ruled that the Second Amendment (https://www.independent.co.uk/topic/second-amendment) does not protect a citizen’s right to own an AR-15 rifle (https://www.independent.co.uk/topic/ar-15) and other, similar semi-automatic “military style” rifles and high capacity magazines.

“AR-15s and [large capacity magazines] are most useful in military service, they are beyond the scope of the Second Amendment ... and may be banned,” Massachusetts District Court Judge William Young wrote (https://ecf.mad.uscourts.gov/doc1/09518621632) in his ruling.

The year-old case was first brought to court in January 2017 by a group of gun owners, the nonprofit Gun Owner’s Action League, and gun stores in the state.
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politics/gun-control-second-amendment-ar-15-not-protected-assault-rifles-massachusetts-a8294186.html

[trish]

Good guy with a gun leaves it in a public restroom to be found by an intoxicated homeless man. Good guy, bad guy, intoxicated guy. More guns are not the solution.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/2018/04/13/parkland-teacher-charged-leaving-loaded-gun-public-restroom/514855002/

[sukumvit boy]

Too many guns in circulation is the problem.

[MrFanti]

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/bani-duarte-suspected-drunk-driver-kills-las-vegas-teens-crash/

Luckily, no gun was involved...
(Chalk up 3 more dead due to alcohol which has been shown to kill more per year than guns...)

[broncofan]

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/bani-duarte-suspected-drunk-driver-kills-las-vegas-teens-crash/

Luckily, no gun was involved...
(Chalk up 3 more dead due to alcohol which has been shown to kill more per year than guns...)
You seem to have forgotten what happened the last time you took this approach. A few people pointed out that your argument was not logical, since both guns and alcohol can be regulated differently than they are and the regulation of guns does not depend on the regulation of alcohol. A few people pointed out that your argument depends on the false premise that one cannot regulate dangerous things and must only ban them. You made no attempt to address the arguments and instead just repeated yourself. Then you disappeared for a while only to return with the same useless bag of tricks. Do you enjoy making bad arguments?

I'm just going to copy and paste this for the next time you do this. I recommend we can each have our own signature response to Mr Fanti instead of responding anew. Automation deserves automation.

[MrFanti]

You seem to have forgotten what happened the last time you took this approach. A few people pointed out that your argument was not logical, since both guns and alcohol can be regulated differently than they are and the regulation of guns does not depend on the regulation of alcohol. A few people pointed out that your argument depends on the false premise that one cannot regulate dangerous things and must only ban them. You made no attempt to address the arguments and instead just repeated yourself. Then you disappeared for a while only to return with the same useless bag of tricks. Do you enjoy making bad arguments?

I'm just going to copy and paste this for the next time you do this. I recommend we can each have our own signature response to Mr Fanti instead of responding anew. Automation deserves automation.

No...
Your argument about alcohol being okay and guns not being okay is totally not logical...and denying all the evidence that I've posted makes your counter argument even more ridiculous...

Have a good weekend!

"LAPD officer faces 3 counts of murder for alleged drunken driving crash on 605 Freeway that killed Riverside family"
https://www.ocregister.com/2018/04/20/ex-lapd-officer-charged-with-killing-riverside-family-in-2017-dui-crash/

[trish]

I'll just quote Broncofan, "You seem to have forgotten what happened the last time you took this approach. A few people pointed out that your argument was not logical, since both guns and alcohol can be regulated differently than they are and the regulation of guns does not depend on the regulation of alcohol. A few people pointed out that your argument depends on the false premise that one cannot regulate dangerous things and must only ban them. You made no attempt to address the arguments and instead just repeated yourself. Then you disappeared for a while only to return with the same useless bag of tricks. Do you enjoy making bad arguments?" You should read it carefully.

[filghy2]

No...
Your argument about alcohol being okay and guns not being okay is totally not logical...and denying all the evidence that I've posted makes your counter argument even more ridiculous...

Let's accept for the sake of argument your premise that action on guns should be linked to action on alcohol. Drunk-driving is illegal already and you've admitted previously that you do not favour banning alcohol. But as you care so much about alcohol-related deaths then you must have some ideas. How about you tell us what measures you propose to reduce alcohol-related deaths and what restrictions on guns you would be prepared to accept in return?

[broncofan]

Let's accept for the sake of argument your premise that action on guns should be linked to action on alcohol. Drunk-driving is illegal already and you've admitted previously that you do not favour banning alcohol. But as you care so much about alcohol-related deaths then you must have some ideas. How about you tell us what measures you propose to reduce alcohol-related deaths and what restrictions on guns you would be prepared to accept in return?
We've gone long enough without giving you a fair response. Your view that guns are dangerous and that alcohol is no more dangerous than filtered water is not logical. You've ignored the evidence that drunk driving kills people and believe that guns shoot themselves which is just as absurd. Also marijuana. And nicotine. And lawn darts. Hypocrite.

[broncofan]

Let's accept for the sake of argument your premise that action on guns should be linked to action on alcohol. Drunk-driving is illegal already and you've admitted previously that you do not favour banning alcohol. But as you care so much about alcohol-related deaths then you must have some ideas. How about you tell us what measures you propose to reduce alcohol-related deaths and what restrictions on guns you would be prepared to accept in return?
The last post probably resembles Mr. Fanti's actual posts too much to be effective satire. What you and I and Trish and others have proven is that there are many ways to make the same point and get the same wooden response that ignores it. Both guns and alcohol should be regulated. Both present public health hazards and to the extent those hazards can reasonably be mitigated they should be.

At this point I would be happy if Mr. Fanti would just summarize our two posts on the last page to show he understands them. This sort of exercise in summarizing your opponent's argument can be useful.

I will summarize Mr. Fanti's argument to the extent I understand it: "You want to ban guns but don't have any problem with alcohol, which means you're a hypocrite, and also makes the case that guns should not be banned or even regulated." The rebuttals have been: First, we don't want to ban guns. Second, we don't think alcohol should be unregulated and are not opposed to continued and additional regulation if you can propose useful regulations. Third, the claims don't depend on one another so it's not logical to argue that if alcohol is not adequately regulated then guns are. Even if we were hypocritical, which the first two points make clear we're not, the third point would not have logical support.

[buttslinger]

Miracles can happen
Whatever they did to cigarettes worked like a damn charm, it seems like nobody smokes now.
Just the hard core who will give anything for a butt.

[broncofan]

Miracles can happen
Whatever they did to cigarettes worked like a damn charm, it seems like nobody smokes now.
Just the hard core who will give anything for a butt.
Everyone has known someone with end stage lung disease. Some of the risks are caused by second hand smoke but a lot of the harm is borne by the smoker. People didn't have to quit out of consideration for society's collective health but could be convinced that they were going to die a horrible death if they continued.

You can probably convince a smoker that they stand a good chance of getting cancer but you'll never convince a gun owner that he's not a hero in the making or that he's more likely to shoot himself than a criminal. Every gun owner sees the legislation as aimed at other people who are the loose cannons or unsafe. Even if you can convince gun owners there's a collective safety issue, most still see themselves as the victims of gun legislation because they personally are not the risks.

[filghy2]

You can probably convince a smoker that they stand a good chance of getting cancer but you'll never convince a gun owner that he's not a hero in the making or that he's more likely to shoot himself than a criminal. Every gun owner sees the legislation as aimed at other people who are the loose cannons or unsafe. Even if you can convince gun owners there's a collective safety issue, most still see themselves as the victims of gun legislation because they personally are not the risks.

You may be right, but it's notable that such attitudes are restricted largely to the US and not shared by other countries. That suggests that these attitudes are socially-conditioned and can change under the right circumstances. Overt racial and sexual discrimination used to be accepted as natural, but that changed over 1-2 generations, even among the majority of white men who were not adversely affected by it. The big problem in the US is that attitudes to guns have become a marker of tribal identity on the right.

[broncofan]

You may be right, but it's notable that such attitudes are restricted largely to the US and not shared by other countries. That suggests that these attitudes are socially-conditioned and can change under the right circumstances. Overt racial and sexual discrimination used to be accepted as natural, but that changed over 1-2 generations, even among the majority of white men who were not adversely affected by it. The big problem in the US is that attitudes to guns have become a marker of tribal identity on the right.
I see your point. The first time I had a conversation with someone who was really attached to guns, I remembered thinking to myself "is this person an adult?" I think the examples of racism and sexual discrimination are good ones because racists and sexists held their views strongly and were impervious to evidence. There was enough of a sea change in attitudes that political solutions could be imposed on the dissenters. But we have to remember that even over the issue of race we fought a bloody war, we had a segregated society, and large scale disenfranchisement that has really been gradually eroded.

I don't want to be a pessimist but we can't even get people to attribute the effects of gun ownership to guns. But with most things, we do end up moving in the right direction. If you look at gay marriage, we went from it being a radical idea to it being a protected right in twenty years....but it depends where we're measuring from. If we look at the arc in the gun control movement, I wonder where we are.

[MrFanti]

DRUNK DRIVER KILLS FATHER AND DAUGHTER IN HEAD-ON CRASH NEAR ARAD

https://www.jpost.com/Israel-News/Two-die-three-left-seriously-injured-in-Road-31-head-on-collision-Saturday-night-378668

Keep on telling yourselves that alcohol is fine and guns are bad....
Of course alcoholics and people that can't live without their drinks have distorted a view about the facts of alcohol vs gun deaths.

[MrFanti]

Mother was driving drunk when Hart family SUV plunged into ocean, police say

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/mother-was-driving-drunk-when-hart-family-suv-plunged-ocean-n865921

Thankfully, your folks opinions are easily disputed by facts.....

[filghy2]

Still awaiting your response to this question Fanti:
How about you tell us what measures you propose to reduce alcohol-related deaths and what restrictions on guns you would be prepared to accept in return?

[trish]

Still awaiting your response to this question Fanti:
How about you tell us what measures you propose to reduce alcohol-related deaths and what restrictions on guns you would be prepared to accept in return?
He's too stupid to understand your question. I bet he thinks he's answered it.

[filghy2]

He's too stupid to understand your question. I bet he thinks he's answered it.

It's actually quite amusing that he's now stuck in this endless loop because he lacks the wit to change tack, but can't bear to lose face by backing off.

[MrFanti]

It's obvious, that this thread should actually be titled: "Happiness, is a full bottle".....

[filghy2]

If you to start preaching about the evils of drinking there is already a thread for that. http://www.hungangels.com/vboard/showthread.php?106707-Alcohol-is-a-Warm-Gun

Are you a teetotaller, by the way?

[MrFanti]

Still awaiting your response to this question Fanti:
How about you tell us what measures you propose to reduce alcohol-related deaths and what restrictions on guns you would be prepared to accept in return?

Ban alcohol with the same ferociousness that folks want to ban guns with....

[MrFanti]

More happiness is a full bottle.....



Ex-firefighter accused of drunk driving crash that killed baby

http://www.fox4news.com/news/ex-firefighter-accused-of-drunk-driving-crash-that-killed-baby

[trish]

There's an interesting puzzle. How does one ban with ferociousness? Who here is saying they want to ban guns? Who wants to ban them ferociously?

Most the posts I've seen suggest more extensive regulation. Something equal to the way we regulate cars and alcohol.

This just in, "Todder Shoots Mom, Both Completely Sober."
https://www.cnn.com/2018/04/19/us/toddler-accidentally-shoots-mom-trnd/index.html

[MrFanti]

There's an interesting puzzle. How does one ban with ferociousness?
Look and listen to the ones screaming to ban guns and you'll have your answer :-)

[MrFanti]

This just in, "Todder Shoots Mom, Both Completely Sober."
https://www.cnn.com/2018/04/19/us/toddler-accidentally-shoots-mom-trnd/index.html

Well done on really digging up that one! :-)
Want me to respond with about 100 deaths due to drunk driving? I can if you'd like....

[MrFanti]

Anywho...I'm about finished here...
Next time you watch your local news pay attention to gun deaths and alcohol related deaths.....rather than just the former....

[trish]

Look and listen to the ones screaming to ban guns and you'll have your answer :-)
Who in this thread? Specifically?

[KelliBlueEyes]

Ban alcohol with the same ferociousness that folks want to ban guns with....

I passed through a southern state years ago, maybe things have changed? I think it was Arkansas.
Anyway, because the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms (now the ATF & E a division of Homeland Security) regulated all 3 of those substances, they had these State run stores where you would buy your Alcohol, your Tobacco, and your Guns and Ammunition.

I remember thinking at the time it was probably not a great idea to sell someone a couple bottles of Jack and a case of Ammo, but there you had it, one stop shopping, booze, smokes and bullets.

Maybe it's changed, idk.

[broncofan]

Look and listen to the ones screaming to ban guns and you'll have your answer :-)
You threaten to move on now that you've proven your point, which apparently is not that you can't read or understand what other people write.

You degrade the conversation by ignoring what other people say and feebly repeating the same tired strawman argument. Why don't you answer Trish's question and point out where people have been screaming for a ban of guns? If you're not responding to what anyone is actually saying, then what is it you think you are doing?

[broncofan]

Who in this thread? Specifically?
Mr. Fanti, if you can't answer this question you're simply arguing with yourself.

[MrFanti]

I remember thinking at the time it was probably not a great idea to sell someone a couple bottles of Jack and a case of Ammo, but there you had it, one stop shopping, booze, smokes and bullets

George Carlin made a joke about this a few years back...:p

[MrFanti]

Mr. Fanti, if you can't answer this question you're simply arguing with yourself.

Actually,
I got tired of debating hypocritical folks.....

[filghy2]

Actually,
I got tired of debating hypocritical folks.....

Lol, you never debated with anyone, as this thread makes clear. http://www.hungangels.com/vboard/showthread.php?104627-Friends-in-Las-Vegas-please-check-in/page7&highlight=vegas+friends You simply switched from repeating one inane line - crazy people kill, not guns - to this one.

Ironically, the same person you refused to debate in that thread now thumbs down my posts in this thread. Strange. The enemy of my enemy is my friend, I guess.

[MrFanti]

Lol, you never debated with anyone, as this thread makes clear. http://www.hungangels.com/vboard/showthread.php?104627-Friends-in-Las-Vegas-please-check-in/page7&highlight=vegas+friends You simply switched from repeating one inane line - crazy people kill, not guns - to this one.

Ironically, the same person you refused to debate in that thread now thumbs down my posts in this thread. Strange. The enemy of my enemy is my friend, I guess.

You obviously missed the multiple times where I stated that if you think guns should be banned and not alcohol, then you are hypocrite as alcohol related deaths outnumber gun deaths.
Good try though!

[Stavros]

You obviously missed the multiple times where I stated that if you think guns should be banned and not alcohol, then you are hypocrite as alcohol related deaths outnumber gun deaths.
Good try though!

And you have yet to reply to a point I made some time ago that as so many Americas are killed in road accidents it may be time to ban cars.

The time is coming when, for example, there will be no cars in Manhattan, but electronic pods will run on tracks up and down the Avenues, free at the time of use.

[Ben in LA]

...and another school shooting, this time in Texas. Oh the irony.

[Stavros]

...and another school shooting, this time in Texas. Oh the irony.

March for Our Lives, a massive demonstration for gun control created by the survivors of the Parkland, Florida shooting in Florida have shared their support on Twitter for the victims of today's shooting at Santa Fe High School.
“Santa Fe, we are with you, and we will do whatever we can to support you as the days go on,” the group tweeted.
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/texas-shooting-live-updates-santa-fe-high-school-fatalities-today-latest-dead-victims-a8358131.html

What will the President and Congress do?

Nothing.

[Ben in LA]

What will the President and Congress do?

Nothing.
Wrong. They'll make an empty speech and offer "thoughts and prayers".

[Stavros]

Texas’s lieutenant governor reacted to a deadly school shooting (https://www.independent.co.uk/topic/texas-shooting) by suggesting schools have too many doors.
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/texas-shooting-santa-fe-school-doors-dan-patrick-lieutenant-governor-a8358691.html

At last, progress.

[filghy2]

Texas’s lieutenant governor reacted to a deadly school shooting (https://www.independent.co.uk/topic/texas-shooting) by suggesting schools have too many doors.
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/texas-shooting-santa-fe-school-doors-dan-patrick-lieutenant-governor-a8358691.html

At last, progress.

So rather than having to shoot everyone, the gunman just sets fire to the school and they die because they can't get out? We all know the real problem - schools have too many students waiting to be shot.

[MrFanti]

Princess Diana's driver was drunk when she died in 1997
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/world/diana-driver-racing-drunk-alcohol-speed-amp-taunts-cit-article-1.773531

[Stavros]

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/world/diana-driver-racing-drunk-alcohol-speed-amp-taunts-cit-article-1.773531

How many mass murderers in the gun crimes of Las Vegas, Parkland and Santa Fe were drunk when they pulled the trigger? Would they have been able to kill so many people in the space of minutes had they been armed with a bow and arrow?

[Stavros]

Violent video games and films, abortion and divorce are behind the US school shooting epidemic - but not guns, according to the Lieutenant Governor of Texas (https://www.independent.co.uk/topic/Texas), where 10 people were shot dead on Friday.
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politics/texas-school-shooting-latest-dan-patrick-santa-fe-video-games-gun-control-abortion-broken-families-a8361006.html

More insights into America from the Lt-Governor. Anything, anything but the gun.

[MrFanti]

How many mass murderers in the gun crimes of Las Vegas, Parkland and Santa Fe were drunk when they pulled the trigger? Would they have been able to kill so many people in the space of minutes had they been armed with a bow and arrow?
Check your numbers against how many women and children have been killed by drunk drivers. They would still be alive today if the driver were drinking club soda.
The reality to you will be shocking.

But folks need their alcohol...that I do understand.
Individual responsibility with alcohol and guns? Yep I'll agree with you!

[trish]

So ban cars, or post your shit in another thread.

[blackchubby38]

Check your numbers against how many women and children have been killed by drunk drivers. They would still be alive today if the driver were drinking club soda.
The reality to you will be shocking.

But folks need their alcohol...that I do understand.
Individual responsibility with alcohol and guns? Yep I'll agree with you!

Number of alcohol impaired crash fatalities in 2016- 10,497 28% of all crash deaths.

Number of gun deaths in 2015 - 14,925. Number of people injured- 26,819.

Since you want to play the "Think of the children" game:

2016- Teens and Children killed with guns- 1,876

Children killed in drunk driving accidents- A total of 1,233 children 14 and younger were killed in motor vehicle
traffic crashes in 2016. Of these 1,233 fatalities, 214 children (17%)
died in alcohol-impaired-driving crashes. Of these 214 child deaths:
■
■
115 (54%) were occupants of vehicles with drivers who had BACs
of .08 g/dL or higher;
■
■
61 (29%) were occupants of other vehicles;
■
■
36 (17%) were nonoccupants (pedestrians, pedalcyclists, or other
nonoccupants); and
■
■
2 (<1%) were drivers

I'm a person who happens to think if there is a hell, there is a special place in it for drunk drivers. But when a person drives drunk they don't intend to kill a person. When a person wants to intimidate, rob, or murder, the use of a firearm makes it easier for them to achieve anyone of those intentions.

I want to make it clear that, I DON'T WANT TO BAN GUNS. So I'm not being a hypocrite when I'm saying that there is a huge difference between violent gun deaths and drunk driving deaths.

Speaking of which, I think the argument you're making is straw man 101. The bumping the thread every time you come across a story about someone dying in a drunk driving accident is classic trolling and a bit morbid if you ask me.

[MrFanti]

I want to make it clear that, I DON'T WANT TO BAN GUNS.
Outstanding....And I'll meet more on my territory than the alcohol territory.
And there have been accidental gun deaths by moron owners too.....without the intent to kill.

I'm okay with a ban on assault weapons but not a complete gun ban. Which still leaves the door wide open on alcohol unless you want to include absinthe and moonshine in.

[MrFanti]

I'm a person who happens to think if there is a hell, there is a special place in it for drunk drivers.
Good on you!!!

[trish]

I'll give you cosmos. I'm for banning cosmos but not a complete ban on alcohol. They're an abuse of good vodka. Btw, I'm being as serious as you are.

[Stavros]

Check your numbers against how many women and children have been killed by drunk drivers. They would still be alive today if the driver were drinking club soda.
The reality to you will be shocking.


I asked two simple questions about gun crime and you change the subject by talking about car accidents. Let me drop one and rephrase the other:

How many people would the mass murderers in the gun crimes of Las Vegas, Parkland and Santa Fe have been able to kill in the space of minutes had they been armed with a bow and arrow?

[broncofan]

Outstanding....And I'll meet more on my territory than the alcohol territory.
And there have been accidental gun deaths by moron owners too.....without the intent to kill.

I'm okay with a ban on assault weapons but not a complete gun ban. Which still leaves the door wide open on alcohol unless you want to include absinthe and moonshine in.
Who knew, all he had to do was take the same position as everyone else but use capital letters. The debate is less worthwhile because you've managed to avoid having any critical thinking skills or an ounce of honesty. I'm sorry, I mean "YOU LACK CRITICAL THINKING SKILLS AND HONESTY."

[broncofan]

Good on you!!!
There's probably not a single person here who doesn't agree with that sentiment. What they don't agree with is your clumsy and pathetic attempt to change the subject and pretend there's some hypocrisy in people's views only by misrepresenting those views.

Over and over again people have said they don't think either guns or alcohol should be banned. Over and over again you have pretended they think guns should be so that you can distract from children being shot by gunmen using assault rifles. You could have discussed drunk driving or alcohol in its own right but you decided to use it to dilute another serious subject.

[smalltownguy]

happiness is a warm gun ... and what is "warm" refer to in this motion of sentence

[filghy2]

Outstanding....And I'll meet more on my territory than the alcohol territory.
And there have been accidental gun deaths by moron owners too.....without the intent to kill.

I'm okay with a ban on assault weapons but not a complete gun ban. Which still leaves the door wide open on alcohol unless you want to include absinthe and moonshine in.

So what was the point of your last 150 posts on this subject? You just wanted somebody to say "Yes Mr Fanti, you've made a very relevant point on the linkage between alcohol and gun deaths"?

[buttslinger]

Keeping guns on the front burner is a chore.
I was looking for clips from the new movie, where Dick Cheney autographs a waterboard.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QkXeMoBPSDk

[broncofan]

Keeping guns on the front burner is a chore.
I was looking for clips from the new movie, where Dick Cheney autographs a waterboard.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QkXeMoBPSDk
Sacha Baron Cohen's comedy is not for everyone and I can understand why. It often isn't clear who is the butt of the joke, he takes the liberty of dressing up as people from other backgrounds which is something people are rightly suspicious of, and his targets are sometimes just well-meaning eccentrics who are made to seem stupid just by accommodating his characters.

In this case though, I appreciate the skits because they expose outrageous behavior by politicians that he encouraged but did not coerce. The characters were almost surgically designed to elicit these responses. Take for instance the Israeli mercenary character he created. He is no more saying that all Israelis are like this character than he was saying Kazakhstanis are like Borat. However one take-away is clearly that Republicans who consider themselves pro-Israel view Israelis this way and encourage militarism in their Israeli allies. It ended up being a very effective way to get people to open up. In the end, the Israeli allows them to express their desire to arm children, to yell racial slurs, and in the latest episode to run naked ass first at a target yelling USA.

The character he plays in the Kingman Arizona scene is supposed to be an out of touch white hippie. I think he played the part perfectly because he just came across as a decent person trying to reason with a room full of haters. He didn't overdo it by suggesting anything radical at all and presented the room with a proposal for a mosque that would both enrich their local economy and broaden their cultural horizons. You can probably guess what kind of reception he got.

I think the show is worth taking a look at even for people who are not fans of his. It shows some things we were aware existed but it is still shocking to see this kind of open bigotry from politicians and others.

Edit: yeah I guess I forgot this was a gun thread. The first episode is the one where he entices nra supporting Republicans to agree to arm 3 year old children.

[buttslinger]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BJpY7zQ6OHc

[Stavros]

It is all so depressingly familiar -another mass shooting, another denial by people such as Rafael Cruz that guns are a problem. There is this article in The Daily Beast, which does add a little more profle that has been clarified in the Trump years and associated events, but as I don't live in the US I can't be sure if there is still no realistic prospect of meaningful gun control laws, or is it now for the individual States to act? Is it not ironic that Rafael Cruz's arguments about Black people with guns becoming 'the great fear' are almost exactly what was behind the first gun control laws in the US that followed the Civil War and the fear that freed slaves would rampage across the South?

"There have been seven gun massacres in seven days, but congressional Republicans are staying the course of claiming that passing any kind of gun-control legislation “would do nothing to stop these murders (https://twitter.com/therecount/status/1374371630449889280?s=20).” It’s a message that they’ve paired, for good measure, with the road-tested racist tactic of stirring up white delusions of Black criminality among their base. The message is, essentially, guns don’t kill people, Black people do — so be sure to lock and load.

...Senator Ted Cruz, the biggest congressional recipient of gun lobby (https://www.marketwatch.com/story/these-lawmakers-receive-the-most-campaign-money-from-gun-rights-backers-like-the-nra-2019-08-05) dollars at last count, went on TV this week to pin mass shootings on BLM because—I’m still confused by the racist math here—white people are worried that roving bands of Black civil rights protesters are “going to come into the suburbs and raid people’s homes.”
https://uk.news.yahoo.com/gop-rule-white-people-shoot-090601142.html

[Stavros]

Massacre in Texas. America Responds.

"We don't need gun control. We need to return to God" -Marjorie Taylor Greene.

"We know already fool. It's a transsexual illegal alien named Salvatore Ramos. It's apparently your kind of trash" -Paul Gosar [tweet deleted two hours after being posted].

Steve Kerr -Slam. Dunk. Life-0, Death- 50.

Steve Kerr Comments on the Tragic Shooting in Uvalde, Texas - YouTube (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vPvf5RgCU08)

[Stavros]

Hot in Houston. Hot shots to gather and pray, and sell as many lies and excuses as they can. Maybe Boris Johnson will zoom in from No 10 Downing St, to offer them advice on how to treat Democracy and the people with contempt.

"Mr Abbott has been a strong proponent of loosening any and all restrictions on firearm ownership during his time as Texas’ governor and recently signed into law a bill that eliminated state background checks for firearm purchases and allows anyone old enough to own a firearm to carry it without any training or need for a permit.He has also signed legislation prohibiting Texas law enforcement officers from cooperating with any federal investigation into violations of federal firearms laws."
National Rifle Association convention in Texas is still on despite school massacre (yahoo.com) (https://uk.news.yahoo.com/national-rifle-association-convention-texas-135447033.html)

[Stavros]

Are guns valued more than the lives of Children in the US, in Texas?

"Staffing schools with police officers is not the answer either. Since 1998, the government has invested over $1bn to increase police presence in schools; according to one study (https://education.uconn.edu/2020/10/27/the-prevalence-and-the-price-of-police-in-schools/) only 1% of schools reported having police officers on-site in 1975 but by 2018, about 58% of schools reported having a police presence. There were already armed school district police officers at the school in Uvalde and they did not stop the shooter, who was wearing body armor. A sergeant with the Texas department of public safety told CNN’s Anderson Cooper (https://www.mediaite.com/tv/sergeant-says-police-engaged-gunman-before-he-entered-texas-elementary-school-to-no-avail/) that “there were several law enforcement that engaged the suspect, but he was able to make entry into the school”.
If guns made people safer, then the United States would be the safest place in the world. How many more children have to die before the right accept that the answer to bad guys with guns is not good guys with guns, it’s getting rid of guns."
Who are the right blaming for the Texas shooting? Trans people, immigrants and victims’ parents | Arwa Mahdawi | The Guardian (https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2022/may/25/right-wing-blame-uvalde-shooting-transsexuals-immigrants-parents)

[Stavros]

Another American half-wit who can't make the connection between selling weapons of war to teenagers, hell, anybody, who then goes to war against children, Black people, Asians, hell, anyone.

And he wants to go to Congress! To protect the right of every American to buy weapons of war - adios, America!

Aaron Rupar on Twitter: "Herschel Walker's solution to school shootings involves "a department that can look at young men that's looking at women that's looking at social media." https://t.co/WAi7a4mwgz" / Twitter (https://twitter.com/atrupar/status/1529817124256026624)

[Stavros]

Pull the trigger, and the Confederacy of Dunces lines up to prove they are brainless morons

Congressional Representative Lauren Boebert-
“When 9/11 happened, we didn’t ban planes,” (actually, the US did, albeit temporarily)
Lauren Boebert’s bizarre defence for no gun action: ‘After 9/11, we didn’t ban planes’ | The Independent (https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politics/lauren-boebert-gun-control-texas-b2088617.html)

Senator Susan Collins
“Although we are still waiting for more details, it is hard to believe that someone who would do this was not severely mentally ill. Congress should look at enacting a yellow flag law based on the one we have in Maine, which has due process rights and also involves a medical professional in the decision.”
-Or you could just stop selling battlefield weapons to citizens, be they sane or mentally ill -as for the 'Yellow Flag' -see the remarks on His Holiness Governor Abbott below.

Senator ¡Hola Rafael! Cruz
“Heidi and I are lifting up in prayer the entire Uvalde community during this devastating time and we mourn the lives that were taken by this act of evil.”
Texas Sen. Ted Cruz receives sharp backlash for comments in wake of Uvalde school shooting | The Hill (https://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/3502973-texas-sen-ted-cruz-receives-sharp-backlash-for-comments-in-wake-of-uvalde-school-shooting/)
-Will they say prayers at the NRA this weekend? Probably. Will the NRA and Rafael decide the time has come to stop selling battlefield weapons to lunatics? Nah...

Governor, His Holiness Gregory Abbott
Gov. Greg Abbott said Wednesday that the Uvalde school shooter had a "mental health challenge" and the state needed to "do a better job with mental health" — yet in April he slashed $211 million from the department that oversees mental health programs (https://www.hhs.texas.gov/services/mental-health-substance-use).
Texas Sen. Ted Cruz receives sharp backlash for comments in wake of Uvalde school shooting | The Hill (https://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/3502973-texas-sen-ted-cruz-receives-sharp-backlash-for-comments-in-wake-of-uvalde-school-shooting/)
'Lord, let they servant now depart in peace...'

Senator Bill Cassidy
-Yo, Hogs in Louisiana don't got rights?

GOP Senator Offers Untamed Response To Question About Assault Weapons | HuffPost UK U.S. News (huffingtonpost.co.uk) (https://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/bill-cassidy-hogs-assault-weapons_n_6290893ce4b0edd2d02212c6)

[MrFanti]

It is all so depressingly familiar -another mass shooting, another denial by people such as Rafael Cruz that guns are a problem. There is this article in The Daily Beast, which does add a little more profle that has been clarified in the Trump years and associated events, but as I don't live in the US I can't be sure if there is still no realistic prospect of meaningful gun control laws, or is it now for the individual States to act? Is it not ironic that Rafael Cruz's arguments about Black people with guns becoming 'the great fear' are almost exactly what was behind the first gun control laws in the US that followed the Civil War and the fear that freed slaves would rampage across the South?

"There have been seven gun massacres in seven days, but congressional Republicans are staying the course of claiming that passing any kind of gun-control legislation “would do nothing to stop these murders (https://twitter.com/therecount/status/1374371630449889280?s=20).” It’s a message that they’ve paired, for good measure, with the road-tested racist tactic of stirring up white delusions of Black criminality among their base. The message is, essentially, guns don’t kill people, Black people do — so be sure to lock and load.

...Senator Ted Cruz, the biggest congressional recipient of gun lobby (https://www.marketwatch.com/story/these-lawmakers-receive-the-most-campaign-money-from-gun-rights-backers-like-the-nra-2019-08-05) dollars at last count, went on TV this week to pin mass shootings on BLM because—I’m still confused by the racist math here—white people are worried that roving bands of Black civil rights protesters are “going to come into the suburbs and raid people’s homes.”
https://uk.news.yahoo.com/gop-rule-white-people-shoot-090601142.html

Democrats and Republicans are both highly confused about LEGAL Black gun owners.
https://blackgunownersassociation.org
https://www.blackgunownersmagazine.com

[MrFanti]

Democrats and Republicans are both highly confused about LEGAL Black gun owners.
https://blackgunownersassociation.org
https://www.blackgunownersmagazine.com
Forgot one more.....
https://naaga.co

[Stavros]

Democrats and Republicans are both highly confused about LEGAL Black gun owners.
https://blackgunownersassociation.org
https://www.blackgunownersmagazine.com

None of your links illuminate your claim. And, as I am sure you know, the first laws introduced by States and the Federal Govt to limit gun ownership were intended to prevent Black people from owning firearms, both before the Civil War and after it, when there was a fear that freed slaves were about to go on the rampage across the South....which never happened. The first link has a discussion of firearms and militias and how the law has moved backwards and forwards in States, but with Black people fundamental to the arguments for control.
The very racist history of gun control - The Boston Globe (https://www.bostonglobe.com/2021/07/31/opinion/very-racist-history-gun-control/)
Black Gun Ownership: From Negro Militias To Black Armament : Code Switch : NPR (https://www.npr.org/sections/codeswitch/2020/12/22/949169826/from-negro-militias-to-black-armament?t=1653718588654)

The second major limitation on gun ownership in the California Republic was a response to the parade of legal weaponry by the Black Panthers in Oakland -say thanks to Ronald Reagan and the NRA for 'protecting' Americans from the Panthers....
The NRA Supported Gun Control When the Black Panthers Had the Weapons - HISTORY (https://www.history.com/news/black-panthers-gun-control-nra-support-mulford-act)

Can Black Americans also be mass murderers? Sure. So take away the guns.

NRA, Trump, Abbott: Mental Health....how can you determine the mental health of an 18-year old buying battlefield weapons if there are no background checks?

NRA, Trump, Abbott, Rafael -Arm the Teachers! -So if the gunman enters a classroom and shoots the teacher first, then what?

Security on Site! There was security on site. They failed. Is anyone from the police to the Governor's office going to resign because of this failure?

[Stavros]

Can evil be explained? Not according to the men who think the solution to gun grime is more guns. In fact many efforts have been made to explain it, outside of the religious/theological concept of evil as a violation of God's Commands.

Cognitive therapy and theory may help, as the link tries to do. It may be that the shooter has a perception of the world that is not shared by wider society, and thus when he decides to resolve his issue(s) by attacking society, the natural response is a blank rejection without any further explanation. There is both a cognitive failure and a moral failure, and it may be both perpetrator and victim who are failing to understand the process taking place.

It could be that a young man is convinced he is important, but cannot reconcile his grand perception of himself with wider society's apparent indifference to his status. Unable to reconcile competing perceptions that cause him pain, the young man decides to prove how strong and powerful he is by transferring his pain onto those who are weak and defenceless. The standard triad of murder emerges: The motive is self-satisfaction, the justification of the self; the means is the weapon that he uses, the opportunity provided by the congregation of weak and vulnerable children in a small space that he can control.

What, to the observer can appear to be an act of mindless violence, may in fact have a logical cause and aim, when seen from the perspective of the man with a gun. In other cases, if the shooter is convinced that Black people are the cause of America's ills, 'taking them out' is a logical means of solving a problem, with the rider that being convinced 'only he' can do it, gives more weight to the selfish aim of liberation. It may be that those shooters who kill themselves, realize in then moment of carnage that their actions have achieved nothing, and lacking any broad value system to self-correct, choose to self-destruct.

Whether or not a person is 'born evil' or made evil may be where the research is limited -how the person is raised, in what environment, with what degree of socialization must be factors.

But to wish away bad acts as bad acts without any further explanation is laziness, just as to call for even more guns to solve a problem made worse by guns is irrational and a denial of freedom in its most basic form.

The analysis is here-
Frontiers | The Cognition of Severe Moral Failure: A Novel Approach to the Perception of Evil | Psychology (frontiersin.org) (https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fpsyg.2018.00557/full)

[MrFanti]

None of your links illuminate your claim.
They all do.
If you can't see it, then I can't explain it.

Bottom line to summarize is that the Black American population is not a monolithic group that many think we are.
And...
Both Dems and Repubs like to make decisions for us - instead of letting us think and sort things out for ourselves.

[Stavros]

They all do.
If you can't see it, then I can't explain it.

Bottom line to summarize is that the Black American population is not a monolithic group that many think we are.
And...
Both Dems and Repubs like to make decisions for us - instead of letting us think and sort things out for ourselves.

You wrote "Democrats and Republicans are both highly confused about LEGAL Black gun owners." but your links are websites with general information rather than discussions of whatever the confusion is you refer to.

I have never said or implied Black Americans are a 'monolithic' group, but even you must be aware that in general terms, the majority of Black Americans who vote, choose Democrat candidates, and that this is the reason why the Republican Party has a long record of denying Black citizens the vote though various measures, while just this year re-districting in some States has aimed to dilute the Black American vote where, geographically, it enables the election of Democrats. And they don't even hide their intentions.

The key issue here is not about Black and White anyway, but whether or not any American of any colour or identity, needs to own a weapon of war of the kind used in mass murders. I heard someone from Texas say quite simply that he needs a battlefield weapon for 'self-defence', which makes one ask, 'defend yourself from whom, or what?'. Or it could be that in fact, these people want these weapons for offence rather than defence, for that time when they believe they will not be fighting to 'take back' their country at the ballot box, but on the streets, armed and dangerous.

And you know who will be in their crosshairs. It is you.

[Stavros]

Mo Brooks -'We need guns when it's time to take our country back' -meet Carol Anderson, who argues the 2nd Amendment was designed from the start to give White people the guns they need to put down rebellious Black people, and remove Federal controls on firearms....

Rep. Mo Brooks Says We Need Our Guns So We Can 'Take Back' The Nation (yahoo.com) (https://uk.news.yahoo.com/rep-mo-brooks-says-guns-040220710.html)

Carol Anderson: The Second Amendment is anti-Black – Center for Public Integrity (https://publicintegrity.org/inequality-poverty-opportunity/carole-anderson-the-second-amendment-is-anti-black/)

"The Second": Carol Anderson on the Racist History Behind the Constitutional Right to Bear Arms - YouTube (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GrwJ3C8DTl4)

[Stavros]

He was only, 24 hours from Tul-sa...but he can't resist promoting policy failure when the evidence doesn't suit his perverted view of the world he lives in-

Gun control, as the link shows, works, just as the ban on assault weapons that was introduced during the Clinton Presidency resulted in a decline in deaths from battlefield weapons, but expired in 2004. Democrats are divided on what should be a no-brainer policy, or maybe terrified of taking on the bogus arguments used about the 2nd Amendment- the right to bear arms? What in any definition, is a 'Well organized militia'? One crazy dude with an AR-15?

You would think men and women of intelligence would not be paralysed by policy failure, but until a Tory MP (Tobias Ellwood) today called for the UK to seek membership of the EU Single Market, Brexit was a non-negotiable policy, in spite of the damage it has caused. Thus from this clown in Congress, with a big red hooter and shit for brains-

"“When I was growing up in Springfield, you had one or two murders a year,” he said. “Now we have two, three, four a week in Springfield, Missouri.“So something has happened to our society. I go back to abortion, when we decided it was OK to murder kids in their mothers’ wombs. Life has no value to a lot of these folks."
GOP Lawmaker Manages To Blame Abortion For Mass Shootings (yahoo.com) (https://uk.news.yahoo.com/gop-lawmaker-manages-blame-abortion-034706447.html)
They got the death penalty in Missouri? Sure do, coz they valu life so much...
Missouri | Death Penalty Information Center (https://deathpenaltyinfo.org/state-and-federal-info/state-by-state/missouri)

[Stavros]

So the Party of Trump's war against freedom enters a new phase-

"The Supreme Court on Thursday struck down a New York state law requiring applicants for a license to carry a gun outside of their homes to have a “proper cause” to do so, saying it violated the Second Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.
The 6-3 ruling in the case is a major victory for gun rights advocates who had challenged New York’s restrictive law, which makes it a crime to carry a concealed firearm without a license.
It also represents the Supreme Court’s biggest expansion of gun rights in more than a decade — and casts doubt on laws in eight other states and the District of Columbia that restrict concealed-carry permits in ways similar to New York."
Supreme Court strikes down New York gun law on Second Amendment grounds (cnbc.com) (https://www.cnbc.com/2022/06/23/supreme-court-strikes-down-new-york-gun-law-restricting-concealed-carry.html)

I don't know if Sullivan's Law was as effective in deterring gun crime in the state of New York as some think, it is a separate issue. What I find difficult to comprehend is the that the Court claims the law violated the 2nd Amendment of the Constitution which makes no reference to individuals, but to 'a well organized militia' -perhaps at some point a Jurist can define what a 'well organized militia' might be, because I struggle to think it means a spotty 18-year old who lives with his mum, or a dad of three living in Yonkers, or Bonkers as the case may be.

Below is the link to an abstract and then an article by Robert Leider published last year. The key issue is a key element of the argument justifying the Liberal Democratic state that has its origins in Thomas Hobbes's Leviathan of 1658 where it is argued that the citizen should surrender to the State a degree of Liberty in return for the State defending the citizen. It was subsequently elaborated on culminating in Max Weber's early 20th century argument that by definition, the modern state must have a monopoly on the legitimate use of force. Thus Leider takes on the Monopoly argument to argue that a decentralization of force that gives individuals guns is both a practical means of securing the citizen, and a Constitutional right.

Leider offers three reasons,
1) that law enforcement 'still enforces law below desirable levels'- in other words, armed citizens can compensate for the lack of law enforcement;

2) there is a mismatch between Public Duty and Private Rights. I find this confusing, but this is what he says-
"While providing effective law enforcement is a public duty, it is not a private right. Individuals, thus, have no effective claim that the government adequately enforce the law or protect them against unlawful violence. And any attempt to create such a private right would create profound separation of powers concerns. Consequently, self-help and private law enforcement are the best remedies when governments undersupply needed levels of police protection. "

3) get this -"even if the “government” has a monopoly of force, it does not follow that government officers are the only ones in whom the government’s monopoly may be vested" -in other words, law enforcement can be decentralized to the citizen because the Officers of the govt might not be good at their job.

His conclusion is just as breathtaking -"the article concludes that the individual right to bear arms still has relevance for public defense and security." But when the 2nd Amendment was framed, a 'well organized militia' was conceived as an addition or even a replacement for the Continental Army that fought the British, which Washington wanted to disband. It was thus conceived in terms of a 'Militia' rather than an Individual, and to combat external invasion of the United States rather than local law enforcement where the citizen doesn't have it, for whatever reason.

Thus, there is an argument that the Police Department can be 'defunded' or just shut down, and law enforcement be the task of armed citizens, whether they form a militia or not; and one also can see how such men and women would not just take up arms to defend their property and their neighbourhood, but use it to attack the Federal Government of the USA if they define it as a 'tyranny'. And is it ironic or deliberate, that such people, Proud Boys, Oathkeepers, Three Percenters, prefer to parade around with battlefield weapons rather than Midnight Specials?

So, gun law in this sense creates a separation of powers that Leider claims he wants to avoid, by reducing the need of the State to maintain its monopoly or violence or the use of force, but in doing so, also creates the potential for force and violence which undermines the authority of the State, thus enabling a form of Anarchy barely mitigated by the assumption that the rule of law will prosecute men and women who use guns against the law, for example by killing people -unless they can mount the Rittenhouse 'Self-Defence' argument.

And still no definition of 'A well organized militia' -or a debate on the precise nature of guns and ammunition in the 21st century,.

Leider's abstract is here-
The State’s Monopoly of Force and the Right to Bear Arms | Antonin Scalia Law School (gmu.edu) (https://www.law.gmu.edu/pubs/papers/2029#:~:text=In%20debates%20over%20the%20Second,ac t%20in%20emergency%20self%2Ddefense.)

The full article is here-
viewcontent.cgi (northwestern.edu) (https://scholarlycommons.law.northwestern.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1464&context=nulr)

[Stavros]

A brave move, an urgent measure, and one that has attracted legal complaints like flies on a jam sandwich. But where is the moral argument that asks how much longer gun advocates are going to stand by while children are born who never get to ten years old because they have been shredded by a bullet, or two, or ten?

We have been here so many times before, but it never gets better. Is there no hope at all that even limited measures to restrict the carrying of weapons of death in public can be passed -does it really undermine anyone's freedom to leave the gun at home?

A US governor tried to ban guns amid ‘relentless’ violence. The lawsuits followed swiftly | New Mexico | The Guardian (https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2023/sep/14/michelle-lujan-grisham-new-mexico-governor-gun-ban-lawsuit)