The FAST Approaching Gun Ban

[buttslinger]

If Joe Friday never pulled his gun in 30 years, why do cops carry guns? Intimidation? To be in control of the situation?

[martin48]

I was just wondering where I could make most progress in using rational argument to get people to think in an open way. Is it gun-control, abortion, religion or the Republican Party?

Suggestions please!

[trish]

I was just wondering where I could make most progress in using rational argument to get people to think in an open way. Is it gun-control, abortion, religion or the Republican Party?

Suggestions please!You want to teach the greatest number of closed minded people to question their preconceptions and think rationally? You’re a fucking “wayist.”

Getting to your question: You could drop your engineering career, become a professor and attempt to teach classroom after classroom of young minds how to look at, think about and approach problems in different ways: how to invent solutions and how those proposed solutions are dependent upon the assumptions that one makes about the problem. Have them list their assumptions, question them, revise and work out new solutions incorporating the various sets of tweaked assumptions. Get them to see how the feedbacks between thought, action, belief, doubt, observation and conversation with others with different approaches empowers them, frees their creativity, hones their analytical and observational skills and opens them to the ideas of others. It may even increase their empathy toward others.

Naw! Just kidding. You probably stand a better chance selling a Republican, using reason alone, a compact hybrid vehicle.

[martin48]

Very comprehensive. I am a professor, professor of engineering. So there!!!





You want to teach the greatest number of closed minded people to question their preconceptions and think rationally? You’re a fucking “wayist.”

Getting to your question: You could drop your engineering career, become a professor and attempt to teach classroom after classroom of young minds how to look at, think about and approach problems in different ways: how to invent solutions and how those proposed solutions are dependent upon the assumptions that one makes about the problem. Have them list their assumptions, question them, revise and work out new solutions incorporating the various sets of tweaked assumptions. Get them to see how the feedbacks between thought, action, belief, doubt, observation and conversation with others with different approaches empowers them, frees their creativity, hones their analytical and observational skills and opens them to the ideas of others. It may even increase their empathy toward others.

Naw! Just kidding. You probably stand a better chance selling a Republican, using reason alone, a compact hybrid vehicle.

[fred41]

Just because something's insignificant doesn't mean it shouldn't be googled...:)

I had to know if Joe Friday ever shot anyone. Turns out he did : http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0565689/

On the way to get some cigarettes, Joe see's a man trying jimmy coins out of a machine in a laundermat. He identifies himself, the man shoots at him...and Sgt. Friday returns fire, apparently hitting the man. The man runs out bleeding and flees with his girlfriend. Joe has to go before a "Shooting Board" (which is the name of the episode) because they didn't find a spent bullet and the thief is found dead from the shooting - with the girlfriend claiming Joe murdered him.

[hippifried]

I stand corrected. Is that the only time?

[Fyusian]

You want to teach the greatest number of closed minded people to question their preconceptions and think rationally? You’re a fucking “wayist.”

Getting to your question: You could drop your engineering career, become a professor and attempt to teach classroom after classroom of young minds how to look at, think about and approach problems in different ways: how to invent solutions and how those proposed solutions are dependent upon the assumptions that one makes about the problem. Have them list their assumptions, question them, revise and work out new solutions incorporating the various sets of tweaked assumptions. Get them to see how the feedbacks between thought, action, belief, doubt, observation and conversation with others with different approaches empowers them, frees their creativity, hones their analytical and observational skills and opens them to the ideas of others. It may even increase their empathy toward others.

Naw! Just kidding. You probably stand a better chance selling a Republican, using reason alone, a compact hybrid vehicle.

Are you saying that only those the right side of the political spectrum are closed minded and that the left aren't closed minded too? Because I've found the left to be exactly the same if not worst.

(For the reference, I would put myself into the centre for politics, I find the right and left to be equally stupid in some of their ideas)

Thing is, America's fucked itself up. With all the gun trade (legal and illegal), even an utter ban on guns in America would not stop them from appearing on the streets and would just make it harder for law-abiding citizens to acquire one but they aren't the problem. It's keeping guns away from criminals and the insane that's the hard bit.

[trish]

Are you saying that only those the right side of the political spectrum are closed minded and that the left aren't closed minded too?Gee, am I? Where in that post did you get that idea? I think the post said that you stand as good a chance at selling a Republican a hybrid car as you stand at teaching university students engineering. Anything negative you took from that about Republicrats or university students is on you.


(For the reference, I would put myself into the centre for politics, I find the right and left to be equally stupid in some of their ideas)Over the past two decades in the U.S. the center has moved measurably to the right. Now the center is stupid.


It's keeping guns away from criminals and the insane that's the hard bit.Keeping them away from children seems to be pretty difficult too. Glad you got it all under control over there. I really am. Kudos. Thumbs up. Good show. I mean it. Really.

[fred41]

I stand corrected. Is that the only time?

Yep...you can watch it on Hulu (kind of amusing actually)...he's held a weapon some rare occasions, but that's about it.

[buttslinger]

While England and Germany and China and Japan have cultures that go back thousands of years, America's goes back 15 minutes. Even Canada is basically England and France and some Indian. The USA is as mixed a bag as you can get. And Iran is not the most dangerous Nation on the Planet, nor North Korea. The USA is. Nobody tells us what to do. We're badass, and don't you forgit it.
Eventually that loser with a rap sheet who gets his buddy to buy him a roscoe with the three day check.....he'll end up in jail or stuck in some meaningless garbageman job. Justice prevails.
Cue the "Dragnet" theme music.

[martin48]

Accidents will happen

http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/oct/18/chicago-three-year-old-boy-shot-dead-brother

Anyway, it's not the guns it's the people

[trish]

If the three-year-old had a gun too, this wouldn't have happened.
886100

[broncofan]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protection_of_Lawful_Commerce_in_Arms_Act

Trish's post brings up an issue I think I discussed a while back. Guns are treated differently from just about every other item of commerce and gun manufacturers are given special immunity from suit. I am not saying that under normal principles of tort law and strict liability gun manufacturers would be found liable every time there is a massacre. But why should they not be subject to suit like every other manufacturer and defend the design of their products against claims they could be made more safely? When a manufacturer is liable for the harm its product causes, it is forced to internalize the damage it does and encouraged to make safer, less dangerous products.

In the absence of this law, states would have jurisdiction over the tort liability of gun manufacturers. So why do Republicans, who are generally states' rights advocates want to prevent that? The 2nd amendment does not even come close to mandating that manufacturers of guns cannot be sued without a special shield of protection.

[broncofan]

And I realize there is something different about guns in that the harm they do is often part of the design. But under strict liability, a jury can consider whether a particular design has any utility. It would not prevent gun manufacturers from making weapons that are absolute perfect tools of mass murder, but a jury would be able to decide whether that particular design, for instance spraying a million bullets per second, creates a risk to the public that a gun manufacturer should have to compensate victims for. Or whether a gun should have better safety features to prevent the user from accidental harm. In the latter case, it's a bit easier than holding them liable for something the gun was designed to do.

Anyway, whether they would be held liable or not there is no reason to provide them a layer of immunity nobody else has when it forestalls the normal development of designs that are more compatible for their intended use.

[fred41]

I disagree on this point though. Gun manufacturers are liable for defective weapons...and are also liable for illegal sales they are directly responsible for (at least according to the wiki page). Making them liable beyond that seems like another end run around a legislative body for not creating a law some people want. Refrigerators are safer now because the gov't passed a law stating they should be.

[fred41]

...perhaps I should have used the word 'regulation' instead instead of 'law' in that last sentence.

[broncofan]

I don't remember strict liability law that well so I might be wrong but this is my best recollection. It used to be that there was a caveat in strict liability law stating that a product was only be defective if it did not do what is was intended to do, not because of inherent problems with the type of product. Then I believe design defect began to be defined by balancing the risk and utility of a particular design and considering whether there was a feasible alternative design. This method does not rule out the possibility that a product did not malfunction but was still legally defective because it was so dangerous that its harm far exceeded its potential utility. This definition sort of reflects strict liability's origins as a means of requiring companies to pay for the damage wrought by their products regardless of fault. This only has the effect of outlawing a particular design if in the long run it causes significantly more harm than good, in which case the company is bankrupted.

A gun that is fired at another human being has one lawful purpose which is self-defense. Most of the time the difference between a gun fired at an innocent person and one fired at an assailant is human intention. But what if a gun is designed that is better at waging war against humanity than for defense? The gun manufacturer can still operate and stay in business if the illegal use of its product is relatively rare. But if the product proves in the long-run to be more viable for criminal ventures than lawful activity, the company is bankrupted. Strict liability provides gun companies with an incentive to design guns that people will not choose for shooting sprees.

But I understand and agree with your critique to a large extent. It does seem like an end-run around the legislature as you say, but the system provides an economic testing ground for product design.

[fred41]

But what if a gun is designed that is better at waging war against humanity than for defense? The gun manufacturer can still operate and stay in business if the illegal use of its product is relatively rare. But if the product proves in the long-run to be more viable for criminal ventures than lawful activity, the company is bankrupted.


..but weapons like that already exist...that's why we should regulate them (such as an assault weapons type ban), because they're clearly created for warfare...it's just that we can't get the government to do that on a federal level.

...personally, though an assault weapons ban makes sense, I think it would be even better to throw some solid regulations against handguns...like how about common sense laws such as proficiency and safety courses...and prove you at least have a gun safe in the house, etc.

[fred41]

....but the system provides an economic testing ground for product design.

Hmm, perhaps smart triggers at some point. Don't know if that's really feasible...or desirable - if it goes wrong - you could wind up dead, in which case your family can sue, but still...

[fred41]

Actually we should have smart triggers by now...hell, I can open my phone with a print. They say the only reason we don't have them is because the NRA will intimidate stores not to carry them because that will activate New Jersey's 'child proof gun law'.

[Caleigh]

Can we not just tax the hell out of guns and especially ammunition so that it will pay for all the cost of worrying about those guns and their potential damage? Pay for all the policing needed around them, all the property damage, the loss of human lives etc. I especially think it should be on ammunition though. A gun is just a sculpture if it has no bullets.

[Caleigh]

In Canada if you own a gun it MUST be kept in a locked container anywhere but at the range. And you have to provide to the local police precinct a set of instructions so that they can walk into your house and find your gun using those instructions.

[trish]

Can we not just tax the hell out of guns and especially ammunition so that it will pay for all the cost of worrying about those guns and their potential damage? Pay for all the policing needed around them, all the property damage, the loss of human lives etc. I especially think it should be on ammunition though. A gun is just a sculpture if it has no bullets.
Guns don't kill people, bullets do. Yeah...it's got a ring to it.

[trish]

http://articles.latimes.com/2013/feb/05/opinion/la-oe-schiff-nra-liability-shield-20130205

[broncofan]

PLCAA advocates argue that this law only prevents frivolous lawsuits. But it is difficult to know what is frivolous on the fringes until something is litigated under common law principles of negligence and strict liability. Every other industry has to pay for legal representation for both frivolous lawsuits and lawsuits that make it to trial but are not successful. It's a cost of doing business, encourages caution, and laws that prevent frivolous lawsuits often pre-empt legitimate lawsuits.

http://articles.latimes.com/1994-05-19/local/me-59379_1_handgun-manufacturers

I like this article by Chemerinsky long before PLCAA that explains what the development of the common law might do for gun safety in design and distribution (and also prices of weapons).

[buttslinger]

I'm not positive about the statistics, but I think there are more firearm murders in Chicago in three weeks than there are in Japan for the whole year. There's something more rotten in Denmark (the USA) than the NRA. There a cultural phenomenon going on here. No matter what you do about registration, or gun locks or safety measures, there are still 300 million guns floating around.
I do think that if a "gang of eight" type committee actually sat down and could spend a few weeks brainstorming all the stats they could come up with the most reasonable and effective measures to bring these staggering statistics down, but then you'd have to actually implement the measures, in accordance with the second amendment. In the case of Badger Guns, which recently lost a six million dollar lawsuit, they had a recorded tape of the salesman telling the guy to uncheck the box on the background check that said "I'm buying this gun for someone else" ....
Making this a cultural war against the rednecks in the NRA is a mistake, IMO, Fox News always points out that the perps in Trish and Martin's news accounts are Hispanic gangbangers. I have no idea why the LAW AND ORDER people don't want to clamp down on the relatively small number of gun dealers that are knowingly arming street trash. Instead of Rachel Maddow leading the charge you should have Tom Selleck.

[trish]

Asking for reasonable regulation is not "making this a cultural war," it is simply asking for more reasonable legislation. Spinning this simple plea as if it were a "war against rednecks" and making sure that in almost every post you characterize firearms abusers as "gangbangers" (whether you mean it or not) does reduce the issue to a culture war. This is what Fox News does. We don't have to accept their framing of the issue. It's not the children of gangbangers who are picking up their mommy's or their daddy's guns and accidentally shooting their toddler siblings.

Yes, I agree. It would be nice if some significant conservative politician would take up the issue and lead the charge. But because the extreme right wing, the tea party, the NRA and Fox News have made this into a culture war, no conservative politician can afford to champion the reasonable view. Any celeb who took up the cause -including Tom Selleck- would quickly be ridiculed by right wing media and threatened by anonymous, irate, internet "commentators".

Chicago marks the confluence of two incoming rivers of firearms; firearms from Wisconsin and Indiana. Are Chicagoans culturally inclined toward violence; or when a Chicagoan reaches the end of his rope -as happens to people regardless of their location- and he reaches for a something on which to take out his frustration, is it just more likely that the thing he grasps will be a gun? A gun in the home -no matter where that home is- significantly increases the probability of homicide or a suicide occurring in that home. Still the per capita rate of gun related deaths in Chicago has gone down since firearms have undergone somewhat stricter control there.

The U.S. city with the highest per capita homicide rate is St. Louis. Next is Detroit. Then Baltimore. This may suggest that factors that influence the per capita rate of homicide include not only the availability of guns but poverty, unemployment and systemic politico-economic divides.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_cities_by_murder_rate

[fred41]

Here are some modern safety ideas...(I copied and pasted them from a person commenting one of the news articles about the "Badger Guns" case)
http://www.intelligun.com/
http://www.wired.com/2014/05/sentinl-gun-lock/

...of course I am posting this with the realization that many gun owners don't even consider using basic, old trigger locks that have been around practically forever.



..but the first of the two (as long as it works) doesn't seem to hamper using the weapon in immediate self defense.

[trish]

I would agree that "smart" guns of various sorts make a lot of sense; especially if you really want to keep a gun in the home because you feel insecure. I think it would likely diminish the chance of it being used by another family member in a moment of rage, or depression or just plain stupidity.

Others apparently don't agree. Remember back in May of 2014 when Andy Raymond -a gun dealer in Rockville, Maryland- decided to sell smart guns in his store alongside his usual assortment of firearms? He was hassled, his life was threatened and his family threatened to the point where he felt he had to back down and no longer offer them for sale. This incident was complicated by the fact that the governor promised to sign legislation that would make all other firearms illegal in Maryland should a smart gun become available. However, same thing happen to Belinda Padilla -a gun dealer in California, which had no such mandate complicating the issue. Belinda marketed smart guns in LA and was subject to endless harassment and threats to her life.

Gun enthusiasts opposed to the marketing of smart guns and biometric firearms will tell you they are the first step in a slippery slope to government regulation of firearms, the dissolution of the 2nd Amendment and the banishing of firearms. Of course slippery slope arguments are a logical fallacy and they can always be argued in both directions. E.g. I think once we are convinced that biometrics make a gun safer, we'll realize they can be used to make other weapons safe for civilian use too, for example: grenade launchers and shoulder launched missiles for starters. So how about it, NRA? Let's get behind this biometric thing. It'll be a boon for our 2nd Amendment Rights.

[fred41]

Yes Trish, I believe you have posted about that issue at the time...and I would like to say ' you can't stop progress (technology)'...and that's often true...but you can sure as hell slow it down. Patents for devices like that go back quite a ways. Putting in bills about smart gun technology before they were actively marketed is political grandstanding ...and only aggravated this issue, but over the top gun enthusiasts, just like like most OCD hoarders, are tone deaf to anything that might threaten their amassed collection.
The argument they make about retro fitting older weapons won't wash the longer and cheaper this technology sticks around...but we'll probably all be dead from old age before we see most weapons with this. A horse can't win a race if it isn't allowed to come out of the gate.

[broncofan]

I think people would have to get used to smart weapons before they trust them and that might require a slow rollout. I've said I don't shoot guns but I can imagine if I had one that required a radio transmitter or a fingerprint authorization I would be nervous about it not working when I need it.

That's a natural fear with something you're depending on in a rare but serious situation. I wouldn't dismiss the idea of a safer weapon or think it was a plot to ban guns but I would be a bit nervous about an additional tech component to a piece of equipment I had used just fine up until then.

I also agree that legislation mandating smart guns is a really bad idea at this point because it would be better for people to start getting used to them...explore them and find them effective for self-defense and safety before they are a political battleground..so I agree with Fred on that.

[broncofan]

I would like to weigh in on the culture wars commentary. The gun problem we have in this country crosses cultural and ethnic lines. Perhaps there are some rural communities where guns are more likely to be seen as a symbol of independence and a part of American identity and this is combined with a distrust of government. As a result any policy meant to increase public safety is resisted as an attempt to erode a civil right.

But we have a very long history in this country of very liberal gun laws and the result is that it's very easy to buy a gun, whether you're white, latino, black, or asian. A child of any race can shoot himself with his parent's weapons, and a depressed person of any background can decide to take his own life with a gun. It's not easy to pass laws that allow people to have weapons for self-defense but protect against these social hazards. Any law our legislatures pass is going to have only marginal impact at first. But that can't be an excuse not to act and on multiple fronts. The only actions that would have an immediate and profound effect on this problem would also infringe on people's right to own a gun....so it seems rather unfair that the more reasonable policies, whether background checks, safety features, more accountability in distribution would be attacked as not likely to make a difference. The differences will matter in the aggregate if we treat this as a serious problem.

[buttslinger]

Rather than fly off into my usual colorful prose, I'll just say that putting guns in the hands of idiots is BAD, and is usually a tragedy waiting to happen.
While seatbelts and refrigerators should be safe as possible, guns should be dangerous. That's what makes this topic so remarkable.

[trish]

Difficult to know what the word "should" means. It's possible to make firearms so that children can't fire them. Yet every week since the year's start, children have been picking up firearms and accidentally shooting people. Should we continue to make guns that children can operate because guns should be that dangerous? Slick sayings and clever mottos do not an argument make.

[buttslinger]

Difficult to know what the word "should" means. It's possible to make firearms so that children can't fire them. Yet every week since the year's start, children have been picking up firearms and accidentally shooting people. Should we continue to make guns that children can operate because guns should be that dangerous? Slick sayings and clever mottos do not an argument make.

Congresswoman............
Children SHOULD never be allowed to handle a gun. Unless you can make the 300 million guns that are out there now idiotproof, what can you realistically do? Unless you can convince 150 million Americans they're too stupid to own a gun, then it does not make a bit of difference what SHOULD be done, gunplay on the streets and accidental shootings are RED WHITE and BLUE.
The Japanese and Germans have much better gun violence stats than we do, but they also used Chinese children for bayonet practice, and gassed millions of Jews.
I hope Hillary jumps over gun control and channels her internal Bernie Sanders to fix the tax code. Guns are here to stay.

[trish]

then it does not make a bit of difference what SHOULD be done "Should" was your word choice, not mine. You said guns should be dangerous. Okay. My question is "How dangerous should they be? Citing how many guns are out there which are not child proof (as a biometric gun would effectively be, if it were programmed to operate for a unique licensed adult) doesn't answer the question, "Should we continue to make firearms that are not effectively childproof?"

No we cannot retroactively make all guns safe. Because of that sad fact tragedies will continue to occur on a yearly basis for many years to come. Nevertheless, that doesn't mean we shouldn't discontinue making guns that are so unsafe a toddler can fire one. We can start making safer weapons. We can also require non-biometric guns to have trigger locks and stored in a gun-safe. Of course, we can't go into every home and make sure people are obeying the law; but we can arrest or fine people when unhappy incidents alert us to the fact that a firearm was not kept locked away from children. We can hold people liable for the damage their weapons cause.


I hope Hillary jumps over gun control and channels her internal Bernie Sanders to fix the tax code.Agreed. Working people in both parties can understand economic inequality.


Guns are here to stay.Again, you're framing the issue way Fox News taught you to frame it. Of course guns are here to stay. No one is after your guns.

[buttslinger]

... You said guns should be dangerous. Okay. My question is "How dangerous should they be? ....

Considering they are designed to kill people, that's pretty dangerous, I guess.
I don't have a solution.

[trish]

So to the question, "Should we continue to manufacture firearms that are not effectively childproof?" is your answer, "I don't know" ?

Okay let's try something simpler, how about we require every ammunition manufacturer to label every case of bullets with "CHOKING HAZARD" ?

[buttslinger]

This problem is real and way bigger than my personal opinion, as I stated a long time ago, I had one close friend who was shot and killed the first day of hunting season, and even closer friend's step-daughter was murder by a disgruntled co-worker on her first day back from maternity leave. That was a national story. Another schoolmate shot himself playing Russian roulette in high school.
If you manage to make guns baby-proof, you're still a long way from making them adult-proof.
Write a letter to your congressman. Live your Life.

[broncofan]

If you manage to make guns baby-proof, you're still a long way from making them adult-proof.
Write a letter to your congressman. Live your Life.
This is the same argument as before. Failure to solve all the problems means we shouldn't address any of them. We shouldn't punish tax evasion because we won't catch all tax evaders. We shouldn't prosecute murderers as long as some go undetected etc.

[buttslinger]

This is the same argument as before. Failure to solve all the problems means we shouldn't address any of them. We shouldn't punish tax evasion because we won't catch all tax evaders. We shouldn't prosecute murderers as long as some go undetected etc.

No, it means if you are wearing a dress right now, or you have an English accent, and you walk into a redneck bar and start talking gun control, you'll end up in the hospital. There are 300,000,000 guns in the USA right now. How do you address that? By all means, don't let me stop you from cooking up ideas how to make a gun that doesn't shoot, maybe half the country will buy them. But the other half won't. So you've changed nothing.
The only flaw in my argument is that maybe I'm perceived as laughing at you, or talking down at you, or scolding you. That's exactly how the Conservatives feel when the intellectual branch of the Democratic Party talks guns.
I think my broader point is that there are much more pressing issues to deal with, like how to prevent World War III.
If you look at History from Cain killing Abel to Hitler murdering Jews by assembly line, the human race has much bigger problems than gun control. The Middle East problem is the problem that makes gun control look easy. They say the Garden of Eden was in the Fertile Crescent, in Iraq. It's possible the entire World will end there. If some crazy Iranian shoots an atomic missile at Israel in 10, 20, 50 years from now, game over, man. Game over.
I'm not saying guns are bad, oh well. I'm saying fixing the problem is almost impossible, it's been tried before. You end up with a drop in the bucket. It's about priorities. Number one, get Hillary, not McCain into the White House. She is in a position to actually do something. We ain't.

[trish]

If you manage to make guns baby-proof, you're still a long way from making them adult-proof.Of course. So we should continue to make guns that aren't baby-proof just because there are a lot of 'em already out there involving children every week in deadly accidents?


Write a letter to your congressman. Live your Life.In other words don't bother you. I wouldn't, if you weren't so insistent upon engaging in this very conversation. I'm sorry you have lost so much. Having just a hint of where you're coming from I can sort of see how you might be pessimistic and depressed about the whole issue. I do write, phone and harass all my representatives (including my Congressman) and I find time to live too. Imagine that. You can write your Congressman too. It might make you feel better.

[buttslinger]

I harass all my representatives (including my Congressman) and I find time to live too. Imagine that. You can write your Congressman too. It might make you feel better.

OK.......

[Laphroaig]

Proof that it's not always the "person" who shoots the gun that's at fault...

"A woman in the US state of Indiana is recovering after being shot by her dog in a bizarre hunting accident, an environment official says.

The woman, named as Allie Carter, 25, was hunting waterfowl on Saturday in the north of the state, Jonathon Boyd, an Indiana conservation officer said.

She put down her 12-gauge shotgun but her chocolate Labrador stepped on it, shooting her in the foot.

To add insult to injury, the dog was named Trigger."

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-34644333

http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/oct/26/dog-trigger-shoots-owner-hunt-indiana

[trish]

We need to arm all dogs: only a good dog with a gun and stop a bad dog -or a dog with a stupid owner- with a gun.

[broncofan]

We need to arm all dogs: only a good dog with a gun and stop a bad dog -or a dog with a stupid owner- with a gun.
It's really irresponsible to just give every dog a weapon regardless of how many dog years he's lived or how many times he has committed an inside dump on the carpet. Your type of thinking is gonna get a lot of innocent dogs shot.

[Laphroaig]

Do you feel lucky...

888289

[trish]

Cold dead paws?! Are you kiddin'?

[Laphroaig]

Going back to a slightly more serious point, while it may not be possible to retrofit/modify all existing guns in the USA to make them safer, the motor industry has shown that it is possible to organise large scale recalls when their products have been proved to be defective/unsafe in some way.

"The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration released new data today, tracking the total number of recalls over the past few decades. Across the industry in 2014, there were 803 vehicle recalls total involving 63.9 million vehicles, including two of the largest vehicle recalls in history."

http://jalopnik.com/these-are-the-10-biggest-automotive-recalls-ever-1689270859

http://www.investopedia.com/slide-show/car-recalls/

And of course this year, in the wake of the emissions scandal, VW will have to recall millions of cars to "fix" their engines. In the US it's around 500,000, but in Europe it amounts to around 8.5 million vehicles, with a total of about 11 million worldwide.


http://www.cnbc.com/2015/10/02/vw-emissions-cheating-scandal-heading-to-congress.html

http://www.theguardian.com/business/2015/oct/15/vw-scandal-german-authorities-reject-voluntary-recall

I think I read somewhere in this thread that there are around 300 million guns in the USA, but that's no excuse for not making a start... Every single gun made safer is potentially a life saved.

[trish]

Just off the cuff, I would say the difference between recalling cars and guns lies in the perception of the owners. Recalls rely on the owners and dealers of the recalled product to realize that it is within their interest to cooperate with the recall.

In the case of cars, owners understand believe that after they take their car to the dealer, have it worked on and bring it home they will have a safer and and better car. Dealers can be pressured by manufacturers to cooperate, but they also know it's better for business to be perceived as someone who has the customer's best interests in the fore. I'm not up on this, but I think that in the case of recalls due a car not meeting an EPA standard, fines can levied against owners who don't have compliant vehicles.

In the case of guns, owners do not think safer weapons are better( e.g. the NRA encourages people to carry with one in chamber so they can get the drop on criminals). They would perceive the recalls as an elaborate scheme to "take away their guns." Because of these perceptions, any dealer who cooperates would be perceived as a government toady and would likely lose business to dealers who don't cooperate with the recall. I can't imagine the hoopla (possibly violent) that would ensue should owners of non-compliant weapons be subject to a fine.

But I appreciate your larger point. Massive recalls of products to make them safer and better ARE possible. In the case of firearms, I'm afraid we'll have to recall some minds first.

[Laphroaig]

Trish, I agree that there's a degree of "apples and oranges" when trying to compare cars to guns, but I'm glad that you picked up on my main point. Large product recalls are not only possible but happen on a fairly regular basis.

[martin48]

http://www.mystatesman.com/news/news/local/should-vehicle-related-deaths-be-part-of-the-gun-c/npDBy/

Does this help with previous discussions of banning both cars and guns?

[trish]

Thanksgiving week in the U.S. of A.

Nine injured, three murdered as gunman, shoots up a planned parenthood in Colorado Springs. Says he was riled up listening to Fox News.

At a Waffle House in Biloxi, exercising his Louisiana given right to carry lit up a cigarette. When he was informed by the waitress that Waffle House has a policy against smoking he pulled out his 33mm and shot her dead.

A volunteer guard at an Oklahoma "Muslim-Free" gun-store shot himself in the foot.

These are just the highlights.

Ahh, the price of sweet liberty.

[martin48]

God Help America

[trish]

http://nyti.ms/1XtuYke

[Laphroaig]

Guns with history...


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1nAfWfF4TjM

[Laphroaig]

“They might have guns, but we have flowers”


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xkM-SDNoI_8

[martin48]

Get angry, get even

Mass shooting left 14 people dead at a social services centre

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-34991855

[broncofan]

Because of political pragmatism I have only once or twice stated my own views on guns. Personally I think it is pretty rare that an armed person would ever be in a position to stop a massacre unless that is their profession (armed security, police officer etc). I think it is also pretty rare that someone will stop a home intruder with a gun. In my view, if we did not have a second amendment and we made gun ownership an onerous process with a strict licensing requirement, these acts would be pretty rare.

I do interpret the second amendment as protecting the right of individuals to own weapons subject to few limitations. I'm just not sure that's a good thing. If guns were contraband, and someone with a screw loose would have to go through weeks of training and certification to own one, we'd save thousands of lives I think. Yes there would still be a black market for weapons, but I am not sure our lawful armed citizens are putting a stop to much criminal activity through vigilantism or even self-defense.

I've actually stated this before, but I feel a bit dishonest pretending that I actually think incremental change is all we should desire...personally I think we should desire a lot more, but will achieve a lot less.

[buttslinger]

So what did we learn from the Berdoo Masacree?
Do not buy your ethnic friend a gun if he asks you.
If you do shoot up a Christmas party, have an escape plan. Don't drive home.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r8oJs57bhiI

[martin48]

Now You Can Buy A Bulletproof Blanket Specifically Made For Kids To Use During School Shootings
http://www.businessinsider.com/bodyguard-bulletproof-blanket-for-kids-2014-6?IR=T

[trish]

That should work. But what if bad kids buy them too?

[martin48]

Perhaps this is the answer, everyone in USA wears 24/7 bulletproof clothes. Drives bulletproof cars. Lives in bulletproof houses.

[trish]

Wearing constraining clothes, huddling with your family in a cramped bunker and always driving with the bullet-proof windows up: that's the sweet taste liberty. I just put one 'bullet-proof yellow slicker' on my Christmas list. It's gonna be a hard rain.

[martin48]

Constraining clothes - now you are talking my language

[martin48]

Happy Holiday Season

[trish]

That's Nevada assembly woman Michelle Flore and her family. She nuts for guns. We supports concealed carry on college campuses, grades schools and day care centers. She supported Cliven Bundy and is herself under investigation by the IRS. She DOES support same sex marriage and the legalization of marijuana. On the other hand she's for lifting FDA bans on treatments sought by terminally ill patients. When asked why she didn't signed the bill to keep Syrian refugees out of Nevada she said, "The Syran Refugees. I'm like, What–are you kidding me? I’m about to fly to Paris and shoot ‘em in the head myself! I am not OK with Syrian refugees. I’m not OK with terrorists. I’m OK with putting them down, blacking them out, just put a piece of brass in their nocular cavity and end their miserable life."
(Not sure what a 'nocular' cavity is).

[muh_muh]

imagine the republican reaction if the family was black or arab

[Ben in LA]

imagine the republican reaction if the family was black or arab

Privilege

[broncofan]

That's Nevada assembly woman Michelle Flore and her family. She nuts for guns. We supports concealed carry on college campuses, grades schools and day care centers.
Who would want to live like this? To support these policies is to basically advocate a permanent state of martial law, and to try to alleviate a problem by strengthening its causes. The American right to own guns is a nod to the rights of the individual over public safety. The problem is that some on the right do not believe that there is a conflict between individual rights and collective welfare. In other words, they think the second amendment empowers the individual and also improves public safety. In my view, this goes against all empirical evidence and also common sense.

Sometimes the rights of the individual have to give way to compelling public safety concerns. What is the right to own a gun? Does it provide a real or a mostly psychic benefit? I think its protection as a civil right (at least as it is broadly interpreted) is outdated...but even if it were not, why should it trump the safety of everyone? We have all sorts of limits on people's fundamental rights. People have a right to choose alternative treatments and to have autonomy when it comes to choosing medical treatment; however sometimes the fda steps in and decides that a treatment is so unlikely to have benefit that it does not warrant approval. How did we get to the point where the right to own a gun became more powerful than a person's medical autonomy?

I am not saying there is no genuine reason to defend someone's right to own a gun, just that it does not warrant the priority it is given.

[fred41]

Well...natural selection will alleviate the problem in that family anyway...due to some inbreeding, they'll probably thin out they're own herd in the future...perhaps from some accidental discharges.

...In all seriousness, I think that there are some cases where owning a weapon is warranted...but I believe that in those cases people really do treat their guns like a dangerous but necessary tool and don't feel the need to pose with them in pictures...
that's as stupid as posting pictures of ones cock.

[fred41]

imagine the republican reaction if the family was black or arab

that's a very good point.

[broncofan]

Well...natural selection will alleviate the problem in that family anyway...due to some inbreeding, they'll probably thin out they're own herd in the future...perhaps from some accidental discharges.

...In all seriousness, I think that there are some cases where owning a weapon is warranted...but I believe that in those cases people really do treat their guns like a dangerous but necessary tool and don't feel the need to pose with them in pictures...
that's as stupid as posting pictures of ones cock.
Strongly agree in whole despite my previous post:). That means I agree with this part as well, "I think there are some cases where owning a weapon is warranted." But for me this statement does not rule out very careful regulation and licensure.

[broncofan]

that's as stupid as posting pictures of ones cock.
If you're careless in firing your cock, the most you can do is take out someone's eye:).

[trish]

Hey now, let's not knock cock pictures!

[broncofan]

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2015/12/11/mich-woman-who-shot-at-shoplifters-gets-18-months-probation-vows-to-never-help-anybody-again/?tid=hybrid_experimentrandom_1_na

I dare you to read this story and not be infuriated. After hearing her comments I wish she had gotten real jail time.

[trish]

Since when is the death the penalty for shoplifting. I don't need Tatiana's kind of help; nobody does. Why didn't Michigan's licensing procedures for concealed carry filter out this asshole? Why the fuck do we have concealed carry for the general public?

[fred41]

Apparently she was shooting at the tires...which is crazy reckless....but she does look crazy.

[fred41]

crazy, with a lot of stupid sprinkled in900452

[yodajazz]

http://edition.cnn.com/2015/10/02/us/oregon-shooting-terrorism-gun-violence/

In the last 10 years, in the US, over 400 thousand Americans have been killed by guns. Total killed by terrorism, including overseas 3,380.

[martin48]

I'm not certain about the figures, but I have a 3 point plan to globally tackle this evil menace.

1 Build wall around the USA to stop Americans going anywhere to shoot people

2 Prevent any American, on grounds of nationality, entering any other country. All overseas visitors will be "Asked do you like Mum's Apple Pie?" I they say "Yes", they will be deported to the USA.

3 Until we work out what the fuck is happening, we will cut USA loose from the internet - this will adversely affect bible-thumping preachers, un-intelligent design fanatics and most porn - but it will be a price worth paying. We will get all those good people in Russia to help us.

[trish]

That's going to be a HUGE wall...HUGE. But the best part of the plan is: 'Murica's going to pay for it.

[fred41]

http://edition.cnn.com/2015/10/02/us/oregon-shooting-terrorism-gun-violence/

In the last 10 years, in the US, over 400 thousand Americans have been killed by guns. Total killed by terrorism, including overseas 3,380.

About two thirds of that figure covers suicide though.
I know, I know...the numbers would still be high...but I always feel some clarification is in order. Most people see the headline, not the body of the article. When they see 'victims of gun violence', they tend to naturally assume 'homicide'.
People have different opinions on suicide...regardless of whether or not guns make it easier.

[trish]

I see your point. Yet an available gun in the household makes suicide a likelier choice than it would be otherwise. A depressed teen choosing on the spur of the moment to shoot himself because of some childish thing he'd laugh about a decade hence is not a real option, certainly not an choice informed by a rational maturity. For that matter, anyone who decides in a moment of depression to shoot themselves is not thinking clearly. The 'option' they see before them in that firearm, is not a viable option. Moreover, the violence is not limited to the victim but directed at his family and loved ones.

I have no problem including suicide by a gun with the statistics on gun violence.

[fred41]

I know Trish. I certainly see your point, especially given that suicide is most prevalent amongst teenagers, with firearms being the most common choice....and due to hormones and stress, teenagers always see everything as the end of the world without any hope.
Availability does make suicide easier...and in some of the examples you gave (maybe even in the majority of cases sited ) things may have turned out different...perhaps better, had there not been a gun there (or alcohol and drugs plus a gun).
But there are times (rare though that they may seem) where suicide is a rational, personal choice. Some people choose suicide over a remaining lifetime of physical pain; some over a remaining lifetime of mental pain that , at that particular moment, there is no reasonable hope of a cure for...and in those particular cases a gun may be the best solution given.
It's certainly a better option than setting a fire or jumping in front of a train or moving vehicle and victimizing another person...or trying to get someone else to do it (i.e. suicide by cop...which doesn't always involve a firearm).
I think the statistic should be sited, especially so folks might think twice about having a firearm in the house with kids or teenagers...especially when they already appear to be obviously disturbed (I'm looking at you Nancy Lanza...well..you know).
Anyway, I'm not disagreeing with you over all...
...just that, if it's going to be compared to other types of violence for the sake of an attention getting soundbite...I think it should be clarified.

[Misterman1993]

If only the nation had gun laws like in New York.

[fred41]

If only the nation had gun laws like in New York.

NYS or NYC ?
They are different.
N.Y. City's gun laws are much more stringent than N.Y.State's...which are still considered stringent by U.S. standards.

[broncofan]

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/professor-fired-harassing-parents-sandy-hook-victim-article-1.2468239

The intersection of freedom of speech, human decency, tenure, and insane delusions. The government wants to take their guns away by staging deaths!

[trish]

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/professor-fired-harassing-parents-sandy-hook-victim-article-1.2468239

The intersection of freedom of speech, human decency, tenure, and insane delusions. The government wants to take their guns away by staging deaths!
Glad to see this fucker pay for spreading pain and lies.

[trish]

http://www.snopes.com/toddlers-killed-americans-terrorists/


Claim: Toddlers killed more Americans than terrorists in 2015.
http://www.snopes.com/images/green.gifTrue
WHAT'S TRUE: Broad counts indicate that 21 toddlers shot and killed themselves or others in 2015; 19 Americans died at the hands of potential or suspected Islamic terrorists.
WHAT'S Undetermined: What constitutes a "toddler," a "foreign terrorist," and which criteria counted toward attaining those totals.

[nitron]

At this point the manufacturer's have won. To many people,politicians, agree with them in the US. I'd move out if I was you. Seriously. A mass shooting every few days, and daily shooting every few (minutes /seconds)! How can anyone do anything in that kind of environment? I thought the tipping point would have been when the little children were shot , but NO! Nothing happened! That's seriously fucked up, as someone from outside the US , I can say that's really not right. Any sane person should get out of that shit ASAP. On a minor note, I also see this as rift between the Left and Right , it's getting to big.

[martin48]

.....

[Rcrxjlb]

Just my humble opinion

903493

[martin48]

So Obama is going to bypass Congress and attempt:



All sellers must be licensed and conduct background checks, overturning current exemptions to some online and gun show sellers
States must provide information on people disqualified due to mental illness or domestic violence
FBI will increase workforce processing background checks by 50%, hiring more than 230 new examiners
Congress will be asked to invest $500m (£339m) to improve access to mental healthcare
The departments of defence, justice and homeland security will explore "smart gun technology" to improve gun safety

Now how could anyone object? But they will

[trish]

Good points, but let me anticipate the considered response of the pro-gun lobby.


• That’s Big Government trying to regulate a private market.

• That’s Big Government spying on innocent citizens.

• That’s an expansion to even Bigger Government.

• That’s just giving our hard earned tax dollars to freeloading retards. Besides, I don’t believe in taxes.

• My gun’s already smarter than I am. It went off last evenin’ whiles I were cleanin’ it, befored I figer’d out it were tryin’ ta tell me I’da already cleaned it in der afternoon.

[martin48]

To be expected - such reasonable people

[dreamon]

The fact that anyone could support Obama's executive action regarding firearms shows a complete lack of respect for the government process. Setting a precedence of using executive action to bypass the legislative branch is a dangerous and slippery slope. We've seen it to disastrous results in the past, including Executive Order 9066.

[martin48]

What else can he do against the gun lobby, NRA and GOP?

Read some of the arguments below

http://edition.cnn.com/2015/10/01/opinions/opinion-roundup-gun-control-2015

[yodajazz]

The fact that anyone could support Obama's executive action regarding firearms shows a complete lack of respect for the government process. Setting a precedence of using executive action to bypass the legislative branch is a dangerous and slippery slope. We've seen it to disastrous results in the past, including Executive Order 9066.

He is dealing with the Congress, that has pass the least bills in history, according to my understanding. So if the executive action that bad, they should get together and pass new legislation. Then there would be a public record of who approves and who does not. They say the majority of the public approves some type of stricter regulations. American society is expanding the amount of places people can carry guns, legally, so with this, I say why not add increased accountability.

[broncofan]

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/ted-nugent-posts-anti-semitic-image-gun-control-article-1.2524561

Ted Nugent and the pro-gun movement at their classiest. It's difficult to have a discussion about gun control when maniacs control the debate with this kind of unhinged scapegoating. Even if you take away the anti-Jewish element, you still have a completely illogical discussion about gun-grabbers, people who hate freedom et al. You cannot get anywhere if you are unwilling to even fairly characterize your opponent's position.

[trish]

Ever since Newt Gingrich the conservatives in the U.S. have become loud-mouthed, lying obstructionists willing to forsake their own integrity (not to mention imperil our Nation’s economy and health with cutbacks and shutdowns) if they perceive it will advance their agenda or feed a rich man’s greed. TV, radio and social media have become echo chambers that amplify the effectiveness of this kind of mindless scapegoating. Ted Nugent is a tool. Always has been. More disgusting than Nugent-brain-farts is the filth and crap his followers leave in the comment section.

On the bright side, the Broncos won the Super Bowl.

[martin48]

Expect you feel better with that off your chest



Ever since Newt Gingrich the conservatives in the U.S. have become loud-mouthed, lying obstructionists willing to forsake their own integrity (not to mention imperil our Nation’s economy and health with cutbacks and shutdowns) if they perceive it will advance their agenda or feed a rich man’s greed. TV, radio and social media have become echo chambers that amplify the effectiveness of this kind of mindless scapegoating. Ted Nugent is a tool. Always has been. More disgusting than Nugent-brain-farts is the filth and crap his followers leave in the comment section.

[trish]

Yeah, but can I have a AMEN?

[Erika1487]

Yeah, but can I have a AMEN?

How bout a hail Satan ??

[trish]

"Amen" is not an affirmation of the existence of any sort of Deity or Demon; it simply means, "So be it." I'm asking for the reader's assent as to the content of the post. "Hail" means to "greet" or "salute." I can't very well greet a non-existent entity, so instead I'll say, "Hi Erika, welcome back from banishment."

[martin48]

Yeah, but can I have a AMEN?


You have my assent

[trish]

and amen to you brother Martin.

[martin48]

May the Lord be with you, Sister Trish

[trish]

Or not. Don't need no protection than an AK-47.

[Erika1487]

"Amen" is not an affirmation of the existence of any sort of Deity or Demon; it simply means, "So be it." I'm asking for the reader's assent as to the content of the post. "Hail" means to "greet" or "salute." I can't very well greet a non-existent entity, so instead I'll say, "Hi Erika, welcome back from banishment."
Well said Trish I am back after a year wondering in the void.

[martin48]

http://runt-of-the-web.com/republican-candidates-dildos

[martin48]

Maybe a case can be made for a well-armed militia

[trish]

Careful, they look like they have hair-triggers.

[trish]

http://freethoughtblogs.com/pharyngula/2016/02/16/why-cant-we-prosecute-people-for-gun-incompetence/

[trish]

Six people killed last night by a white, middle-aged, good-guy with semi-automatic handgun. I'm guessing he was angry with Obama, the Government, the World and Everything. One of the deceased is an eight year old boy...excuse me, was an eight year old boy...he ain't no more. But what's the harm in letting more angry good-guys carry semi-automatics?

http://nyti.ms/1RfzQmK

[fred41]

From the Times article:
“He periodically shot his gun out the back door,” Ms. Pardo said. “He would shoot randomly into the air.”

...how does he not have a criminal record? Doesn't anyone report that shit?

[trish]

Three people were killed just hours ago near Hesston, Kansas by another AK-47 wielding gun-nut exercising his 2nd Amendment rights (sorry for the politically incorrect language dreamon - otherwise I'm just reporting the news). Seven people were critically injured and twenty-three were injured non-critically. Police killed the perpetrator.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/2016/02/25/reports-2-dead-hesston-kansas-workplace-shooting/80954886/

[trish]

Fourteen year old good guy with a gun shot two Ohio high school students today. Two others were injured during the incident. No one was killed.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2016/02/29/3-shot-suspect-custody-ohio-high-school/81108208/

[martin48]

So much for free speech

http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/feb/24/university-of-houston-faculty-campus-carry-law-texas-guns

The overwhelming majority of the 4,400 colleges and universities in the United States prohibit the carrying of firearms on their campuses. These gun-free policies have helped to make our post-secondary education institutions some of the safest places in the country. For example, a 2001 U.S. Department of Education study found that the overall homicide rate at post-secondary education institutions was 0.07 per 100,000 students in 1999. By comparison, the criminal homicide rate in the United States as a whole was 5.7 per 100,000 persons overall in 1999, and 14.1 per 100,000 for persons ages 17 to 29. A Department of Justice study found that 93% of violent crimes that victimize college students occur off campus.
Despite the success of these gun-free policies, an increasingly extreme pro-gun movement in the USA is promoting legislation and litigation to force colleges and universities to allow concealed guns on campus. As a result, schools in Arkansas, Colorado, Idaho, Kansas, Mississippi, Oregon, Utah, Texas and Wisconsin have now been forced in different ways to allow the carrying of firearms on their premises (i.e. campus grounds, classrooms, dormitories, or parking lots).

From http://www.armedcampuses.org

[trish]

Look at it this way. Firearms protect the carrier from having to listen to the speech of others and allow the carrier to feel more secure that his own speech will carry the day. Veiled threat and intimidation can be far more persuasive than reason and logic. Are teachers telling your children that the Earth is nearly four-billion years old? Take a gun to the next parent teacher conference and tell those anti-Christian elites to teach the truth or else...

Good guys with guns are b-b-b-bad, b-b-bad to the bone.

[martin48]

Can the teachers be armed as well? Bet you can enforce discipline in the classroom if you take a couple of students out at the beginning of the class. It's the way forward.

[trish]

Because of all the other crazy shit happening this one never made headline news:

http://abcnews.go.com/Health/wireStory/man-tied-idaho-pastors-shooting-arrested-white-house-37512443

Apparently Pastor Remington who prayed with Ted Cruz at an Idaho rally was shot the next day by a nut who left behind a thirty-two page manifesto.

Here's a sample from the link above
Odom graduated from the University of Idaho with a degree in biochemistry. The manifesto contended that his life started to deteriorate during his final semester and was now ruined.
"Ruined by an intelligent species of amphibian-humanoid from Mars," the manifesto said.
Odom contended that the Martians were here before humans, lived underground and operated a breeding program for humans, the manifesto said.
"Don't believe me? Ask President Obama to take a lie detector test of this one," the manifesto said.
Odom contended the Martians were unable to control his mind but had been following him. He said he had attempted suicide twice, but they stopped him.
"As you can see, I'm pretty smart," the manifesto said. "I'm also 100% sane, 0% crazy."



How does a someone like this get a gun? Ans: People (ironically like Ted Cruz) who twist and warp the meaning and intentions of Second Amendment in order to bolster and compensate their own baseless feelings of insecurity (or in Ted's case to manipulate those insecurities and turn them into votes).

[Ben in LA]

Four years later and I'm still waiting for this gun ban...

[hippifried]

I'm waiting for people to realize that those who push this hysteria are the same ones who are trying to remove everybody's social security.

[diablito]

Four years later and I'm still waiting for this gun ban...

Unfortunately, reform is only half a yr away. Class 3 owners will be troubled the most. Oh well, times change right?

[martin48]

So that's the peace-loving people with machine guns, suppressors, sawed-off shotguns, mortars, howitzers or grenade launchers.




Unfortunately, reform is only half a yr away. Class 3 owners will be troubled the most. Oh well, times change right?

[trish]

So that's the peace-loving people with machine guns, suppressors, sawed-off shotguns, mortars, howitzers or grenade launchers.
Yeah, it's bad enough they have to suffer the moniker 'class 3 owner'; it's like they don't even rate second class.

[yosi]

Gun Rights Advocate Jamie Giltshot in the back by her 4-year-old son as she was driving.
http://www.snopes.com/2016/03/09/jamie-gilt/

[diablito]

So that's the peace-loving people with machine guns, suppressors, sawed-off shotguns, mortars, howitzers or grenade launchers.


You forgot short barrel rifles and anti-tank canons. Come on now.

But yes, those are the population I spoke of. Probably the most scrutinized bunch of the gun world and the least likely to commit a weapons based offense.

not a terrible change in the law, just more inconvenient.

[maxpower]

Gun Rights Advocate Jamie Gilt

shot in the back by her 4-year-old son as she was driving.


http://www.snopes.com/2016/03/09/jamie-gilt/


Ahh...the irony couldn't be any sweeter. I wonder if she feels gilt-y about it?

[trish]

They aren't coming for your guns; they're coming for your libraries.

http://everylibrary.org/koch-brothers-funded-anti-library-robo-calls-plainfield-il/

[Lovecox]

What did you mean when you said "fast approaching" three years ago?

[martin48]

Toddlers kill more people than terrorists do!!!
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/mar/13/the-macabre-truth-of-gun-control-in-the-us-is-that-toddlers-kill-more-people-than-terrorists-do





Gun Rights Advocate Jamie Gilt

shot in the back by her 4-year-old son as she was driving.


http://www.snopes.com/2016/03/09/jamie-gilt/

[trish]

All the more reason for another Children's Crusade. Think what a toddler could do with a class three weapon!

[martin48]

Good children with guns vs. bad children with guns



All the more reason for another Children's Crusade. Think what a toddler could do with a class three weapon!

[maxpower]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VCkFSe3voRc

[martin48]

Just a comment

[Stavros]

A compelling article from Gen. Stanley McChrystal-

In 2014, 33,599 Americans died from a gunshot wound. From 2001 to 2010, 119,246 Americans were murdered with guns, 18 times all American combat deaths in the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

That is a national crisis. And as a combat veteran and proud American, I believe we need a national response to the gun violence that threatens so many of our communities.

Read more-
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/06/17/opinion/home-should-not-be-a-war-zone.html?_r=0

[martin48]

Coffee or an assault rifle?

http://www.safer-america.com/firearmsandfraps/

[trish]

25 gun dealers :) (not counting those who privately sell) and 0 Starbucks :(

[Stavros]

I did the test using the name my town but it produced the UK result of 0 Gun Dealers, 0 Starbucks, whereas there is a Starbucks in town -in fact there were two for a few years but one closed to make way for a restaurant. I think there are more than 20 coffee shops in my town if one includes those inside department stores. And two closed in the last year because the market is saturated, but we have been spared any shoot-outs, although there are times when I ask for a Cappuccino and the Barista asks 'one shot or two?'. And that is before you pass the two entrepreneurs (with Lattes) debating bullet points over their Macbooks...

[martin48]

OK, OK - should we do fish puns now?

[Stavros]

OK, OK - should we do fish puns now?

If you think this is the appropriate plaice to do it, then whenever you have time to do so. And I for one will not carp at your implications or try to knock you off your perch if you take the opportunaty to do it.

[Stavros]

The Guardian is running a sequence of five 'Long Reads' on gun control in the US. I find it a richly endowed discussion which moves beyond the knee-jerk reaction to analyse both the causes of gun crime, and the actual or potential remedies. As most Americans know the majority of gun crime is gang-related, yet it appears within this context only a relative few gang members actually do the shooting, just as a relative few Americans with mental health problems engage in 'suicide missions' which take out innocent victims at the same time.
One of the articles suggests that it may not be the weapon that should be addressed, but the quantity of ammunition needed to fire it, just as more severe background checks could weed out those with mental or behavioural problems who should not have access to guns for their own and other people's safety. The articles however do suggest that unless the US can disentangle itself from entrenched -and mostly political- positions then practical solutions may be hard to find.

Just one example from Boston of a practical solution may be cited here:
Cities that have done in-depth analyses of their gun violence problem have found something surprising: the majority of violence is driven by a very small number of young men. In Oakland, for instance, just 1,000 members (https://www.propublica.org/article/how-the-gun-control-debate-ignores-black-lives)of a few active street groups were responsible for most of the city’s homicides. The violence was not fueled by turf wars or drug business, for the most part, but by long-running feuds and arguments among loose groups of young men engaged in other illegal activities.

Communicating directly with these young men – and offering both assistance and intense law enforcement attention – led to an immediate drop in violence. This “ceasefire” or “focused deterrence” strategy, first launched in Boston in 1996, requires coordination between police departments, prosecutors and community members in the neighborhoods most affected by violence.
These are not easy partnerships to form, and they often require addressing police departments’ legacies of racism and failed violence prevention strategies. But in Boston, the ceasefire collaboration led to a 63% reduction in monthly youth homicides – a sudden drop in violence dubbed “the Boston miracle”. The strategy has been replicated across the country, but has often struggled to sustain itself as police chiefs and mayors change – or as old funding sources dry up. The strategy’s typical results, according to sociologist Kenneth Rand, are “a reduction in the range of 15% to 35% in total homicides and 25% to 40% in gang or group-involved homicides.” This is a dramatic impact for a local program.
(quote from What could actually work to fix gun violence in America -and what doesn't
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/jun/23/gun-control-violence-what-works-what-doesnt

-the side bar will give you access to all five parts, note the last one appears on Friday 24th June 2016.

[AshlynCreamher]

What we need is a "nofly no buy" data base

The shooter from the Orlando Terror Attack at pulse who killed 49 and injured 50 was on the BFI watchlist but was taken off

CNN (http://www.cnn.com/2016/06/13/opinions/orlando-attack-security-reform-mayer/) - "The comments centered on Mateen claiming he had family and friends in al Qaeda and Hezbollah, and connections to the Boston Marathon bombers. A year later, the FBI interviewed Mateen again over contact with Moner Mohammad Abu-Salha, who went to Syria and conducted a suicide bombing. Mateen and Abu-Salha attended the same mosque in Florida."

But reports show that early this year' these same types of investigations (5,000+ active) were ending due to a lack of federal funding - Obama bucks!

observer (http://observer.com/2016/02/this-is-a-huge-mistake-nyc-officials-decry-obama-anti-terror-cuts/) - "The budget proposal calls for cutting the funding for the Urban Area Security Initiative, which helps prevent or respond to terror events, from $600 to $330 million—a cut U.S. Sen. Charles Schumer said the president’s administration seemed to have no acceptable explanation for over the last several days."

This is a clash of cultures people - Islamic values and Western values simply don't mix (and that doesn't have to be a bad thing) but we have to be smart and vigilant (we can't be the stupid people) whos only defense is to show how tolerant we are. We need to get tough and we need FBI funding in the worse way possible.

http://www.thecommentator.com/system/articles/inner_pictures/000/005/337/original/islam-will-dominate-the-world.jpg?1415374645

I totally, 100%, absolutely, support Donalds ban on people coming from parts of the world that celebrate persecuting gays by throwing them off roff tops while chanting Allah Akbar. It's just stupid that we actually allow these people into our society's

http://65.media.tumblr.com/0223de802452312ded9f6e9e876c218b/tumblr_inline_nrrn6aVac71rzka8z_400.jpg

Obama and hitlary want to bring more of these people into our societies. So if you were to ask me, I would say: we need the 2nd amendment (personal defense) more than ever. We should seriously consider ending the "gun free zone".

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yeJ-iv3MOTo

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/ClG0S_VUgAA3Ca7.jpg

[Stavros]

[QUOTE=AshlynCreamher;1701274]

What we need is a "nofly no buy" data base
The shooter from the Orlando Terror Attack at pulse who killed 49 and injured 50 was on the BFI watchlist but was taken off
--This is the position that Hilary Clinton has taken, so why do you refer to her as 'Hitlary' when your position is the same as hers?

Obama and hitlary want to bring more of these people into our societies. So if you were to ask me, I would say: we need the 2nd amendment (personal defense) more than ever. We should seriously consider ending the "gun free zone".
--The 2nd Amendment does not refer to 'personal defense' as a right to own firearms, and if you want to end 'gun free zones' why are you supporting Donald Trump, most of whose resorts are 'gun free zones'?
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/donald-trump-gun-free-zones-guns-allowed-properties/story?id=39266544

There is a lot of material on gun control for you to think about and I recommend the Guardian articles I linked above which reveal just how complex this issue is in the USA, and that there is a great deal more to it than a few lone nutcases however many people they killed. The murderers at Sandy Hook, Columbine or Charleston were not Muslims, they were different kinds of American -but American nonetheless.

[Stavros]

I wonder if Dallas is the graveyard of hope in America -or will the recent events there, as well as the murders in Louisiana and Minnesota mark the moment when the USA engages in a serious -a truly serious- debate on the role guns play in society? From a great distance, I see too many people mired in grief and wonder how much more of this you can take, whoever you are and whatever you look like. If lines are to be drawn in the sand, then the 2nd Amendment must be reviewed, and offer people hope, and belief that there are alternatives to killing that can actually work.
In the long run we are all dead, so enjoy the life you have and encourage others to do so.
Or will Dallas just be another name on the list -Sandy Hook, Denver, Charleston, Orlando...?

[trish]

Philando Castle declared he had a gun and a permit to carry it. At the mere mention of that firearm in the possession of the black man he just pulled over (for a taillight malfunction) the police officer got so rattled he shot and killed Castle on the spot. I’m sure the officer doesn’t believe he's prejudiced. He’s just scared shitless of black men. Meanwhile white guys openly carry assault weapons, refuse to show ID and cops let them go about their business.

I agree that there should be a serious discussion about how to reasonably restrain the use and possession of firearms in this country, but it’s not happening. No politician or news outlet that I know of has even addressed the issue in relation to these last three horrendous incidents. The first two were perceived as evidence of institutionalized racism within law enforcement and the latter as a tragic reaction to that perception. Indeed, that probably is the main issue here. So at the moment, the gun issue seems to be the farthest thing from everybody’s minds.

The Minneapolis and New Orleans shootings did seem to gain sympathy and outrage even from white, conservative communities - but I’m afraid the Dallas shooting just undid all that. The police will continue to militarize, grow more color-phobic and we’ll all wonder again ‘what the fuck’s going on?’ when we see the next brutal video upload . The clueless keep reciting, “All lives matter,” but fail to draw the conclusion relevant to the spate of racially infused murders committed by the police - and it no longer matters because now there seems to be no moral high ground.

Perhaps tomorrow I’ll be less pessimistic, but right now...

[Ben in LA]

Meanwhile white guys openly carry assault weapons, refuse to show ID and cops let them go about their business.

It's like the guy who was "a person of interest" in the Dallas shootings: a black guy with an AR-15 strapped over his shoulder. Folks were actually asking why he was carrying such a weapon at a "peaceful" (quotations in their minds) protest. There's a simple answer: BECAUSE HE CAN. Texas is an open-carry state and he was exercising his rights (something ammosexuals have a boner for). Then a few went on to say he shouldn't have had the gun on him. I thought he'd be the "good guy with a gun" these fools have wet dreams about.

Guess not since he's a brotha. But white guys open-carrying at Chitpotle isn't a problem.

Bring on the thumbs-down for stating a fact.

[buttslinger]

Urging people to be self critical is a LOOP, maybe they made a mistake showing Alton Sterling's eyes on TV.
I hope the Black Lives Matter folks hand out voter registration forms at their protests, and let Hillary and a new Supreme Court redistribute black people's paychecks back into their own wallets, instead of some fat cat's portfolio.


Be very careful what you wish for.

[buttslinger]

I think there actually is a discussion going on in the NRA whether they are on the side of licensed gun holder Philando Castile or the cop that shot him, I think there is a discussion in the Republican Party whether they are with Trump or Reality, and there even might be a discussion whether Fox News viewers are with Gretchen Carlson or Roger Ailes!!!!!Yikes!!!
I've said before that hitching your wagon to the anti-NRA Star is a loser, .....gun show loopholes and banana clip laws won't change anything, it's a gesture, it has no real teeth. On the street.
While talk is cheap, the medium is the message, and the White Guy in the suit on TV is being replaced by Lester Holt.
Perception is everything??
My first post on this site was asking members if Torrid Tranny Whores carried knives.
I think they do.

[Stavros]

If there is one thing that needs to change, and I think we have discussed it before, training the police how to command and control a situation may help reduce police and gun-related deaths. I saw the footage of a 19 year old called Dylan Noble being murdered-there is no other word for it- and from the beginning it is clear to me that as soon as two officers emerge from their car, guns drawn and pointing at the pick-up truck, shouting at the driver, they have lost control of the situation. From there it gets worse as you have a clear example of an officer whose brain has been left in his car: having shot the teenager who collapses on the ground, in a state of shock, the officer continues to yell at him to raise his hands! And when he fails the helpless victim is shot again until dead. All of this because the officers received a call about a man seen with a rifle, it is not as if they had reason to believe the driver of the vehicle -and they presumably could have run a vehicle check to ascertain the name of its owner- was a latter-day John Dillinger or Jesse James. If every police encounter is going to be a confrontation from the start with guns drawn, the potential for the encounter to go badly wrong must be increased by a factor of at least 50%.

If the message from Louisiana yesterday 'this has to stop' is to mean anything, and if the US cannot or will not do something about its gun culture, then maybe sending police officers back to school would help.

[buttslinger]

Schooling the cops is all you can do, because as an American, Nobody tells me what to do!!!!
The Police police the guys who don't police themselves, and this Nation of ours literally went to war with itself over slavery and state's rights, The Donald hit a CHORD when he said WALL- PAPISTS- MURDERS,and even though every note he hit was a lie, nothing the Democrats can say will stop the blue collar white Republican voters from humming their COUNTRY TUNE.

I love to stir the pot when things get boring down here, but these shootings, and thousands of leftist guerillas descending on Cleveland .....Jesus, even though you are a Jew and an Arab, we need your help!!
If these Demonstrators wear guns, or toy guns, and see CNN cameras watching, I pray the gun debate does not come to a boil this week.

You might even see Ruth Bader Ginsburg sporting dual Colt .45s
There is no sane way to even imagine Donald Trump as President of the United States.

https://s32.postimg.org/xvmowtd2t/x580wh.gif (https://postimg.org/image/krh4k4l0x/)upload pic (https://postimage.org/)

[trish]

If I’m wrong somebody correct me, but it seems jumping out of the car, guns drawn and shouting, “PUT UP YOUR HANDS” is what police officers are trained to do. I guessing it called something like - using your command voice. What it does is inject emotional energy into a situation where it least needed. If you want to elicit cooperation (in these cases you got to wonder about that ‘if’), you need to diffuse the energy. Ask or (if required) demand calmly, firmly but respectfully. Command is not shouting. Control is not threatening with deadly force.

I fear the spate of recent shootings of civilians and peace officers has only escalated tensions. I beg protestors: do not encourage violence nor react violently. I ask police to do the same. To citizens with guns, don’t be an asshat - leave them at home. If your so stressed over the recent violence, don’t fucking add to it.


You might even see Ruth Bader Ginsburg sporting dual Colt .45s


She had two 45’s pointed straight at me... and also a gun.

[BostonBad]

People are typically very stupid and believe anything they hear from the globalist media. Gun crime is much lower today than it was 20-30 years ago. We have less crime today. This is just another power grab. Take the guns from the people and the powers that be will have total control. Guns offer a last resort for us to protect ourselves when the governments fail.

[trish]

We also have more police on the streets these days, more modern methods of policing and (for good or ill) also a more militarized police force. Fewer people drink to intoxication and commit violent crimes, and the average income per household has increased over those decades. We do see higher rates of gun related deaths and injuries in regions where these factors are minimized.

On the other hand, we (the USA) also have more gun homicides and suicides than any other western nation - not to mention gun accidents and injuries. Moreover, the rate of mass shootings of innocent civilians has tripled since 2011. This is according to the “globalist media” (whatever the fuck that is) as well as the Pew Research Center, the FBI, the Brennan Center for Justice and the National Institutes of Health. (Note funding for the CDC relating to public safety and firearms has been cut since 2010 because Congress already knows how the science will pan out.)

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2015/12/03/weve-had-a-massive-decline-in-gun-violence-in-the-united-states-heres-why/

http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2014/10/mass-shootings-increasing-harvard-research

[SarahG]

On the other hand, we (the USA) also have more gun homicides and suicides than any other western nation

However much of those would go away if we could ever move past this failed war on drugs that has been responsible for so much gang & drug related gun violence.

As for the suicides, they can be accounted for in the lack of social safety nets in this country. When the '08 depression hit there was an international surge of suicides. Thousands of lives were ended when people lost everything and found no one was there to help them. A statistical abnormality so high it cannot be explained in any other way.

Take as a similar example how... OD deaths are also increasing as people give up hope and look to find a way out. Sure some of these deaths were not meant to be suicides but were accidental. Nonetheless a striking feature of the OD death stats in the US is who they represent. Overwhelmingly the heroin ODs come from rural, unemployed or underemployed, middle aged, white males.

Why this demographic?

I have a hunch: they're realizing the American dream was a farce. They have no job prospects and never again will. Its easy enough to realize when society has winners and loosers, and then figure out which side you're on. These are people who initially believed they had a chance, not knowing or believing that the game was rigged. Meanwhile the other demographics being pounded by wealth inequality have known the harsh reality all along and therefore can escape the existential crisis.


Moreover, the rate of mass shootings of innocent civilians has tripled since 2011.

And we should expect it to get worse and worse, as the global and national quality of life deteriorates as we circle the drain.

A century of bad policies are coming home to roost. Our foreign policies were a failure responsible for radical Islam & its terrorism. Our economic policies are worsening wealth inequality and artificially inventing debt crises that will taken down entire nations. Our intentional ignorance of science and the environment is putting us on track for the worst global warming scenarios. Now throw in peak soil, peak water, peak oil, technological singularity, AI, and unchecked corruption.

The closest parallel in history is the end of the 19th century when industrialization decimated the value of human labor while simultaneously setting most of the 3rd world up for famines. The holocaust killed a little over 7 million people. Making the 3rd world bid against the first world on a global market for food killed three times the amount of people that WW2 did. In a 30 year span the first world saw more than two dozen world leaders assassinated including two US presidents.

This is how the SHFT starts.

[martin48]

.....

[Ben in LA]

Well...in most places its officially January 20th, 2017. Obama has until 9:00am PST to take everyone's guns. If he's going to do that - as the right have been saying for the last eight years - he'd better hurry the fuck up.

If he doesn't, I expect folks to just admit they were hoodwinked. They won't though.

[Stavros]

Well...in most places its officially January 20th, 2017. Obama has until 9:00am PST to take everyone's guns. If he's going to do that - as the right have been saying for the last eight years - he'd better hurry the fuck up.

If he doesn't, I expect folks to just admit they were hoodwinked. They won't though.

Accorrding to the nominee for Education Secretary, Betsy DeVos, you need guns in school to protect children from 'grizzlies'. Not in Canada -but maybe California?

[Stavros]

I posted a couple of comments on the Las Vegas murders in the Dipshits thread in General Discussion, but I wonder what more can be said about this incident that concerns gun ownership and gun control that has not already been said. There was a weariness in the reporting last night and the exchange of views on the news programmes, but I still wonder how it is possible for one man to legally obtain (assuming this is how he obtained his weapons) the kind of weapons that kill and injure so many people in minutes, not hours. Surely at some point if you cannot limit gun ownership, you can at least take military grade weapons off the streets? But we have been here before, and I suspect it will happen again. And again.

[trish]

At the very least, I would like to see the Assault Ban reinstated. But given that Congress did nothing after Sandy Hook, it's not likely this Congress will do a damn thing about gun control - except pass the current proposal to deregulate silencers.

It's obvious that guns need to be more tightly regulated. But unfettered gun ownership has become a part of right's cultural identity. Any move to strip away that crucial part of their identity now will only re-enforce it. Identity trumps reason (pun intended). Every week a toddler shoots somebody with a gun. Right now, Congress would rather ban toddlers than regulate guns.

Because of the Vegas shooting, gun stocks have spiked in anticipation of increased sales. Why would sales increase? Gun 'enthusiasts' will tell you it's for protections against shooters just like the one in the Mandalay Bay - as if arming the crowd of concert goers would've lowered the body count. The real reason gun sales will spike is that the 'enthusiasts' know - on a subliminal level - a good argument for regulation when they see one, and the spate of shootings across our nation, like the one in Vegas, is as solid an argument as nature can provide.

[Aticus100]

Seems that all there is on the various talk radio shows in the UK are interviews in which American pro gun activists (from a country with very little gun control and the biggest problem with mass shootings in the world) tell interviewers from the UK (a country that after mass killings in 1984 and 1986 implemented strict gun laws and has since had 1 mass killing in the last 20 years) that their is nothing that can be done to stop the killings and that gun control will not help at all.
Sometimes there just aren’t enough face-plant emojis in the world.

[Jericho]

If it wasn't so sad it would be funny.

GUNS, I WANT them!
I'm an AMERICAN, you've got no goddamned right to tell me i can't have them.

And at the same time, backing the idiot who's telling North Korea they can't have nuclear arms!

[filghy2]

i read recently that 3% of the US adult population owns half of the guns, with an average of 17 guns each. That suggests about 8 million people have an arsenal similar to that of the Vegas killer. Yet half of the country seems to want to believe this madness is normal and even healthy. Thank god I don't live in the US.

[broncofan]

The most recent second amendment case, which I think has been brought up here a bunch of times is Heller v. DC. It was a 5-4 decision so the parameters of the second amendment might change if the composition of the court does, but it allows quite a bit of regulation. While a state cannot have a blanket ban on handguns or require all weapons be kept unloaded, it leaves open a ban on assault style rifles, and allows the state to prevent the mentally ill and felons from owning weapons. Do not let a second amendment proponent bamboozle you into believing any of these things are off the table. The opinion was written by Scalia, so unless Gorsuch writes a majority decision in the future, the court is unlikely to view the second amendment right any broader.

Since it was in the dictum of the opinion it doesn't define mentally ill but would probably at least include any condition that involves a psychosis. It does not say anything about licensure procedures but since the Court has also said women have a fundamental right to have an abortion, we can use the regulation of abortion as an analogy. In that case, the woman has a fundamental right to get an abortion countered by the state's right to protect the life of the unborn child. In the case of guns, there is a fundamental right to own them, but this is countered by the state's duty to protect people from unlawful shootings.

What about requiring people to take safety tests or to own their gun contingent on maintaining a license which will require periodic renewal? What about waiting times to ensure they are not purchasing on impulse and that they are doing so for legitimate second amendment purposes, to protect themselves or fend off government tyranny? I do not follow the current laws closely enough but does anyone know what kinds of regulations short of bans are in use and could be helpful in cases where someone wants to stockpile weapons or get them quickly?

The gun proponents' arguments consistently rely on fatalism. If you cannot prevent the most deliberate, premeditated form of mass murder there is no point in regulating them. Yet it's clear even from Heller that quite a lot is allowed....what else would be helpful other than background checks, limits on weapons stockpiling, banning certain groups of people from owning weapons, banning assault style rifles and high capacity magazines???

[broncofan]

and allows the state to prevent the mentally ill and felons from owning weapons.

One interesting facet of that part of Heller is that a couple of jurisdictions extended Heller's reasoning to misdemeanor domestic violence convictions. The fourth circuit and the seventh circuit split on whether a state can prevent someone convicted of misdemeanor domestic violence from owning a gun. The fourth circuit said it's unconstitutional and the seventh circuit said the ban was directly related to the state's interests in protecting its citizens. There has been a lot of discussion about the connection between domestic violence and gun violence...it will be interesting to see if this specific type of law eventually reaches the Supreme Court.

[trish]

The presence of a gun in a domestic violence situation increases the chance of homicide by 500%.
https://ncadv.org/learn-more/statistics

[Stavros]

While a state cannot have a blanket ban on handguns or require all weapons be kept unloaded, it leaves open a ban on assault style rifles, and allows the state to prevent the mentally ill and felons from owning weapons....
Since it was in the dictum of the opinion it doesn't define mentally ill but would probably at least include any condition that involves a psychosis.

I wonder if there is a procedural weakness in the 'mental illness' argument? I looked up the repeal of the Obama Presidency's ruling that attempted to make it harder for people with a 'mental illness' to purchase firearms -in fact it never came into force because it was due to take effect in December 2017 but the revenge process began shortly after the inauguration. But in fact there already exist mental health provisions making it illegal to sell guns on the following basis:


(a) A determination by a court, board, commission, or other lawful authority that a person, as a result of marked subnormal intelligence, or mental illness, incompetency, condition, or disease:
(1) Is a danger to himself or to others; or
(2) Lacks the mental capacity to contract or manage his own affairs.
(b) The term shall include—
(1) A finding of insanity by a court in a criminal case; and

(2) Those persons found incompetent to stand trial or found not guilty by reason of lack of mental responsibility pursuant to articles 50a and 72b of the Uniform Code of Military Justice, 10 U.S.C. 850a, 876b.

Under the Obama rule, information from the Social Security Administration regarding mental disability benefits would be added to the National Instant Criminal Background Check database for use in firearm background checks.
http://www.snopes.com/congress-gun-legal-mental/


I am not saying the system is flawed, but if an individual is not on medication, has not been arrested or detained during which his or her mental state became an issue, or been reported by a family member or someone who knows them, how can a gun shop know if the person looking at weapons is, underneath their calm and reasonable exterior and with the right paperwork, seething with rage sufficient to slaughter innocent people?

If the answer is 'you never can tell', or if someone normally placid flips because of one or a sequence of unfortunate incidents, there are no mental health safeguards. What this does is put the weight of the argument back on the nature of weapons, and whether or not it is easier to ban certain types of weapon rather than weapons themselves, if as we are told, owning a gun is as American as Apple Pie and Baseball. On this basis a weapon that can fire multiple rounds a second ought really to be in the military not the mansion, and there is no justification in hunting either. I guess if you need to fire a thousand rounds at a deer to kill it you should probably stay home and play Warcraft rather than pretend to be a hunter.

The problem is that on BBC last night a resident of Mesquite stated candidly that any attempt at gun control that took guns away from Americans would be the basis for a civil war. I don't know how far one can go with this, it may be a division that is as deep as race and class, the division between that 'coastal' and 'flyover' America, and I don't know if this is a division that can be healed.

Critical analysis of the Constitution is futile, it no longer matters what the word 'militia' means either in its original context, when Washington wanted to resist the formation of a standing army, or today, when it endows every citizen to own a gun regardless of the existence of armed law enforcement, the National Guard and the armed services. If the Supreme Court were to offer an alternative judgement to Heller -v- DC and limit gun ownership, the party of the King would probably seek to abolish the Supreme Court, but it would raise the question -how would it be enforced? And, even if it reduced the volume of new gun sales, there are already a staggering number of weapons at home, waiting to be locked and loaded. Scary!

[broncofan]

It is difficult to implement a ban on weapon ownership based on mental illness because as you say it requires that the person has sought help or there's been some sort of intervention. If gun ownership is really important to people and it could be forfeited by seeking help, they may not do so which is a consequence worth considering. Those provisions are useful, and it's possible that states can pass their own restrictions.

At least three of the last several shooters had severe mental illness that could have prevented them from owning guns if their state legislature had passed an appropriate law. James Holmes, the movie theater shooter in Colorado, was seeing a psychiatrist and was taking antipsychotics for what was probably a psychotic disorder. Aaron Rodgers, the LA shooter, was prescribed an antipsychotic for schizophrenia but refused to take it for reasons of his own. And Jared Loughner, the guy who shot Gabrielle Giffords, had a more severe psychosis than the previous two but I don't think was seeing a doctor. If there were good mental health guidelines in place, the first two maybe would have been flagged as unsafe to own a gun and their information could be put into some registry, but not Loughner if he hadn't seen a doctor.

I haven't thought about the 2nd amendment's purpose that carefully but I think that unfortunately Scalia wrote in Heller that the prefatory clause to the second amendment did not limit it. In other words, even though the text mentioned one purpose of the 2nd amendment to be the formation of a militia, that is not the only permissible purpose according to the court! So, as of right now, the second amendment allows people to own guns for self-defense, to potentially fight government tyranny, and to form a militia. It does not leave a ton of room for regulation...the entire idea that owning a gun should be placed alongside civil rights like speech, right to a trial by jury, equal protection under the law is unusual to me and seems obsolete in most ways. The truth is that we no longer have a society where people act as their own police force, as their own revolutionaries or form ad hoc militias...it may seem like a vulnerability to those who are afraid of various forms of tyranny, but it is also the consequence of having institutions we have developed some faith in.

[broncofan]

But in fact there already exist mental health provisions making it illegal to sell guns on the following basis:

(a) A determination by a court, board, commission, or other lawful authority that a person, as a result of marked subnormal intelligence, or mental illness, incompetency, condition, or disease:
(1) Is a danger to himself or to others; or
(2) Lacks the mental capacity to contract or manage his own affairs.
(b) The term shall include—
(1) A finding of insanity by a court in a criminal case; and

(2) Those persons found incompetent to stand trial or found not guilty by reason of lack of mental responsibility pursuant to articles 50a and 72b of the Uniform Code of Military Justice, 10 U.S.C. 850a, 876b.

Under the Obama rule, information from the Social Security Administration regarding mental disability benefits would be added to the National Instant Criminal Background Check database for use in firearm background checks.
http://www.snopes.com/congress-gun-legal-mental/

I did not know about these regulations but they are a bit procedurally weak in the sense that they require a determination by a court or commission. They are somewhat weaker in substance in that they require that a person is insane, lacks capacity, or has a condition that makes him a danger to himself or others (the last of which is useful but requires an individual determination). It is possible that someone has schizophrenia and would not necessarily meet this threshold. The hallmark of psychosis like schizophrenia is that someone has lost touch with reality in some way. We are wary of having people forfeit rights based on mental infirmities, but I think when it comes to handling dangerous weapons, the protections need to be more robust.

[Stavros]

It is difficult to implement a ban on weapon ownership based on mental illness because as you say it requires that the person has sought help or there's been some sort of intervention. If gun ownership is really important to people and it could be forfeited by seeking help, they may not do so which is a consequence worth considering. Those provisions are useful, and it's possible that states can pass their own restrictions.

So, as of right now, the second amendment allows people to own guns for self-defense, to potentially fight government tyranny, and to form a militia. .

Interesting points. If someone is aware that a person with a problem may have access to firearms, should they be morally obliged to inform on them where the law is lenient, and would the law prevent the person having access to lethal weapons? It is curious that morals are taken to be crucial in the conservative argument against abortion, should the same argument not apply to someone who, on a bad day, may take someone else's life, perhaps their own too?

Are you sure the Constitution gives someone the right to own firearms to potentially fight government tyra (http://secure.tyrascottxxx.com/track/MTAxODI5LjguODcuNDQyLjAuMC4wLjAuMA)nny? If the original fear was of another British invasion -as indeed happened in 1812- the absence of a standing army would justify the deployment of a militia, but did the founding fathers have such little faith 'in their own' that they agreed if 'they' stepped out of line, 'the people' could attack them militarily? I thought the whole point about the separation of powers and checks and balances within the system was designed to prevent tyranny. Has the inauguration of the .45 changed the rules?

[yosi]

Number of Americans killed by firearms since 1968 stands at 1,516,863 !
Source Richard Bacon. Works for BBC & lives in LA

[Aticus100]

Number of Americans killed by firearms since 1968 stands at 1,516,863 !
Source Richard Bacon. Works for BBC & lives in LA

Essentially meaning that the NRA have been hundreds of times more successful at killing Americans than Al-queda, The Taliban, ISIL, etc all put together.

God bless them and their god given right to kill them selves and each other more effectively than terrorists ever could. (I was tempted to add a Yee-hah, but didn’t want to appear offensive)

[broncofan]

Are you sure the Constitution gives someone the right to own firearms to potentially fight government tyra (http://secure.tyrascottxxx.com/track/MTAxODI5LjguODcuNDQyLjAuMC4wLjAuMA)nny?
I'm not sure. Here is the quote I was basing that statement on from the intermediate court's decision in Heller, saying that the right to bear arms is "premised on the private use of arms for activities such as hunting and self-defense, the latter being understood as resistance to either private lawlessness or the depredations of a tyrannical government (or a threat from abroad)."

I assumed this was part of the basis of Scalia's opinion since he agreed with the intermediate court on the outcome. I will take a look in the next day or so to see if the Supreme Court adopted this reasoning as well.

[broncofan]

I assumed this was part of the basis of Scalia's opinion since he agreed with the intermediate court on the outcome. I will take a look in the next day or so to see if the Supreme Court adopted this reasoning as well.
Scalia's opinion indicates that the right to bear arms is one that extends beyond an organized militia and can be used for personal defense. At one point he seems to indicate that if it only applied to an "organized militia" then it could not protect against tyranny, which does not even achieve the purpose that prompted the second amendment's codification. In other words, a militia that requires express authority from Congress is not really the kind of people's militia the founding generation was concerned with.

Dispiriting I know. And remember not necessarily the correct opinion, but his opinion.

Here is an excerpt from his opinion:

Besides ignoring the historical reality that the SecondA mendment was not intended to lay down a “novel principl[e]”
but rather codified a right “inherited from our
English ancestors,” Robertson v. Baldwin, 165 U. S. 275,
281 (1897), petitioners’ interpretation does not even
achieve the narrower purpose that prompted codification
of the right. If, as they believe, the Second Amendment
right is no more than the right to keep and use weapons as
a member of an organized militia, see Brief for Petititioners
8—if, that is, the organized militia is the sole institu tional beneficiary of the Second Amendment’s guarantee—it does not assure the existence of a “citizens’ militia” as a
safeguard against tyranny. For Congress retains plenary
authority to organize the militia, which must include the
authority to say who will belong to the organized force.17
That is why the first Militia Act’s requirement that only
whites enroll caused States to amend their militia laws to
exclude free blacks. See Siegel, The Federal Government’s
Power to Enact Color-Conscious Laws, 92 Nw. U. L. Rev.
477, 521–525 (1998. Thus, if petitioners are correct, the
Second Amendment protects citizens’ right to use a gun in
an organization from which Congress has plenary authority
to exclude them. It guarantees a select militia of the
sort the Stuart kings found useful, but not the people’s
militia that was the concern of the founding generation.

[filghy2]

Are you sure the Constitution gives someone the right to own firearms to potentially fight government tyranny? If the original fear was of another British invasion -as indeed happened in 1812- the absence of a standing army would justify the deployment of a militia, but did the founding fathers have such little faith 'in their own' that they agreed if 'they' stepped out of line, 'the people' could attack them militarily? I thought the whole point about the separation of powers and checks and balances within the system was designed to prevent tyranny. Has the inauguration of the .45 changed the rules?

The U. S. Constitution, Article 1, Section 8, states:

“The Congress shall have Power ... To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years; To provide and maintain a Navy; To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces; To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;”

Many of the founding fathers were wary of standing armies, which they saw as a potential instrument for military dictatorship. What I find interesting is that the 2nd amendment says "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed", yet it's generally interpreted nowadays in way that completely ignores the first half of the sentence.

Ironically, the US has ended up with both a large standing army and lots of arms in private hands, but certainly not "well-regulated". I'm sure the founding fathers would have regarded that as the worst of both worlds,

[Stavros]

Scalia's opinion indicates that the right to bear arms is one that extends beyond an organized militia and can be used for personal defense. At one point he seems to indicate that if it only applied to an "organized militia" then it could not protect against tyranny, which does not even achieve the purpose that prompted the second amendment's codification. In other words, a militia that requires express authority from Congress is not really the kind of people's militia the founding generation was concerned with.
Dispiriting I know. And remember not necessarily the correct opinion, but his opinion.

Although I thank you for the opinion, I am still confused by Scalia's interpretation of the Constitution.

In the first place, I am surprised that he would argue the roots of the 2nd Amendment "codified a right “inherited from our English ancestors,” and in particular "It guarantees a select militia of the sort the Stuart kings found useful, but not the people’s militia that was the concern of the founding generation."
The Stuart Kings and Queens did not create a standing army, but relied on the Earls and Dukes of the Kingdom to raise the armed forces as and when they were required. Although young farmers might welcome the 'adventure' of war/battle as a exciting break from the tedium of farm labour, they had no choice in the matter, other than specific causes, these were not voluntary militias and if they were in the earlier Wars of the Roses, the outcome was devastated communities in both Lancashire and Yorkshire. Britain did not begin to organize an army until Cromwell and Fairfax created the New Model Army that defeated Charles I and became the template for the British Army that Charles II embarked on later in the 17th century.

Surely the whole point of the American argument is that the militia be a spontaneous and voluntary group of armed men and women? I just don't see where the Stuart angle is relevant, except as how not to do it.

Again, I am not sure what it is we are talking about when the word tyranny is used. I assume the original meaning referred to the tyranny of the British Crown and its desire to either roll back the revolution or at least punish the Americas for going it alone and, in the case of the Canadian wars, preventing Americans from denying the Crown its sovereign rights north of the border.

It becomes more problematic in the contemporary age where the 2nd Amendment gives to individuals the right to own weapons they could use as a militia when confronting the US Federal Government, claiming that IT is a tyrannical force in the USA. One could I assume argue that the Branch Davidians in Waco stockpiled weapons to defend themselves against what they saw was a tyrannical government seeking to intervene in their private affairs-? And I assume the Bundy Clan could, by designating the 'Feds' to be a tyranny, claim their right to arm a militia to 'liberate' Oregon -? The objective standard by which one judges a government to be a tyranny could be established by a perusal of election results, and one cannot dismiss a government as 'tyrannical' just because one's party lost the election. But if this settles the argument that only Congress can assemble or give legal right to the formation of a Militia, it does not settle the vexing issue of individuals, who by definition are not a militia, nor does it touch upon the precise question of what sort of weapons an individual should be allowed to purchase freely.

I feel, as I have stated elsewhere, that a Constitutional right is being conflated with the implementation of the right, and that by dismissing attempts to control the purchase of specific weapons -semi-automatic rifles with or without add-ons- as a threat to Constitutional rights, organizations like the NRA are impeding attempts to improve public safety. As has been shown, when it wanted to, the NRA supported State and Federal laws limiting gun ownership or the right to publicly carry them, so this near religious fidelity to the 2nd Amendment is bogus. What I see here is not a debate on public safety, but part of the wider debate that has engulfed the USA since the Civil Rights movement of the 1960s. It is about 'Our America' and 'Their America' in which the ownership of guns becomes welded to the playing of the National Anthem at football games, not just standing, but standing and placing your hand over your heart as you sing, and so on.

But when six year old's massacred at school are dismissed as if they were 'collateral damage' then you wonder if 'their America' is worthy of the praise they claim for it, indeed, demand.

[broncofan]

Although I thank you for the opinion, I am still confused by Scalia's interpretation of the Constitution.

In the first place, I am surprised that he would argue the roots of the 2nd Amendment "codified a right “inherited from our English ancestors,” and in particular "It guarantees a select militia of the sort the Stuart kings found useful, but not the people’s militia that was the concern of the founding generation."
.
I actually think that these two provisions of Scalia's opinion contradict each other. If Scalia acknowledges that the 2nd amendment only codified a right that already existed in England and is not something newly established by the American founders, then how can that right be re-purposed based on the revolutionary aims of the colonists? Legal commentators believe Scalia is saying this right is a right to have weapons in case insurrection were ever justified.

But he does not explain how the English right entailed anything of the sort...Scalia was probably far too much of a xenophobe to actually consult an English historian to answer this question and instead resorts to a method of interpretation that requires him to analyze information extrinsic to the Constitution and far outside his competence. But did the English have a right to bear arms that was essentially a charter for insurrection against their own government?

As you say above, it's completely inconsistent with the aims of our form of government, which has institutional safeguards that are designed to protect against tyranny in ways that are much more effective than guns. Separation of powers, the power of judicial review, impeachment process, and federalism are all embodied in our Constitution and make such a right obsolete. How can a document that establishes a nation of laws include a provision that seems designed to overturn that order?

Personally, I think the best interpretation of the second amendment is that the prefatory clause Filghy mentions in his post is intended to state a purpose for which that right exists. It is a limit or a parameter for the right to bear arms and not something general to be ignored. Scalia treats it as a floor (or as something to be disregarded), when it might be the only purpose for which the second amendment exists.

Anyhow, at least Scalia's opinion seems to say that the right to have weapons for either an organized militia or alternatively a citizen's militia does not include the right to have military style weapons. It only allows people to purchase weapons that are commonly owned, which is a somewhat circular standard since the legislature can fix what is commonly owned by banning everything not commonly owned at this point, like automatic weapons and assault weapons. I wonder what would happen if the legislature waited until ar-15s were commonly owned household items....then their prohibition would be barred by Scalia's interpretation.

[Stavros]

If we can agree that there are existing mechanisms in the US political system that make tyranny difficult to achieve, the deeper question over gun rights must relate to the rights not of the individual but the State, by which I mean in the US context both Federal and State authorities. When RedVex challenged my definition of the state as having the legitimate monopoly of violence, she did so in (I assume) a libertarian context where the State is the problem and the Individual the solution, so the logic of owning a gun is the outcome of a free person living in a State which no longer constrains his or her freedom.

But the point I was trying to make, one derived from common sense, as well as Hobbes, Locke, Weber and others (whom she appears to dismiss as irrelevant), is that the modern state exists as a functioning structure and whether or not one approves of extent of state power, the alternative would be anarchy, if there is no justification for the State to defend citizens who can defend themselves, no need for laws when people can make agreements among themselves, and no justification for taxation, which is immoral and simply theft. But for me and most others, I believe, the justification for the modern state is that it should benefis the people who live in it, at least as an ideal project (no state is perfect and most of the daily politics is focused on good and bad management).

And, just as crucial, it is because it is the agencies of the state that protect the public from random or organized violence, that it provides a system of justice and law enforcement. In that context, an armed militia can not be justified, and, indeed, its presence, would challenge the right of the state to be the sole source of legitimate violence, a legitimacy it derives from the process of democracy. Thus, by extension, there can be no justification for a citizen to own a weapon of any kind, as every citizen has the right of protection by the state, and in addition, also has the right to be protected from the State. It may true that these arrangements don't work perfectly, but the basic principle is sound.

A good example of what happens when an armed militia challenges the authority of the State is the US Civil War, in which a fair proportion of people in the South became anti-American to the extent that they no longer wished to be part of the Union and were prepared to fight for their independence. Clearly this marked a breakdown in US politics, and it might be argued that having seceded from the Union, the Confederacy was no longer bound by the Constitution, but the secession was not recognized by the rest of the US which continued to believe the southern States were indeed part of the Union and should remain so.

The point is that a Constitutional provision for an armed militia is based on a scenario where the authority of the State is under threat, it was not intended to give citizens the right to bear arms if this resulted in an armed militia or even a citizen undermining or even threatening the rule of law and thus, by extension, the State -this would be an attack on the USA, not the defence of it. Zimmerman's murder of Trayvon Martin is a clear example of a citizen who repudiated the existing authority of local enforcement to impose it himself, while the Branch Davidians and the Bundy Clan by arming themselves with substantial weapons either took on, or threatened to take on the legitimate forces of the State. The Constitution might have had in mind an armed militia fighting the British attempting to overthrow the independent government of the USA, it can only thus exist today to serve a hypothetical scenario in which local law enforcement has broken down, which seems unlikely, or local law enforcement joins a revival of the Confederacy which would make its actions anti-American and illegal, which means incidentally that it must surely be anti-American to display in public the Battle Flag of the Confederate Army?

The 2nd Amendment was designed to protect the USA and its citizens, it appears now to have become a threat to citizens, and the authority of the State. It should be repealed, and a round-up or amnesty of weapons take place across the USA as a celebration of democracy and the freedom of the individual. The National Rifle Association is a terrorist organization and should be banned.

[trish]

Love the passion; although I’m probably not prepared to repeal the 2nd Amendment nor ban the NRA I agree with the spirit of the proposals.

Libertarians are all over the map when it comes to the legitimacy of the ‘State.’ I can understand that because the legitimacy of a State depends upon which State is under discussion. The USA is a democratic republic that grew out of collection of colonies seeking mutual support both in throwing off British rule and in creating an infrastructure of law to protect and aid communication, transportation, and trade on a relatively isolated continent. Our laws are not those of an invader nor a monarch whose power was inherited. Our laws are negotiated, drawn, passed and interpreted through a democratic process to which, through our active participation, we lend our consent; a process most of us our proud of. Not to say it doesn’t require a lot of tweaking and vigilance. To assert there should be less government is to say that we the people should diminish our own power: that we should not address societal issues, nor attempt to solve environmental problems, nor address meaningful conflicts, nor redress injustices, nor seek to make life better for ourselves and others. These sorts of things, the libertarian says, should be left to individual people - not the government. But what if the government is the people?

Back to guns.

The 2nd Amendment apparently addresses the need to be able to quickly organize a armed militia to rally to the defense of the Nation, when that Nation is without a standing army.

It seems to me the amendment is simply no longer applicable to any real situation. It seems to me there is no Constitutional support for gun ownership. Nor is there any Constitutional support to prohibit it. So I suppose I agree that repealing the 2nd Amendment should have no logical or legal bearing on any particular case. All the relevant law is elsewhere. However, the political fallout of demanding the repeal of the 2nd Amendment would be ( in fact is ) devastating. I do not see anything in the 2nd Amendment that should obstruct regulation of firearms. I think more practical efforts would be to establish better background checks (Why should one man who is not a dealer be able to buy 33 firearms in a single year without raising a single alarm? - which was the case for the Vegas shooter), require sellers to keep records, computerize the system, establish waiting periods, define then ban assault weapons, rescind concealed carry (the public has a right and a need to know who around them is carrying a lethal weapon) etc.

“The National Rifle Association is a terrorist organization and should be banned.” As much as I like the rhetoric, I think we probably both agree it would be a poor political move if not an illegal one. But I’m curious, if this actually came up how would the NRA argue that they are not a terrorist organization? Perhaps they would say they are not directly contracting terrorists, just encouraging them. Not arming them, only making sure arms are available.

[Stavros]

Thanks for this Trish, an eloquent defence of US democracy that puts it in context and undermines the arguments of the libertarians.

I know I was pushing the envelope as far as terrorism goes, but on the other hand, we don't actually know yet what motivated the Las Vegas murderer, and if mass murderers with mental health problems are set aside, you are still left with armed people, individuals or groups who engage in acts of murder which are intended to attack the USA, using individuals as victims to make their case. This was the context in which the Oklahoma City bombing took place, and there is no doubt that Timothy McVeigh and his accomplices were terrorists.

The problem with the NRA is that it does not distinguish between a Constitutional right, and the 'arms' referred to in the Amendment, so that it makes no distinction between a farmer who has a practical need to own a gun to shoot predatory foxes that eat his chickens, and an individual who need offer no reason at all to the vendor and can amass an arsenal of guns be they pistols that fit into a purse or large weapons that in most cases are only used in military combat. At some point, the NRA should either accept that it is facilitating terrorism by opposing gun control, or concede that it must do so in order to prevent terrorist attacks as best it can, identifying weapons themselves as items to be banned from ownership, and finding exacting methods to screen individuals who wish to buy a gun. As far as I can see, whether they call themselves the Symbionese Liberation Army, the Liberation Angels of America, or Ma Rainey's Gang, there is nothing to stop a group of individuals from purchasing enough weapons to threaten an entire town in their attempt to overthrow the State or cause immense damage to it.

What is the point of the NRA condemning acts of terrorism if it then does nothing to stop them, but does protect the means whereby those acts of violence are inflicted on innocent civilians?

[MrFanti]

Ban the thing that kills almost 3x as many people as guns: ALCOHOL.

Of course, this will never happen because non-gun owning hypocrites want to have their drinks.......



Drunken driver who killed mother visiting premature newborn twins had blood alcohol level of .21

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/crime/drunk-driver-killed-mom-blood-alcohol-21-article-1.3574102

[trish]

You're right: we won't ban guns, we won't ban alcohol, nor will be ban tobacco. For one thing, no serious persons are asking for total bans of any of these. We do however, regulate all three (arguably alcohol more stringently than guns). There is a distinction between alcohol, tobacco and firearms as was pointed out by many other posters: firearms are designed specifically to kill, alcoholic beverages are to be sipped and enjoyed. Can we do more to prevent the abuses of alcohol? Probably. Name something other than banning. Of guns? Definitely.

[filghy2]

You might as well debate with a dalek, trish. We went through this on another thread, where MrFanti just kept repeating the same point ad nauseum. http://www.hungangels.com/vboard/showthread.php?104627-Friends-in-Las-Vegas-please-check-in/page8

[Stavros]

Ban the thing that kills almost 3x as many people as guns: ALCOHOL.

Of course, this will never happen because non-gun owning hypocrites want to have their drinks.......

-Except of course that banning alcohol has already happened, namely in the 18th Amendment to the Constitution, passed in 1920, subsequently repealed in 1933 with the 21st Amendment.

As for guns, the issue for responsible Americans is not the total ban on guns but removing from the market place military grade weapons. I take a different view, and would ban all weapons in the UK, and think in time the US will have to consider this option.

[MrFanti]

, no serious persons are asking for total bans of any of these. .

There are a LOT of people wanting a total ban on guns.....Meanwhile, the thing that kills more than guns (alcohol) continues to wreck havoc..
Yes, you are hypocrite if you don't want alcohol banned in the same swipe with guns....



5 killed on their way home from church by suspected drunk driver

http://www.kltv.com/story/18677579/5-killed-on-their-way-home-from-church-by-suspected-drunk-driver

[MrFanti]

You might as well debate with a dalek, trish. We went through this on another thread, where MrFanti just kept repeating the same point ad nauseum. http://www.hungangels.com/vboard/showthread.php?104627-Friends-in-Las-Vegas-please-check-in/page8

And I showed in the other thread where alcohol has been shown to kill at least 2x more people per year than guns...You can't hide from the facts...

[Aticus100]

Mr Fanti,
Is there literally no point at which you are able to stop shouting the same misproven point for long enough to ask yourself if that point is relevant.
Don’t just respond (yet again) with your relentless comments about alcohol until you have a think about it.

The purpose of alcohol is to enhance ones enjoyment. If it is abused, people can get killed.

The purpose of assault rifles is to kill people. If they are used correctly, people get killed.

If your able to think about this and come back with some points for debate, brilliant.

If you just respond as previously by sticking your fingers in your ears, squeezing your eyes shut and shouting “Alcohol, Hypocrite, Alcohol, Hypocrite” then I’ll assume you’re an idiot.

[fred41]

And I showed in the other thread where alcohol has been shown to kill at least 2x more people per year than guns...You can't hide from the facts...

Out of curiosity, do you want alcohol banned?

[fred41]

You're right: we won't ban guns, we won't ban alcohol, nor will be ban tobacco. For one thing, no serious persons are asking for total bans of any of these.

I absolutely think tobacco should be banned. It is a stimulant to a degree ...but to no benefit whatsoever. Nicotine is simply a poison. I think it should be banned and I am dead serious.

Though I agree with you on gun regulation, I disagree that serious people don't want a total ban. If by, serious people, you mean US politicians, I'm sure there are plenty that would have no problem with a total ban, just as I'm sure there's a percentage of the population that would have no problem with a total ban.

[Stavros]

And I showed in the other thread where alcohol has been shown to kill at least 2x more people per year than guns...You can't hide from the facts...

Why then are you refusing to accept that the US has banned alcohol in the past? And it was not only a failure but created a golden age for the mafia and organized crime who made millions or more from illicit alcohol sales, just as a ban on tobacco would create a lucrative illegal market in addition to the billions being made from illegal narcotics.

[broncofan]

I absolutely think tobacco should be banned. It is a stimulant to a degree ...but to no benefit whatsoever. Nicotine is simply a poison. I think it should be banned and I am dead serious.

Though I agree with you on gun regulation, I disagree that serious people don't want a total ban. If by, serious people, you mean US politicians, I'm sure there are plenty that would have no problem with a total ban, just as I'm sure there's a percentage of the population that would have no problem with a total ban.
I agree that tobacco is a huge health hazard but I don't know what kind of black market there would be if we banned it. We'd be I think the only country or one of a small number to do so.

I also somewhat agree with you and somewhat with Trish about whether serious people want a ban. Some things are untenable and you kind of only want them in the vaguest sense. I agree there is a sort of dualism in the way some people talk about guns. On the one hand, maybe they only want assault weapon bans, but on the other, they may secretly lament that they can't go further. But I don't know if that means they would want a ban or just something more restrictive that is barred by the second amendment, like a handgun ban within certain city limits. It's not politically convenient to talk about wanting to go further than the second amendment allows because it creates paranoia and bars any compromise to regulate as far as we're allowed.

But then what Trish is talking about is that most mature people accept that the path forward is regulation. I mean, secretly I may lament that alcohol can't be banned, but I don't seriously want to ban it...if only because it can't effectively be banned.

[fred41]

Why then are you refusing to accept that the US has banned alcohol in the past? And it was not only a failure but created a golden age for the mafia and organized crime who made millions or more from illicit alcohol sales, just as a ban on tobacco would create a lucrative illegal market in addition to the billions being made from illegal narcotics.

Oh I agree that, much as I would like it, there is no way to ban an item such as cigarettes outright (especially when viewed in the sobering light of the morning sun)...all you can do is try to regulate it to death until it gets to the point where smoking becomes futile...I believe most states now have some type of indoor smoking bans..and some major cities even have bans in parks and some outdoor areas (not to mention the huge increases on product cost by taxation). Death by a thousand cuts.

I think that is the fear that some folks have with guns. That the word 'regulation' will basically be tantamount to a ban.
That once you "open that door..."
I think that's horse shit though. When it comes to firearms, there should be heavy, common sense regulation. I think the winds favor a bill but congress is incapable of any type of reform at this moment anyhow. So this debate will go on and on without any gov't action even remotely on the horizon.

[fred41]

I agree that tobacco is a huge health hazard but I don't know what kind of black market there would be if we banned it. We'd be I think the only country or one of a small number to do so.

I also somewhat agree with you and somewhat with Trish about whether serious people want a ban. Some things are untenable and you kind of only want them in the vaguest sense. I agree there is a sort of dualism in the way some people talk about guns. On the one hand, maybe they only want assault weapon bans, but on the other, they may secretly lament that they can't go further. But I don't know if that means they would want a ban or just something more restrictive that is barred by the second amendment, like a handgun ban within certain city limits. It's not politically convenient to talk about wanting to go further than the second amendment allows because it creates paranoia and bars any compromise to regulate as far as we're allowed.

But then what Trish is talking about is that most mature people accept that the path forward is regulation. I mean, secretly I may lament that alcohol can't be banned, but I don't seriously want to ban it...if only because it can't effectively be banned.

I believe in common sense regulation. But I think the fear is that the population is fickle and tends to want laws created to "fix" the problem of the moment. Even when reality dictates that some things can't be fixed completely no matter the cost in human life. But fixing something 'somewhat' is still better than 'not at all'.

[yosi]

(Why should one man who is not a dealer be able to buy 33 firearms in a single year without raising a single alarm? - which was the case for the Vegas shooter), .


It's all about the money , money , money.........

[yosi]

Ban the thing that kills almost 3x as many people as guns: ALCOHOL.

Of course, this will never happen because non-gun owning hypocrites want to have their drinks.......


http://www.nydailynews.com/news/crime/drunk-driver-killed-mom-blood-alcohol-21-article-1.3574102


Have you ever heard of somebody shooting alcohol at people during a concert ?

[fred41]

Have you ever heard of somebody shooting alcohol at people during a concert ?

Exactly.
I think quite often when people speak of the dangers of alcohol, the easiest thing to think of is the amount of people killed from drunk driving. But drinking and driving is already illegal, all we can do is try to continuously improve on enforcing that law. We have LE checking on drivers and have the ability to regulate some of it in civil court also, but beyond that, who knows, the technology exists to create cars that test blood alcohol levels and won't start if too high, but self driving cars could make something like that obsolete before it really ever hits the ground.I'm drifting a bit, but the point is constant regulations won't stop all fatalities, but they certainly help to limit them to an extent.
The same would go to gun regulations.

[Ts RedVeX]

Yes.. you should never drink and drive for you might spill too much.

Oh. Drunken gunmen have less chance of hitting so banning alcohol is a bad idea.

[trish]

There are a LOT of people wanting a total ban on guns.....Meanwhile, the thing that kills more than guns (alcohol) continues to wreck havoc..
Yes, you are hypocrite if you don't want alcohol banned in the same swipe with guns....
In relation to guns, tobacco and alcohol, I stand corrected. There are some serious people who seriously propose banning at least one of these. Fred, for example is for a complete ban on tobacco. I can’t say I agree, but he makes a good case. Nevertheless, my larger argument stands. All three are highly regulated and arguably alcohol more so than guns. Most people are of the opinion that all three should be regulated at least to some extent. Charges of hypocrisy against them would therefore be spurious.

Calls for better enforcement of the regulations against alcohol (higher fines for drunk driving, better policing of environments wherein it’s likely to occur etc.) are not generally opposed by those of us who would also like to see stronger firearm regulation and better enforcement. I, for example, would like to see no carry in National Parks, and by ‘no carry’ I mean no alcoholic beverages, and no firearms in National Parks. If you want to throw in no tobacco too (it’s a fire-hazard after all), I’m okay with that too.

[MrFanti]

Out of curiosity, do you want alcohol banned?

I do not want alcohol banned.

What I'm saying is that if you want guns banned, then you better want alcohol banned also - otherwise, you are a hypocrite since alcohol kills more than guns.

[filghy2]

I do not want alcohol banned.

What I'm saying is that if you want guns banned, then you better want alcohol banned also - otherwise, you are a hypocrite since alcohol kills more than guns.

If we all agreed that alcohol should be banned you would simply switch to other arguments for why nothing should ever be done to restrict guns.

It's odd that you complain so much about alleged hypocrisy in others when you are doing it yourself. You don't want any restrictions on your right to buy guns, yet you are happy to argue for restrictions on other peoples' rights when it suits your purpose.

[MrFanti]

If we all agreed that alcohol should be banned you would simply switch to other arguments for why nothing should ever be done to restrict guns.

It's odd that you complain so much about alleged hypocrisy in others when you are doing it yourself. You don't want any restrictions on your right to buy guns, yet you are happy to argue for restrictions on other peoples' rights when it suits your purpose.

Obviously,
You haven't been reading and/or comprehending what I've been saying. So you must like being argumentative.
So let me break it down for you because it's really quite simple

1) If you are for a ban of guns, then logically, you should be for a ban of alcohol - because alcohol kills way more than guns.
2) If you are for gun ownership, then logically, you should also be for the right to drink whenever you want.

Anything else is hypocrisy.

[trish]

Neither argument is logical without additional hypotheses. In a cost/benefit analysis one should weigh benefits against costs as well as argue the costs and benefits considered are exhaustive. Accusations of hypocrisy are premature until you have successfully accomplished this task.

[Stavros]

Obviously,
You haven't been reading and/or comprehending what I've been saying. So you must like being argumentative.
So let me break it down for you because it's really quite simple

1) If you are for a ban of guns, then logically, you should be for a ban of alcohol - because alcohol kills way more than guns.
2) If you are for gun ownership, then logically, you should also be for the right to drink whenever you want.

Anything else is hypocrisy.

If you want to ban abortion, then logically you want to ban war.

If abortion is banned because it kills the unborn child, war must be banned because it kills the born child.
Guns kill babies, therefore guns must be banned (because I assume you don't want to ban humans, who breed and own guns).

[Aticus100]

I do not want alcohol banned.

What I'm saying is that if you want guns banned, then you better want alcohol banned also - otherwise, you are a hypocrite since alcohol kills more than guns.
Is there anything at all that you have to add to the debate aside from this? I mean anything whatsoever?

By your logic we should not waste a penny on curing cancer because heart disease kills more people so until heart disease is completely eradicated, all efforts to cure cancer are pointless.

[broncofan]

There's no way Mr Fanti's analogy is relevant since nobody here seriously recommended banning guns. What people are recommending is the kind of common sense regulation we have for other harmful products. Why should one product be exempted from life-saving regulations? Even if its ownership is constitutionally protected, it can still be regulated to prevent unlawful and/or dangerous uses.

So why are we discussing this phantom issue? May I suggest that Mr. Fanti has nothing to say about gun control that doesn't completely misrepresent the opposing viewpoint.

[Ts RedVeX]

Slaves in the Roman Empire were also prohibited from bearing arms...

[Stavros]

Slaves in the Roman Empire were also prohibited from bearing arms...

Because they were so badly treated by their masters they snapped and killed them, the event in Sicily known as the First Servile War

According to Diodorus Siculus (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diodorus_Siculus), politically influential slave-owners, often Roman equites (sort of like a horse-bore Knight) did not provide enough food and clothing for their slaves. The slaves turned to banditry to survive. The poorer Sicilians were the sufferers. Several decades of increasing tension finally broke out into war as the slaves revolted.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equites

So, as was to be expected, the Roman authorities took sides with the landowners, the businessmen and the elite against the slaves who created their wealth, though the ban on slaves bearing arms is not constant throughout the age of the Roman Empire.

And, curious is it not, that the first legal measures to control the ownership of guns and firearms in the USA was the panic that set in after the Civil War when white people became terrified that freed slaves seething with rage and resentment would go on the rampage throughout the South with the guns they acquired during the war. Gun control: imposed on slaves and black people, lifted on white people.

[Ts RedVeX]

Then had the slaves had arms their masters would not be able to treat them so badly, would they? Many people sold themselves to slave masters in exchange for protection and in hope to have a certain standard of living. Only that it was then their choice. Nowadays, we do not have that choice as we are already born slaves. Taking arms away from us takes our civilisation a few thousand years back in time.

[Stavros]

Then had the slaves had arms their masters would not be able to treat them so badly, would they? Many people sold themselves to slave masters in exchange for protection and in hope to have a certain standard of living. Only that it was then their choice. Nowadays, we do not have that choice as we are already born slaves. Taking arms away from us takes our civilisation a few thousand years back in time.

But when the slaves did acquire arms it was to punish those who did treat them badly, so the reverse of your argument holds: had there been a consensus between the two communities on what was just, the violence would never have occurred. The problem lay in a social structure designed to privilege one class over another where the 'masters' did not believe slaves by definition worthy of equal respect, or an equal share in the resources they produced, so resistance and resentment were built into the system which is why slavery has not survived in its traditional form.
The justification for the modern state resides in the concept of a social contract in which citizens surrender a degree of liberty to the state in return for its protection and a share of the resources they produce. A key to the social peace this aspires to is that the State retain the monopoly of the use of force, shaped by a system of law, to prevent lynch mobs, gangs or resentful individuals taking the law into their own hands, which is why it is essential to remove weapons from individuals, who do not need them anyway because the State is there to protect them, which for the most part is a system that has worked, though it is clearly flawed at times and in some places.
Civilization has always advanced when peace is a dominant feature of society, where weapons are all but irrelevant in the conduct of daily affairs because there is no need to settle a dispute through violence or intimidation. The wide availability of guns in the USA challenges the authority of the state at Federal and State level, and is one of the many factors that undermines the claims made for the USA as 'the greatest country in the world'.
Civilized people have no need of guns, it is as simple as that.

[Ts RedVeX]

When the slaves agreed to waive their freedoms to bear arms they believed their masters would treat them in accordance to whatever contracts they got themselves into. If their masters decided to break that contract and there was no jurisdiction to take their side, then naturally, they had no other option but to take matters into their own hands. It is natural that if you have a group of people that are privileged over another group, then the other group are going to hate them.

I cannot see why the state should have monopoly over the use of force. If the state minds its business, which is keeping order within the boundaries of its reign and protect its borders from outside dangers, I cannot see why citizens, or subjects who support the state should not be able to bear arms.

You are totally wrong saying that technological advancement is always attained during peace. Cold war and whoever produces and demonstrates a working "nuclear device" is a good example here. World wars, with tanks, tactic gases and VX missiles are also good examples. It does not mean that great inventions cannot be achieved during peace. Unfortunately, during peace, there are many communists whose aim is to prevent these for the sake of their personal "well-being"...

[filghy2]

Many people sold themselves to slave masters in exchange for protection and in hope to have a certain standard of living. Only that it was then their choice.

I suppose you think that the abolition of slavery was a communistic restriction on peoples' freedom?

I'll pose the question that I posed before and you ignored. Why don't you go live in some lawless country like Afghanistan or Somalia, rather than being a hypocrite and continuing to live in a country where you are protected by laws and a functioning government? I think your anarcho-libertarianism is really just a radical chic pose, and you would be scared shitless if you ever had to face the consequences of what you advocate.

[filghy2]

Definition of monomania (Merriam-Webster dictionary)

1 :mental illness especially when limited in expression to one idea or area of thought
2 :excessive concentration on a single object or idea

Sound like anyone we know?

[Aticus100]

Why don't you go live in some lawless country like Afghanistan or Somalia, rather than being a hypocrite and continuing to live in a country where you are protected by laws and a functioning government? I think your anarcho-libertarianism is really just a radical chic pose, and you would be scared shitless if you ever had to face the consequences of what you advocate.

I posed the same question to RedVex earlier in the thread and I imagine she will choose to ignore the request for debate.

It’s not dificult to imagine that she would be one of those most desperately in need of the assistance of the state she seems to have so much disdain for were that assistance ever to be withdrawn.

I, on the other hand, as a mild mannered psychopath with a cheery disposition and a penchant for violence would be just dandy. ��

[Stavros]

[QUOTE=Ts RedVeX;1799467]

When the slaves agreed to waive their freedoms to bear arms they believed their masters would treat them in accordance to whatever contracts they got themselves into.
--Really, I think you know slaves never agree to anything, they are enslaved without control over their own lives, a point so basic I don't understand how you can think slaves can negotiate anything with their masters.

I cannot see why the state should have monopoly over the use of force. If the state minds its business, which is keeping order within the boundaries of its reign and protect its borders from outside dangers, I cannot see why citizens, or subjects who support the state should not be able to bear arms.
--Yet again, it is because the rule of law that is fundamental to a free society can only be applied by the one authority the citizens give it to, precisely to make it unnecessary and illegal for armed gangs, posses, and lynchmobs to replace the law. Hollwyood might disagree and applaud the lone hero who cleans up his neighbourhood with guns, the reality is a self-important jerk like Zimmerman repudiating the existing authority of the law to confront and then murder Trayvon Martin who was just walking home from the shops. Do you get it now?

You are totally wrong saying that technological advancement is always attained during peace. Cold war and whoever produces and demonstrates a working "nuclear device" is a good example here. World wars, with tanks, tactic gases and VX missiles are also good examples. It does not mean that great inventions cannot be achieved during peace. Unfortunately, during peace, there are many communists whose aim is to prevent these for the sake of their personal "well-being"..
--But that is not what I said. I said Civilization has always advanced when peace is a dominant feature of society. Even allowing for some exaggeration on my part, it is not about war and technology but civilization broadly defined, allowing for a balanced judgement to assess the good and the bad. The cardinal point is that war by its nature is not civilized behaviour.

[Ts RedVeX]

Yeah. I meant people who sold themselves freely in exchange for food, and a certain benefits - like I had written in earlier. Those people decided they would not need weapons, and as you noticed that decision turned out badly for them.

Yet again, a gangster will get a gun regardless of any law against it. A decent man won't if it is prohibited by law. Should a conflict between them arise the decent man has much less chance to protect his property family and self.

We have peace as "dominant feature of society" yet Europe is dying under european union's occupation, while in China, for example, trains travel at 500km/h and skyscrapers rise like mushrooms after rain. War is a very civilised behaviour. What is not civilised, however, is for example when ISIS attacks American people and American government, whose responsibility is to protect them, does not declare war on ISIS and does not annihilate it within a week or two. White civilisation has gone back in time thousands of years, to barbaric times from long before the Roman Empire.

[Ts RedVeX]

Oh Neither Afghanistan nor Somalia are monarchies, they aren't anarchies, I cannot see what is there to debate. I am where I am at the moment and that is that. I would probably need to be mad to go to an Islamic country. This is also why I mentioned earlier that I am still debating whether I am actually going to settle here for good.

[broncofan]

Oh Neither Afghanistan nor Somalia are monarchies, they aren't anarchies,
You say you like monarchy, but the preferences you state involve lack of regulation and even lack of law and order. When you were shown the Monty Python skit that you mistakenly(?) took to be serious, you interpreted it to mean that one person can block another's path and threaten to kill them leaving the other the legitimate choice to flee. You also apparently believed someone could continue to fight after having his arms and legs severed.

If you cannot find a state that chooses to function without any laws or regulations then what about a failed state without a functioning government? You maybe don't realize it or are all bluster, but what you're recommending is a state where others are free to take your life and you theirs.

[fred41]

You maybe don't realize it or are all bluster, but what you're recommending is a state where others are free to take your life and you theirs.

People sometimes think they want this because, in their delusion, they believe that they would be at the top of the food chain, when in reality they'd be closer to the bottom.
I'm not necessarily applying this statement to anyone here, but I hear this shit all the time from people who think they're geared to survive in a straight up dog eat dog world, when the reality is far, far different.
We all think we're BatMan when we sit in the theater, but once we step outside, we're all just bystanders. (or for the Trekkie fans - most of us are really just red shirts.. :D ).

[Aticus100]

RedVex, I’m going to have to ask the question as I can’t quite believe you don’t know it was always impossible but here it is.

How do you propose the Americans could have wiped out ISIS in a week or two?

[broncofan]

Redvex, you're talking about indentured servants I hope. Many indentured servants from Europe did waive certain rights in order to earn passage to the United States. In a libertarian society, these contracts might be considered valid. There are very few civilized countries who would uphold any such contract today, even based on doctrines within contract law such as unconscionability.

African-American slaves did not waive their rights but had them taken by force from the first generation when they were taken captive. They did not own guns but they also did not have due process rights, the right to avoid cruel and unusual punishment, the right to vote, or any civil rights at all. Arguing that they should have had guns is so moot....how would they have had guns if they were taken to the United States in bondage and abused from the first instance they arrived? It's frankly the dumbest thought experiment I've ever heard of.

[broncofan]

I also want to point out that although indentured servitude is cruel it should definitely be distinguished from the African slave trade. Indentured servitude was typically for a term of 4 to 7 years and was not intergenerational....and there are probably too many other differences to count.

When people think of slavery in the United States they are thinking about what happened to people of African descent. There are many racists of European descent in the United States who try to conflate the two in order to trivialize slavery.

[Ts RedVeX]

I was referring to Romans who sold themselves to become slaves. Indentured servitude was a good thing as after it's expiration servants were free men and could work for themselves.

In a monarchy, there are laws and institutions to enforce them so I am not sure what you guys are talking about. There are also common basic values that are being taught to people from childhood. In democracy, those values are none-existent and there is nothing making people stick together. Current EU politics is totally anti European as dividing nations seems to be the Union's main target.

I can assure you that anyone who comes to a country where anyone can bear arms, with a gun they will think think twice before pointing their gun at any citizen of that country. The same rule applies to any citizen of that country. This will not be the case in any slave country, where slaves cannot bear arms.

[Stavros]

I can assure you that anyone who comes to a country where anyone can bear arms, with a gun they will think think twice before pointing their gun at any citizen of that country. .

Think, once, think twice -or don't think at all- then shoot. Is there something about gun crime in the USA you would like to tell us that we don't know?

[Ts RedVeX]

Most of it takes place where guns are not allowed. Compare for example Arizona and New York.

[Stavros]

Most of it takes place where guns are not allowed. Compare for example Arizona and New York.

Arizona gun control laws are among the least-restrictive in the United States. Arizona law states that any person 21 years or older, who is not a prohibited possessor, may carry a weapon openly or concealed without the need for a license. (A concealed carry permit is required in most other states.)
http://statelaws.findlaw.com/arizona-law/arizona-gun-control-laws.html

[Aticus100]

I can assure you that anyone who comes to a country where anyone can bear arms, with a gun they will think think twice before pointing their gun at any citizen of that country. The same rule applies to any citizen of that country. This will not be the case in any slave country, where slaves cannot bear arms.

Clearly you can’t assure anyone of that though can you as your talking utter bollox.

If anyone on a country where the populace is heavily armed is more likely to think twice before drawing a gun then why is the gun death rate in the heavily armed US 138 times that of the rate in the barely armed U.K.?

You have reached the point where you’re jut spouting shit now.

[broncofan]

You have reached the point where you’re jut spouting shit now.
Yeah not only does the evidence you cited contradict it but it's not even internally logical. You ever notice how a lot of these people commit suicide at the end of a rampage? Or suicide by cop? Or when they're captured brag about what they did and their fearlessness of the consequences? They would not be deterred as they're killing themselves at the end and they often accept it which is why some of them are writing crazy ass manifestos.

Even assuming everyone had a gun, how long would it take to pull a gun if you are not expecting a shooter? Or is that going to be our new lifestyle where we expect shootings everywhere and are ready to draw in theaters, restaurants, and elementary schools? What about the crossfire in a crowded movie theater with fifty armed people trying to shoot at a gunman in the dark? What about the Las Vegas shooting where nobody knew where the gunman was? That would have been fantastic to have thousands of people shooting weapons in a confined space when the gunman was camped out in a hotel.

Years ago someone posted a link of a woman who shot her gun at the fleeing car of a shoplifter. This is where we're at with this stupidity. When the woman was brought into court, she said she'd never try to be a good samaritan again (*facepalm). I don't know how someone could logically think there would be an end to this epidemic if everyone were trained in using guns and carried at all times....what kind of lifestyle is that? Isn't that the opposite of civilization?

[blackchubby38]

Texas church attack the latest US mass shooting
Associated Press The Associated Press,Associated Press 1 hour 46 minutes ago
Reactions Sign in to like Reblog on Tumblr Share Tweet Email

Law enforcement officials work the scene of a fatal shooting at the First Baptist Church in Sutherland Springs, Texas, on Sunday, Nov. 5, 2017. (Nick Wagner/Austin American-Statesman via AP)
A man opened fire on a church in South Texas on Sunday, killing several people and wounding others.

Authorities haven't released the name of the attacker or said how many people he killed in the First Baptist Church in Sutherland Springs, but a Wilson County commissioner, Albert Gamez, told cable news outlets he was told it was more than 20 killed and more than 20 wounded, though those figures hadn't been confirmed.

The county sheriff, Joe Tackett, told the Wilson County News that the gunman had been "taken down."

Here's a look at some of the nation's deadliest mass shootings since 2012:

— Oct. 1, 2017: A gunman identified by authorities as Stephen Paddock opened fire on an outdoor music festival on the Las Vegas Strip from the 32nd floor of a hotel-casino, killing 58 people and wounding more than 500. SWAT teams with explosives then stormed his room and found he had killed himself.

— June 12, 2016: Gunman Omar Mateen opened fire at an Orlando, Florida, nightclub, killing 49 people. Mateen was later killed in a shootout with police.

— Feb. 25, 2016: Cedric Ford, 38, killed three people and wounded 14 others at a lawnmower factory where he worked in the central Kansas community of Hesston. The local police chief killed him during a shootout with 200 to 300 workers still in the building, authorities said.

— Feb. 20, 2016: Jason Dalton, 45, is accused of randomly shooting and killing six people and severely wounding two others during a series of attacks over several hours in the Kalamazoo, Michigan, area. Authorities say he paused between shootings to make money as an Uber driver. He faces murder and attempted-murder charges.

— Dec. 2, 2015: Syed Rizwan Farook, 28, and Tashfeen Malik, 27, opened fire at a social services center in San Bernardino, California, killing 14 people and wounding more than 20. They fled the scene but died hours later in a shootout with police.

— Oct. 1, 2015: A shooting at Umpqua Community College in Roseburg, Oregon, left 10 people dead and seven wounded. Shooter Christopher Harper-Mercer, 26, exchanged gunfire with police, then killed himself.

— June 17, 2015: Dylann Roof, 21, shot and killed nine African-American church members during a Bible study group inside the Emanuel African Methodist Episcopal Church in Charleston, South Carolina. Police contend the attack was racially motivated. Roof has been sentenced to death in the shootings.

— May 23, 2014: A community college student, Elliot Rodger, 22, killed six people and wounded 13 in shooting and stabbing attacks in the area near the University of California, Santa Barbara, campus. Authorities said he apparently shot himself to death after a gun battle with deputies.

— Sept. 16, 2013: Aaron Alexis, a mentally disturbed civilian contractor, shot 12 people to death at the Washington Navy Yard before he was killed in a police shootout.

— July 26, 2013: Pedro Vargas, 42, went on a shooting rampage at his Hialeah, Florida, apartment building, gunning down six people before officers fatally shot him.

— Dec. 14, 2012: In Newtown, Connecticut, an armed 20-year-old man entered Sandy Hook Elementary School and used a semi-automatic rifle to kill 26 people, including 20 first-graders and six adult school staff members. He then killed himself.

— Sept. 27, 2012: In Minnesota's deadliest workplace rampage, Andrew Engeldinger, who had just been fired, pulled a gun and fatally shot six people, including the company's founder. He also wounded two others at Accent Signage Systems in Minneapolis before taking his own life.

— Aug. 5, 2012: In Oak Creek, Wisconsin, 40-year-old gunman Wade Michael Page killed six worshippers at a Sikh Temple before killing himself.

—July 20, 2012: James Holmes, 27, fatally shot 12 people and injured 70 in an Aurora, Colorado, movie theater. He was sentenced to life in prison without parole.

— April 2, 2012: Seven people were killed and three were wounded when a 43-year-old former student opened fire at Oikos University in Oakland, California. One Goh was charged with seven counts of murder and three counts of attempted murder, but psychiatric evaluations concluded he suffered from long-term paranoid schizophrenia and was unfit to stand trial.

Lets not forget the one that happened in Tuscon, Arizona on January 8, 2011 when Jared Lee Loughner shot and killed 6 people, wounding a total of 13 people.

[blackchubby38]

Best states for gun owners according to Guns and Ammo July 21st, 2015:

Nevada- ranked #22
Oregon- ranked #28
Texas- ranked #15
South Carolina- ranked #14
Arizona- ranked #1
Florida- ranked #12
Minnesota- ranked #39
Kansas- ranked #8

Editor’s note: State-specific gun laws are a complicated, frustrating and fluid subject. We have consulted sources such as the National Rifle Association, National Shooting Sports Foundation and state and law enforcement agencies to compile these rankings. Some states are very hazy on certain statutes, so our data reflects those confusions with general statements based on our understanding of the law. All information is current as of July 2015.

Read more: http://www.gunsandammo.com/network-topics/culture-politics-network/best-states-for-gun-owners-2015/#ixzz4xbT4S200

[Ts RedVeX]

I will only note that the church was a gun-free area. What, wait... Did the gunman not respect the law? No way...

In the US most psychos use guns which they probably got into possesion illegay anyway. In Europe they use cars or acid, or home-made bombs. Nonetheless, we also have had some shootings over here. One by Brevik was probably the most recent.

[broncofan]

Nonetheless, we also have had some shootings over here. One by Brevik was probably the most recent.
That was more than six years ago and in a different country.

[Ts RedVeX]

Well there were shootings in France in 2015. The point is that gun control is useless

[slave2u]

for all intents and purposes a gun ban just isn't going to happen in the usa.
what is most often asked for is stricter controls on gun sales and what types of weapons are available. however it seems that sensible restrictions (to those of us not in a gun culture) are met with cries of horror that the state is trying to restrict fundamental freedoms.
the practical necessity for an overhaul of the rules, regulations and laws just get lost in ideological and fundamentalist fear and rantings.

[broncofan]

Well there were shootings in France in 2015. The point is that gun control is useless
Again, that was in another country, but we've already been over this in another thread. We looked at gun death rates by country and then just to be thorough looked at homicide rates to make sure there weren't sufficient number of people displacing guns for other deadly instruments. Finally, when you saw the disparity you sort of abandoned the argument that guns make people safer and instead said that there should be no restriction on their ownership regardless of the effect because of their importance.

[blackchubby38]

The point I have been trying to make is that mass shootings can happen anywhere. Not just in states that have stricter gun laws. The issue then becomes what can we do to stop them from happening. Considering how many have happened in the past six years, nobody seems to know the right answer to that question. Instead we just continue to do the same song and dance we do every time after one of these incidents occur:

Outrage....Outrage......Thoughts and Prayers.....Thoughts and Prayers.....Everybody to a neutral corner.....Bell rings and the fight begins for a few days.....Bell rings again....Fight ends in draw.....Until the next mass shooting....Repeat.

Think about it. This thread was started 5 years ago after Sandy Hook and guns haven't been banned. NOR SHOULD THEY BE BANNED AND I CAN'T STRESS THOSE WORDS ENOUGH. But has any progress been made in trying to find a way to make sure guns don't wind up in the hands of people with certain mental disabilities. Nope.

[broncofan]

But has any progress been made in trying to find a way to make sure guns don't wind up in the hands of people with certain mental disabilities. Nope.
There's no such thing as regulation that makes sure of something. Only legislation that increases or decreases probabilities. Passing laws that make sure people with diagnosed psychoses cannot buy a gun would help. It would have to go further than only prohibiting ownership by people who have pleaded the insanity defense which is an incredibly high threshold. It can be done, but it requires the passage of laws to do it. There is a battleground over whether misdemeanor domestic violence is enough to prohibit gun ownership, but in the one circuit that okay'd such laws, they could pass such a prohibition until the supreme court adjudicates it. We could make sure that guns never get into the hands of felons with better background checks. We could ban assault weapons and high capacity magazines to reduce the carnage when someone does go on a rampage. We could make bump stocks illegal.

Finally, we could take away the immunity from suit that the gun industry has that other industries do not. In fact, if you look at the way alcohol is regulated, there are laws called dramshop acts. These are actually laws that increase the liability of places that sell alcohol to those who are intoxicated. And their liability is increased beyond what it is at the common law by these statutes. On the other hand, gun manufacturers are insulated from liability by federal statute. Now some may think that strict liability for gun manufacturers is not fair, but this law means that liability at the state level cannot even develop the way it otherwise would. It is strictly a consequence of lobbying and protection against lifesaving developments in weapon safety.

[Stavros]

In the US most psychos use guns which they probably got into possesion illegay anyway.

Again, if you did some elementary research you would find that not only have mass killings been done by men with legally purchased weapons, in the past few months the Obama era ruling that made it harder for people with mental health problems to purchase weapons has been rescinded so that it is now easier for a nutter to buy guns. Just out of idle curiosity, do you own a gun?

[filghy2]

The point I have been trying to make is that mass shootings can happen anywhere. Not just in states that have stricter gun laws. The issue then becomes what can we do to stop them from happening. Considering how many have happened in the past six years, nobody seems to know the right answer to that question.

It's only a mystery to those who refuse to see the obvious. Higher rates of gun ownership are clearly associated with higher rates of gun deaths, both across countries and across US states. https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2017/10/2/16399418/us-gun-violence-statistics-maps-charts

Almost anything that makes it harder to acquire guns could be expected to reduce the rate of gun deaths over time. An obvious starting point would be to stop people from acquiring arsenals of military-style weapons that allow them to quickly kill large numbers of people. The fact that you avoid this is a good indicator of how disingenuous your response was.

[Ts RedVeX]

Even if people have less chance of getting guns then they will use machetes, knives, crossbows, hammers, axes, acid, bombs, lorries etc, etc... The last thing our civilisation needs is more bureaucracy and more people in suits and ties cringing losing their posts in their cosy offices.

If you want less crime then bring back teaching the values that used to make our civilisation great to kids at schools, cut the bureaucracy that we have all become slaves of.

I have not abandoned anything, I would still like as free a human being as possible, and I would like the same for everyone.

If you read my ad then you will see I openly state that I have a cannon which is ready to fire in your face, Stavros.

[skirtrustler]

Even if people have less chance of getting guns then they will use machetes, knives, crossbows, hammers, axes, acid, bombs, lorries etc, etc...


”A gun is no more dangerous than a cricket bat in the hands of a madman.” Prince Phillip.
He has used that analogy a couple of times. That was from HRH after one of the tragic UK mass shootings at Dunblane; making the point that it is mainly the perpetrator rather than the weapon.

[Stavros]

If you want less crime then bring back teaching the values that used to make our civilisation great to kids at schools, cut the bureaucracy that we have all become slaves of.
.

I was under the impression that if you want to raise your children in a 'God, family and country' environment that seems close to your version of 'civilization' then Texas is the place to go. I guess if they replaced their governor with a King and their Congress with a Court it would be heaven on earth, as long as nut-cases don't purchase guns and decide to rsolve their mental health issues by killing others. Or could it be that the shooter chose a church to be his memorial because there can be only one God, and at the time, he was God?

[Stavros]

He has used that analogy a couple of times. That was from HRH after one of the tragic UK mass shootings at Dunblane; making the point that it is mainly the perpetrator rather than the weapon.

You could say the same about a paper bag or a piece of string, but the number of people murdered or injured with either of those two objects is so small as to be insignificant, it is also harder to kill someone with those two objects. A gun is a weapon more powerful than a fist, a knife or a cricket bat, which is why there are restrictions on its ownership in the UK and other countries, and also why without those restrictions there are more murders per head of population in the USA.

It is not, as RedVex argues a matter of bureaucracy or a lack of civilized values, but a simple matter of using the law to limit the kind of people who can purchase weapons. President Obama -in the face of fierce opposition from Congress and the (Terrorist) National Rifle Association in 2016 secured an additional provision in the background checks introduced in 1998 to make it hard for people with a mental illness to purchase guns.

One of the first things Obama's successor did after taking office was to rescind that mental health provision, making it easier for people with a mental illness to purchase a gun, so it is no surprise that the same person should in the last 24 hours refer to the massacre in Texas as 'a mental health illness' simply ignoring the fact that he has been in part an architect of these killings because this is a man who never takes responsibility for his own decisions. He has refused to take responsibility for the deaths of US service personnel in the Yemen and Niger, but he has publicly insulted and abused the Gold Star families of the men killed in action, something no other President has done in living memory, if ever.

It is a case of enabling the perpetrator to kill, so the issue must refer back to the means used to prevent the perpetrator from obtaining the weapons that kill and injure more people at a faster rate than any other. Hint- don't give guns to people with mental health issue, and don't sell military grade weapons to any citizen.

Or accept that if you allow this, you are an accomplice to murder.

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/trump-signs-bill-revoking-obama-era-gun-checks-people-mental-n727221

http://www.factcheck.org/2017/10/trump-nixed-gun-control-rule/

[Ts RedVeX]

It is as I argue. And you are stupid.

[peejaye]

for all intents and purposes a gun ban just isn't going to happen in the usa.
what is most often asked for is stricter controls on gun sales and what types of weapons are available. however it seems that sensible restrictions (to those of us not in a gun culture) are met with cries of horror that the state is trying to restrict fundamental freedoms.
the practical necessity for an overhaul of the rules, regulations and laws just get lost in ideological and fundamentalist fear and rantings.

Yep; Some Pro-establishment cunt from the US as already been on National TV in the UK saying it wasn't guns to blame, it was a mental health issue! I fucking give up :banghead

[Aticus100]

It is as I argue. And you are stupid.

Said the person who has utterly and completely lost the debate in every possible aspect.

[blackchubby38]

It's only a mystery to those who refuse to see the obvious. Higher rates of gun ownership are clearly associated with higher rates of gun deaths, both across countries and across US states. https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2017/10/2/16399418/us-gun-violence-statistics-maps-charts

Almost anything that makes it harder to acquire guns could be expected to reduce the rate of gun deaths over time. An obvious starting point would be to stop people from acquiring arsenals of military-style weapons that allow them to quickly kill large numbers of people. The fact that you avoid this is a good indicator of how disingenuous your response was.

My response wasn't meant to be disingenuous. I was merely trying to point how complicated this issue can be. I actually agree with some of the gun control measures that have been talked about. Especially the one about making sure guns don't wind up in the hands of people with certain mental illness.

The problem is that no matter how many great ideas the gun control side has, they are nowhere near as powerful as the gun lobby is or are as vocal as their supporters. Especially when it comes to where it matters most, the voting booth. For gun owners, if its not "the issue", its one of their most important issues they take into consideration when deciding who they are going to vote for. In a nutshell, the people who oppose any type of new regulations on guns are in for the long fight.

[filghy2]

My response wasn't meant to be disingenuous. I was merely trying to point how complicated this issue can be. I actually agree with some of the gun control measures that have been talked about. Especially the one about making sure guns don't wind up in the hands of people with certain mental illness.

Okay, I accept that you are trying to be genuine, but you did say "nobody seems to know the answer". There is a big difference between not knowing the answers, and knowing the answers but being unable to implement them because of political resistance.

[blackchubby38]

Okay, I accept that you are trying to be genuine, but you did say "nobody seems to know the answer". There is a big difference between not knowing the answers, and knowing the answers but being unable to implement them because of political resistance.

Chalk that up typing a post in haste.