The FAST Approaching Gun Ban

It is NOT holier than thou Stavros (my contrarian friend) - it is simple statistics. Of course there are gun nuts everyplace... but the sheer volume and easy availabilty and the near religious attitude of some (many) americans to guns makes the statistical level of killing there far higher than the few, albeit shocking, examples you quote. Yes - if guns were as easily available here i am sure we'd have, proportionately, as many deaths as the US. But the fact that we don't suggests that the far more rigorous control of weaponry here does make a difference.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Prospero

Sounds like pre-meditated murder to me.

---

The point is the boy is dead! What's the point of two deaths when they should have been none? Is capital punishment the sentence for looking in someone's garage?

Can't we combine guns with HAs? It may be just what some members want.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Stavros

But how will you know when that day has come when the SHTF? For some Americans, that day came when Obama was elected President. It is not like The War of the Worlds (which was on tv last night), where you will see giant zombies stalking the land. On the other hand, guns play a role in the mythology of America like the pilgrims and the pioneers and the sense some people may have of being isolated in a large country threatened by outsiders. But in this day and age, that is an awful lot of ironware begging to be abused....

---

When SHTF you'll know.. There'll be bank runs, war, death and mayhem everywhere with people killing each other over the last can of beans.. If you don't make it out of the cities in 24-48 hours after it starts.. you'll need firearms and luck..

Oh ya.. America the great USA.. Founded on the genocide of native Americans and then followed up with apartheid against the Africans which continued to the 70's.. Home of the Banksters and Black Death Dealers.. (oil)

As for others and their gun death statistics.. More Doctors of Psychiatry kill people with prescription meds than people with guns.. 40% of people that kill others with guns are on these drugs that have been prescribed..

Firearms do not kill people.. people kill people..

When some whacko is about to kill you with his/her gun for what ever you have would you prefer to be without a gun??

" When some whacko is about to kill you with his/her gun for what ever you have would you prefer to be without a gun?? "

When only a gun will do you better have one !!!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AlexisDVyne

40% of people that kill others with guns are on these drugs that have been prescribed..

---

Can you please give me a link where you got that stat...I was trying to find it but couldn't.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by fred41

Can you please give me a link where you got that stat...I was trying to find it but couldn't.

---

You can find it here.
http://www.hungangels.com/vboard/sho...=1#post1487545

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by broncofan

You can find it here.
http://www.hungangels.com/vboard/sho...=1#post1487545

---

lol...I got it the first time...but perhaps I have a mild case of OCD because I still hit the link three times....funny....maybe I should take some medication.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Stavros

You clearly have a lot of detailed knowledge of how your system -or systems- work, given that the rules seem to differ from state to state.

---

It is a necessary evil of being a fire arms enthusiast to travels from time to time... if I don't well understand the law where I am or where I am going in conjunction with what I may have on my person or in my vehicle... I may be setting myself up for a world of legal pain.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Stavros

Again, there was a time when the NRA was a leading promoter of gun control

---

Define 'gun control'.

At last check, the NRA is in favor of many a restriction against ownership and possession when it comes to felons and the like, they tend to oppose other things which involve less than judicial rulings.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Stavros

One small detail, that notdrunk alluded to in his post earlier strikes a chord -the right of a CLEO to refuse a licence to someone for who knows what reason.

---

A CLEO sign off sounds nice in theory... but actually brings us to into a rather disturbing area... where the cops can arbitrarily deny the exercising of a right to a person who has not been convicted of a crime.

Imagine a world where the local cops can deny you the right to drive, vote or speak on a street corner... not because you've been convicted of a criminal offense or have a proven track record of unlawful actions in the given area, but because they just don't like you.

Call me crazy, but I'm a fan of due process of law and not being subjected to the arbitrary whims of the local CLEO who may just have a dislike of NFA items... or the look of my shoes when I come in to get his signature.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Stavros

Can we assume that if a Black American, your equal, applies to join a Gun Trust, or applies individually through a CLEO to own a weapon, it will be given the same degree of thought that would be given to his fellow Americans? I am not persuaded that the 'checks and balances' you provide are always going to ensure that firearms do not fall into the wrong hands.

---

I would hope that anyone showing up seeking a signature on a form 4 would be treated equally, black, white, male, female, gay, straight, tall or short.

Short of a giant super magnet in space which is set to 'illegal gun'... nothing can fully prevent guns from ending up in the wrong hands... as sometimes even a legally purchased firearm is illegally sold, then reported as stolen.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Stavros

As I have said before, most Americans who own firearms must be trustworthy or your death roll would be far higher;

---

Don't say that too loudly or you may loose your cred.

We are a large nation (with regards to land area, population & armaments)... yet only a fraction of a fraction of the persons or arms here commit evil acts with them.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Stavros

but there are still too many people with mental health problems, politically motivated extremists, and others who, suddenly, go be berserk who have access to weapons.

---

Sounds nice in theory... but how do you implement such a system without creating an undue burden on those who pose no risk and are otherwise lawful?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Stavros

To combat the irrational element you need more gun control, but to seriously improve gun control, I think you need a different culture. Guns, and violence, are part of (but not the only part) American culture, that is at the root of the problem.

---

Culture is a big part of it... but it's not just about firearms. Americans historically are fiercely independent... and the enthusiasm we have historically had about firearms is a symptom of that... not the cause.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Stavros

Now people can make their own drones, so how long will it be before someone sticks a bomb on one and sends it over to a target to make the news?

---

In general, bomb making is not a legal activity... at least for your average civilian, but you are unfortunately right, it is something that is bound to happen... though little stops someone from building bombs on their own despite the laws against it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Stavros

And I don't share Prospero's 'holier than thou' attitude as we have gun nuts in the UK and have had our share of mass killings, be it Dunblane, Hungerford, or smaller incidents like Raoul Moat or the man in Leicester who was given back guns the police had taken away from him at one time, which he then used to annihilate his family. Not to mention crime -the riots in London in 2011 were sparked by the shooting dead of a gangster who, the police allege, had picked up a gun on his way to commit a revenge shooting. We are not immune.

---

Quite true unfortunately. Guns are but a tool, and so long as some desire to do evil, they will find a way to carry it out.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Prospero

Leaping through hoops to justify their sick obsession... the legalese of the last few posts is nauseating.

---

I'm sorry you view the law so... though you'd probably view it differently if you were under attack and seeking to find mechanisms in the law to protect you.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Prospero

The death of a teenage girl in Chicago at the weekend shot by another teenage girl in a row over a boy - speaks louder to basic humanity than all your weasel words of the rights to keep your murderous weapons.

---

You seem to be assuming anyone, here or elsewhere is justifying such at thing. I certainly am not.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Prospero

Oh ...and there were more than 200 gun deaths in Chicago in the past few days. Yep gangs to quite an extent - but plenty of others caught in the crossfire. Without such a torrent of weaponry this would not have happened on this scale.

---

Ok... what is your fix? Other than a giant space based super magnet that is set to 'gun'?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Prospero

Yep - I know i'm a Brit where we don't allow weaponry like this because we don't have the idiotic element of your constitution composed at a time when there was a genuine need for this to resist the threat of British power. Nowadays it is just a rich and deep evil in your culture.

---

The Brits have long been accustomed to being subservient & obedience... it's understandable your lack of understanding of root of and the continued importance of our cultural differences, something I have long come to notice from those on the other side of the pond.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Prospero

The events still unfolding in Nevada offer further evidence of the streak of insanity in the US body politic.

---

Yes, it is quite insane that the federal government owns the majority of the land of a state and uses that ownership to use the excuse of a tortoise (which they themselves have euthanized in mass quantities) as an excuse to apparently re-purpose some of the land for the benefit of Chinese businessmen who are bankrolling the son of the Senate Majority Leader.

Most folks don't have to agree with Bundy's views on race to see that there is much fishiness afoot down there.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Prospero

I wonder about certain people who post on HA... bobvela has 124 posts. Virtually all of them are about guns. (a handful of his earliest posts are about girls) I wonder if he is here for the real topic of the forum or if he is simply here to argue the NRA case. C'mn Bob... come clean. You are I see a self confessed Tea Prty supporter. But are you actually interested in Tgirls. If not why not go publish your offensive gun drivel elsewhere.

---

Interesting conspiracy theory you've concocted there, shame you didn't provide specific #'s.

No, I'm not a paid plant of the NRA, nor encouraged to post on their behalf. While I have a life membership, my postings here are of my own and for my own reasons... reasons which I need not justify to you.

The fact that you call my posts 'offensive' does say quite a bit about you though and how open minded & tolerant of a person you are.

Bobvela... I am extremel open minded and tolerant as anyone who reads the wide range of postings i make here will attest. you meanwhile post almost exclusively on guns.

I don't think what i posted is "a conspiracy theory" simply an observation that your primary interest in contributing to the hung angels forum is to write about guns. A smattering of early posts about the girls but since then simply gun all the way.

And what do you know about the british subservience. Please if you wish to make that allegation tell me more... the cultural differences/ i know a lot about that I am sure i have spent a lot more time in the US than you have in the UK.

I see you buy into the conspiracy theories about Bundy and Nevada. The guy is a lawbreaker and his comical commandos are a signal of the sickness of US gun culture.

And nowhere in your posts - other than a recourse to your constitution - do i actually see any over riding arguments why is is better for a society to be in possession of millions of weapons in private hands. A society where guns are kept securely out of public reach is surely a saner and healthier one.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AlexisDVyne

When SHTF you'll know.. There'll be bank runs, war, death and mayhem everywhere with people killing each other over the last can of beans.. If you don't make it out of the cities in 24-48 hours after it starts.. you'll need firearms and luck..

Oh ya.. America the great USA.. Founded on the genocide of native Americans and then followed up with apartheid against the Africans which continued to the 70's.. Home of the Banksters and Black Death Dealers.. (oil)

As for others and their gun death statistics.. More Doctors of Psychiatry kill people with prescription meds than people with guns.. 40% of people that kill others with guns are on these drugs that have been prescribed..

Firearms do not kill people.. people kill people..

When some whacko is about to kill you with his/her gun for what ever you have would you prefer to be without a gun??

---

If 'firearms do not kill people...people kill people' -then don't give them firearms!!

Plenty of American banks have collapsed since the 19th century without being part of some wider collapse -I think you may find the USA has enough resilience to withstand the apocalypse...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Stavros

If 'firearms do not kill people...people kill people' -then don't give them firearms!!

Plenty of American banks have collapsed since the 19th century without being part of some wider collapse -I think you may find the USA has enough resilience to withstand the apocalypse...

---

You don't seem ti grasp what SHTF really is..

If the power is out for 48 hours in 10 cities.. the USA will show us what chaos is.. If the whole grid goes down.. in 3 days the chaos will be beyond the control of the government and all it's troops..

When the trucks don't deliver the food to the grocery stores, the gas, etc.. what do you think will happen? 300 million people depend on grocery stores for all their food..

In rural america where people don't depend on the system it won't be as bad.. in the cities.. total mayhem, death and destruction..

You'll want a firearm.. and it's better if you know how to use it safely..

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Prospero

Bobvela... I am extremel open minded and tolerant as anyone who reads the wide range of postings i make here will attest. you meanwhile post almost exclusively on guns.

---

I agree strongly with that. Somehow he has only posted 126 times. I don't know how..I feel like I've read at least 130 posts on guns and self-defense. Is it possible to have more posts about guns than total posts?

On a serious note, it is an obsession. It may seem ad hominem to talk about how much attention someone pays to one issue, or how much intellectual effort justifying it. But what about other rights? Free speech? Freedom from cruel and unusual punishment? Freedom from unreasonable search and seizure? Is the only civil liberty he cares about the right to carry a gun into a movie theater?

This focus on guns and gun training amounts to the fetishization of weaponry. It must have some deeply symbolic purpose for people to attach so much importance to something with so little relevance or utility. I'm not just saying it has no relevance because I don't use them. When they talk about the situations in which they will use guns the hypos sound either like science fiction or macho fantasy.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AlexisDVyne

You don't seem ti grasp what SHTF really is..

If the power is out for 48 hours in 10 cities.. the USA will show us what chaos is.. If the whole grid goes down.. in 3 days the chaos will be beyond the control of the government and all it's troops..

When the trucks don't deliver the food to the grocery stores, the gas, etc.. what do you think will happen? 300 million people depend on grocery stores for all their food..

In rural america where people don't depend on the system it won't be as bad.. in the cities.. total mayhem, death and destruction..

You'll want a firearm.. and it's better if you know how to use it safely..

---

In the .01% chance or so that this near apocalypse takes place you and 95racer and Bobvela may have a slightly higher chance of scavenging than other people. But in the 99.99% chance that it does not you might find you've wasted a lifetime of thought on whatever base and primitive instinct is driving this all.

I have to agree with Trish from a logic standpoint, the only real way to reduce the deaths is to reduce the guns, but as I've said before, this is a Political hot potato, and the Democrats only have so much pull, and talking about it fans the fire and brings the young rednecks to the polls this November.

Something NEW maybe that I might add is that I believe, without bothering to check the stats, that the lion's share of these gruesome murders are done by the gruesome bottom ten percent of the country, the poorest. I think this might be where the USA differs from other countries, the people you saw after Katrina, in the richest country in the World, they couldn't afford a bus ticket outta town. I'm not sure any other country has such a high standard of living, in the face of those with nothing. I used to visit these people in my whoring days, these people don't all sit in their living rooms feeling bad, they go out, have tons of friends, do drugs, commit crimes, get AIDs, go to the Emergency Room for free, this bottom rung of society is taking advantage of the fact that their lives are shit, they fuck like bunnies and get high like a mutherfucker. And it's not like they don't want to hang with the HAVES, the HAVES don't want to hang with THEM. When somebody gives them shit, they don't walk away. There's nowhere to walk away to.

So this poor percentage of society costs the country a lot of money on Police, Jails, Hospitals, Social Services, I remember being offered to buy guns real cheap on the street. Lots of stolen stuff, dirt cheap.

So I guess my point is ....uh, ..oh yeah, you can remove the guns, but the misery will still remain, it might be better to raise the minimum wage rather than ban assault rifles. It's one thing to work at McDonalds in High School, it's quite another to raise a family working there.

The Republicans seem to think if you come down hard on these trouble makers, they'll pull their socks up... , the Democrats seem to want to give them food stamps and unemployment insurance. Both sides agree they'd be better off with jobs.

So calling the stupid people WRONG, ....doesn't mean you win. the WRONG people, the RULES are what fucked them, kept them from getting good jobs. I'm guessing registered voters aren't the problem, it's the people who have never voted in their life, they think voting is for chumps and suckers. They don't come on these forums, they drop by "the corner" and catch up more action in ten minutes than you could get on Hung Angels in a month.

If you're looking for ACTION, check out the ghetto, not HARVARD. You can pick up a machine gun for three hundred bucks. It's an Enigma. Two Americas.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/sf/fea...ce-in-america/

Anyone take a bet that this moron considered himself a "responsible" gun owner?

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2014/05/0...-his-forehead/

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AlexisDVyne

You don't seem ti grasp what SHTF really is..

If the power is out for 48 hours in 10 cities.. the USA will show us what chaos is.. If the whole grid goes down.. in 3 days the chaos will be beyond the control of the government and all it's troops..

When the trucks don't deliver the food to the grocery stores, the gas, etc.. what do you think will happen? 300 million people depend on grocery stores for all their food..

In rural america where people don't depend on the system it won't be as bad.. in the cities.. total mayhem, death and destruction..

You'll want a firearm.. and it's better if you know how to use it safely..

---

Yes it is possible that bad things might happen, but the reality is that it is more likely to not happen. This is a sign of living in fear, that tends to restrict 'positive creativity', or a better way to say it, would be basic happiness about life in general. For some reason Albert Einstein, came to mind. I think of him has an older man constantly thinking about mathematical views of the universe that might help to expand man's views of it. For him there was implied a view of a positive future. Yes there a people who have a greater incidence of violence, such as trans people. but there a many ways to protect yourself with out a gun. sometimes owning a gun will introduce lethal alternatives to a non-lethal situation. I was robbed once. He got the jump on me. It didn't look like a real gun, it could have been a starter pistol. If I had a gun, it would have introduced a certain lethal struggle. I continued walking to the store at night, as it brought me healthy exercise, and beer. I was more aware of my surroundings, but not living with a big fears, still not armed with guns. Instead of thinking about human chaos, what about creating or making something that would be of service to people, and perhaps make you some cash? It is written; "As you give, so shall you receive."

Here is a good rallying song for the gun folk...
Cows With Guns - YouTube

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by yodajazz

Yes it is possible that bad things might happen, but the reality is that it is more likely to not happen. This is a sign of living in fear, that tends to restrict 'positive creativity', or a better way to say it, would be basic happiness about life in general. For some reason Albert Einstein, came to mind. I think of him has an older man constantly thinking about mathematical views of the universe that might help to expand man's views of it. For him there was implied a view of a positive future. Yes there a people who have a greater incidence of violence, such as trans people. but there a many ways to protect yourself with out a gun. sometimes owning a gun will introduce lethal alternatives to a non-lethal situation. I was robbed once. He got the jump on me. It didn't look like a real gun, it could have been a starter pistol. If I had a gun, it would have introduced a certain lethal struggle. I continued walking to the store at night, as it brought me healthy exercise, and beer. I was more aware of my surroundings, but not living with a big fears, still not armed with guns. Instead of thinking about human chaos, what about creating or making something that would be of service to people, and perhaps make you some cash? It is written; "As you give, so shall you receive."

---

Well that's all good and true..

But I'm happy I know how to use firearms safely.. and if I need to..

Personally I'd never want to shoot anything other than a non living target..

My point is with all the nutbars that have stockpiles of guns and amo it might be pertinent to know your way around firearms in the event that you need to..

In many countries they have required basic military training.. everyone in those countries knows how to use a gun.. in Israel it's way more than basic training.. Obama is working on making it mandatory in the USA..

If it comes down to kill or be killed what will you do?

some clear headed ideas from the NYTimes...

http://nyti.ms/1iZySvK


What Do Guns Say?
By PATRICK BLANCHFIELD MAY 4, 2014, 6:00 PM 459 Comments

Earlier this month, in Bunkerville, Nev., representatives of the Bureau of Land Management withdrew from a tense standoff with supporters of Cliven Bundy, a rancher who owes the federal government over $1 million in unpaid fees for allowing his cattle to graze on public land. The hundreds of self-appointed militia and “states’ rights” activists who flocked to support Bundy, many in full tactical gear and openly carrying assault rifles, blockaded a federal interstate and trained their weapons on B.L.M. employees who sought to negotiate with the rancher and his family. Fearful of a pitched gun battle, the B.L.M. departed, leaving Bundy and his supporters to celebrate, emboldened, with a barbecue.

Toting a weapon in a demonstration gestures as close as possible to outright violence while still technically remaining within the domain of speech.
Bundy, who does not “recognize the federal government as even existing,” has gone on to leverage his spotlight to air a variety of retrograde, racist views. But the ensuing media kerfuffle has deflected attention from the fact that his armed supporters remain, dug in.

On one level, the affair in Bunkerville can be seen as a vestige of Old West range-war mentality, opportunistically remixed with overtones of the militia movements of the early 1990s and an identity-politics firestorm that’s very 2014. But as a transaction between the state and citizens decided not by rule of law, nor by vote or debate, but rather by the simple presence of arms, Bunkerville is deeply troubling. Guns publicly brandished by private individuals decided the outcome. For all Bundy’s appeals to constitutional justification, what mattered at the end of the day was who was willing to take the threat of gunplay the furthest.

Bunkerville is simply the next step in a trend that has been ramping up for some time. Since the election of Barack Obama, guns have appeared in the public square in a way unprecedented since the turbulent 1960s and ’70s — carried alongside signs and on their own since before the Tea Party elections, in a growing phenomenon of “open carry” rallies organized by groups like the Modern American Revolution and OpenCarry.org, and in the efforts by gun rights activists to carry assault weapons into the Capitol buildings in New Mexico and Texas (links to video). According to open carry advocates, their presence in public space represents more than just an expression of their Second Amendment rights, it’s a statement, an “educational,” communicative act — in short, an exercise of their First Amendment freedom of speech. (See this, from the group Ohio Carry, and this Michigan lawsuit.)

This claim bears serious consideration. The First Amendment has historically been much harder to limit than the Second, and so extending the freedom of speech to the open display of weapons raises several urgent questions about how we understand the relationship between expressing ideas and making threats, between what furthers dialogue and what ends it.

But are guns speech? Is carrying a weapon as an act of public protest constitutionally protected under the First Amendment? And if so, what do guns say?

The courts have traditionally recognized “symbolic speech” — actions that convey a clear message — as deserving of First Amendment protection (by, for example, protecting the right of students in Des Moines to wear armbands protesting the Vietnam War). As “the expression of an idea through an activity,” symbolic speech depends heavily on the context within which it occurs. Unlike pure speech, symbolic speech is more susceptible to limitation, as articulated by the Warren court’s 1968 ruling in United States v. O’Brien. The outcome of that case, the O’Brien test, establishes a four-pronged series of qualifications for determining when symbolic speech can be limited: (1) Any limitation must be within the state’s constitutional powers; (2) the limitation must be driven by a compelling governmental interest; (3) that countervailing interest must be unrelated to the content of the speech, touching solely on the “non-communicative aspect” of the act in question; and (4) any limitation must be narrowly tailored and prohibit no more speech than absolutely necessary.

In practical terms, this litmus test suggests that you can carry a gun as symbolic speech, particularly in the context of a pro-Second Amendment demonstration. The state’s clear interest in maintaining public order can be narrowly satisfied by demanding that protesters either carry guns that are unloaded — at least with an open chamber — or which otherwise have the barrel or action blocked. Thus far, open carry protesters have largely followed this rule, notably by sticking tiny American flags into their guns. “If the SWAT team comes down and starts surrounding us with tactical gear, it only takes a minute to pull them out,” the organizer of one such event told reporters. “But that’s not going to happen.”

Seeing weapons featured in a public protest might strike many Americans as outrageous or alarming — something more out of a CNN segment from a foreign conflict zone than in a live broadcast from the steps of the local state capitol. But the courts have held that distressing and outrageous speech is still protected, and that even calls for the overthrow of the government made at armed rallies are protected unless those statements are expressly intended to provoke “imminent lawless action.” The Supreme Court has also extended protection to hyperbolic and figurative speech even when it involves ostensibly threatening the president.

The paradoxical upshot: if you and I get into a heated dispute at the local watering hole, and I say something ambiguous about how you’d best be quiet while casually pulling back my jacket to reveal that I’m packing heat, there’s a solid chance I’ve just committed felony brandishing — but if I stand outside an event featuring the president of the United States with a loaded handgun and a sign invoking Thomas Jefferson’s injunction that the “the tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants,” I’m in the clear.

But what does it mean, in a democracy that enshrines freedom of speech, to publicly carry a gun as an expression of political dissent? Toting a weapon in a demonstration changes the stakes, transforming a protest from just another heated transaction in the marketplace of ideas into something else entirely. It’s bringing a gun to an idea-fight, gesturing as close as possible to outright violence while still technically remaining within the domain of speech. Like a military “show of force,” this gesture stays on the near side of an actual declaration of war while remaining indisputably hostile. The commitment to civil disagreement is merely provisional: I feel so strongly about this issue, the gun says, that if I don’t get my way, I am willing to kill for it. As Mao understood, the formal niceties of political persuasion are underwritten by the very real threat of harm. “Political power grows out of the barrel of a gun.”

We should also note that not all symbolic speech is created equal. On the contemporary stage, those bearing guns in protest are most likely to be white, right-leaning, and rural. As the historian Adam Winkler has documented, this represents a more or less direct reversal of the upheavals of the late ’60s and ’70s, when Republican politicians pursued new gun control legislation in response to armed protests by urban African-American leftists. Today, it is those most sheltered from actual state violence — from the day-to-day reality of police brutality — who also feel most threatened by the state, most free to threaten violence against hypothetical violations, and most entitled to opt out of civil discourse by reaching for their weapons. Our racial double standards for who can safely gesture at political violence are enormous. At least before his racism became public, Bundy and his supporters could point assault weapons at federal agents and be lionized as “patriots” by a United States senator and celebrated on Fox, whereas a single New Black Panther standing near a polling station while holding a billy club prompted calls on that same network for former Navy SEALs to show up in force and “fight back.”

Where does this leave us? Now more than ever, the state’s putative monopoly on violence has been counterbalanced by the free market proliferation of weapons. With over 300 million firearms in private hands in this country, there are nearly as many guns as there are Americans. By this measure, we’ve become a crude democracy not just of the vote or of the idea, but of the bullet.

Contemplating guns as speech, we confront a kind of autoimmune disorder: The tools once instrumental to the birth of our nation, and to the protection of the individual and the state alike, are increasingly turned against both. Guns historically used to midwife and safeguard the right to free speech are now growing ever more cross-wired with it, and speech cannot but be degraded in the process.

Citizens in a democracy make a certain pact with one another: to answer speech with more speech, not violence. No matter how angry what I say makes you, you do not have a right to pull a gun on me. But now the gun has already been drawn, nominally as an act of symbolic speech — and yet it still remains a gun. A slippage has occurred between the First and Second Amendments, and the First suffers as a result. The moral bravery political protest demands is no longer enough; to protest in response now requires the physical bravery to face down men with guns.

This situation is alarming, but it is also tragic. Asking after the propriety of guns in the public square ignores a basic reality: They are already there, and not just in ambiguously threatening demonstrations. We live in an era in which mass shootings have become a tacitly accepted feature of social life. Any space, public or private — offices, movie theaters, malls, street corners, schools — can be transformed at a moment’s notice into the site of a blood bath. Wherever we go, our existence as social selves — our vulnerability to one another in democratically shared spaces — is in the firing line.


Patrick Blanchfield is a doctoral candidate and Woodruff Scholar in Comparative Literature at Emory University and a graduate of the Emory Psychoanalytic Institute. He writes about American gun culture at carteblanchfield.com.

Prospero - A sensible piece that asks some serious questions.

Yes a very well argued article, particularly in its contrast between the demand for more gun control in the 1960s (similar to that moment after the Civil War) and today. This encapsulates the problem, though some Americans may disagree:

"Contemplating guns as speech, we confront a kind of autoimmune disorder: The tools once instrumental to the birth of our nation, and to the protection of the individual and the state alike, are increasingly turned against both. Guns historically used to midwife and safeguard the right to free speech are now growing ever more cross-wired with it, and speech cannot but be degraded in the process."

I think a gun in your hand is closer to your WILL than a fist.
And a rifle with a sight clicks perfectly into the male hunting eye-brain-groove that shaped the human mind. Food on the table.

Convincing the clear headed college educated bookworms that guns are harmful is a far sight different than convincing the 9-5 working stiff nobodies.

There is a lot about the USA that is good.
And lots that is bad.
Can you pare away the bad stuff, or is it all connected like our DNA?


A large part of why the USA is #1 is because our B-17s and B-29s turned our enemy's countries into rubble, while we weren't even touched. Where's the thread on Military Spending!!?????

Maybe guns will be replaced by Drones from Amazon.com that you can make on your Home 3-D Computer Printer. Blow up your boss's house from your Lazy-Boy.

Two hundred years ago Jefferson inked the Louisiana Purchase so Napoleon could march his armies around Europe. We-uns still gots frontier blood in our veins.

"In practical terms, this litmus test suggests that you can carry a gun as symbolic speech, particularly in the context of a pro-Second Amendment demonstration. The state’s clear interest in maintaining public order can be narrowly satisfied by demanding that protesters either carry guns that are unloaded — at least with an open chamber — or which otherwise have the barrel or action blocked."

It was a good article. But I think in order to satisfy the O'Brien test it would have to be a replica...something not even capable of firing. People would have a right to brandish something that symbolizes a gun but is not a gun (and not capable of functioning as a gun) in order to protest the restriction against brandishing.

In other words, if there were no second amendment concerns in preventing people from brandishing guns in public, there should be no first amendment concerns in doing the same since you shouldn't be able to use as a symbol of protest the very object whose regulation you are protesting. This would be akin to allowing people to protest the regulation of dynamite by carrying dynamite with an unlit fuse.

Fact: The United States has more guns and gun deaths than any other developed country in the world. US has 88 guns per 100 people and 10 gun-related deaths per 100,000 people — more than any of the other 27 developed countries.
Japan, on the other hand, had only .6 guns per 100 people and .06 gun-related deaths per 100,000 people, making it the country with both the fewest guns per capita and the fewest gun-related deaths.


Question: How does having lots of guns make the US safer?

America doesn't want to be safe. Even Obama's plan would just close loopholes and eliminate 30 round clips, stuff like that. In order to make a real gun bill with teeth you would need the Republicans to propose it.

My 800 dollar LG washing machine is great for the environment, but it doesn't clean clothes. It cuts off the hot water at ninety degrees, and the detergents no longer have phosphates.

My Honda is safe and computeresquely smart, but changing the starter costs 800 bucks and it no way no how is as fun as that old V-8 of my youth.

Mexicans are being slaughtered so Americans can have FUN with their friends smoking pot. This is no secret.

America still has a WINDOW where fortunes can be made and fun can be had. I'm pretty sure by now we all know that window is shutting, but until then we don't want to be Japanese, or British, or Chinese.

We want supersized Big Mac meals, Marlboros, Cocaine, Motorcycles, and Freedom.

I'd be glad to give up my .38 if everyone else gave up their gun....it's been over a year since I even fondled it. I'd be glad to make my computer history public if everyone else did. There are lots of FREEDOMS I'd be glad to give up, now that I'm old. Mother Nature is a BITCH.

A book with real unslanted relevant charts and graphs and Sherlockian insight about why the USA is so gun happy would be a great read, Nobody here has the time or resources to explain it without their ignorant personal nose getting in the way.

I think people here enjoy the fight more than the correctness. Get married and raise a Family, why doncha??!! ha ha ha (nobody takes someone with a tranny on their arm seriously, don't you know that?)

Don't forget how big the US is, some of our states are as big as England or Japan. I think a few of the states have low amounts of homicidal gun deaths. I'm sure Chicago has more homicides than Japan.

Curious. Indeed.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by martin48

Fact: The United States has more guns and gun deaths than any other developed country in the world. US has 88 guns per 100 people and 10 gun-related deaths per 100,000 people — more than any of the other 27 developed countries.
Japan, on the other hand, had only .6 guns per 100 people and .06 gun-related deaths per 100,000 people, making it the country with both the fewest guns per capita and the fewest gun-related deaths.

Question: How does having lots of guns make the US safer?

---

Here in Canada we have strict rules for firearms..

We also kill more people with knives than we do with guns.. often the household variety.. This year we might even see death from beatings to be higher than those of firearms..

Out death rate is .5 per 100k (half of the USA) and we have 1.9M licensed users or about 6% of the population.. we own about 7.5M firearms.. about 17 per 100 people..

Everyone must have a license and everyone must take a safety course to get it..

There's official police stats here..
http://www.rcmp-grc.gc.ca/cfp-pcaf/f.../index-eng.htm

We have 30 round clips here.. pinned to 5 rounds.. You cannot carry a handgun in public without a special permit.. You cannot carry any loaded firearms really.. You can carry your longarms in your hand tho and have the cartridges in your pocket.. It`s not recommended unless you want to explain yourself to the cops for half an hour.. unless you live up north where that`s kinda normal..

We like our guns in Canada.. but we`d just as soon stab you or strangle you to death by the look of things.. ;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by martin48

Fact: The United States has more guns and gun deaths than any other developed country in the world. US has 88 guns per 100 people and 10 gun-related deaths per 100,000 people — more than any of the other 27 developed countries.
Japan, on the other hand, had only .6 guns per 100 people and .06 gun-related deaths per 100,000 people, making it the country with both the fewest guns per capita and the fewest gun-related deaths.


Question: How does having lots of guns make the US safer?

---

Quite. You guys can debate the detail and niceties of the Constitution and its various amendments until the proverbial cows come home, but the facts speak - eloquently - for themselves.

If you can't see a relationship between the vast volumes of firearms held in private hands, with little control in comparison with other developed countries, and the daily litany of slaughter on your streets, in your schools, in your colleges, in your movie theatres, in your homes, you're either in denial, delusional or simply not very bright.

That's my last word on the matter; arguing with the wilfully deaf is a waste of breath which I could put to better use elsewhere.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by robertlouis

Quite. You guys can debate the detail and niceties of the Constitution and its various amendments until the proverbial cows come home, but the facts speak - eloquently - for themselves.

---

I agree with the rest of your arguments but the Constitution is not brought up as a social policy justification for widespread gun ownership. Our second amendment (the gun one) is an obstacle to passing laws that go as far as many of us would like in restricting gun ownership. I personally don't see owning guns as being much of a civil right, but I didn't write the document. There's still a lot to be said about how we can get rid of guns without offending our founding document.

One of the arguments in this thread has been does widespread gun ownership make people more or less safe. I think that argument has been won a dozen times in this thread but... It will still be revived.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by robertlouis

Quite. You guys can debate the detail and niceties of the Constitution and its various amendments until the proverbial cows come home, but the facts speak - eloquently - for themselves.

If you can't see a relationship between the vast volumes of firearms held in private hands, with little control in comparison with other developed countries, and the daily litany of slaughter on your streets, in your schools, in your colleges, in your movie theatres, in your homes, you're either in denial, delusional or simply not very bright.

That's my last word on the matter; arguing with the wilfully deaf is a waste of breath which I could put to better use elsewhere.

---

The study that martin48 is talking about also included suicide by firearms in the tally. It is a fact that Japan has a higher suicide rate than the United States and most of the developed world. However, Japanese citizens use other means to commit suicide because of strict laws on firearms in their country. Since firearm laws in the United States are lax compared to other developed nations, suicidal Americans are more likely use a firearm to commit suicide in the United States than a suicidal Japanese individual. So, there is a distortion in the numbers because of suicides. A year ago, the Washington Post did article on gun deaths and it came to an interesting conclusion: White people are more likely to use a gun to commit suicide than be murdered by a shooter; black people are more likely to die from a shooter than commit suicide by gun.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/sf/fea...ce-in-america/

Yes, everybody knows that the United States has higher gun violence; however, don't distort the numbers and blow it out of proportion.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by notdrunk

The study that martin48 is talking about also included suicide by firearms in the tally. It is a fact that Japan has a higher suicide rate than the United States and most of the developed world. However, Japanese citizens use other means to commit suicide because of strict laws on firearms in their country.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/sf/fea...ce-in-america/

Yes, everybody knows that the United States has higher gun violence; however, don't distort the numbers and blow it out of proportion.

---

I don't think the numbers were really deceptive. Some people commit suicide after much deliberation and some people do it impulsively. The same can be said for murder. The more efficiently the object in question completes the act, the more likely it's going to cause unnecessary deaths based on impulsive action.

Suicide rates often vary based on cultural factors including, significantly, that culture's beliefs and attitudes towards suicide. But it is likely that the fact that Japan has fewer guns means fewer people will commit suicide impulsively. But a gun is not the only way to commit suicide or murder. Nobody suggested it was. Only that when someone kills with a gun it is far from inevitable they would have done the same thing with less efficient means.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by broncofan

I don't think the numbers were really deceptive. Some people commit suicide after much deliberation and some people do it impulsively. The same can be said for murder. The more efficiently the object in question completes the act, the more likely it's going to cause unnecessary deaths based on impulsive action.

Suicide rates often vary based on cultural factors including, significantly, that culture's beliefs and attitudes towards suicide. But it is likely that the fact that Japan has fewer guns means fewer people will commit suicide impulsively. But a gun is not the only way to commit suicide or murder. Nobody suggested it was. Only that when someone kills with a gun it is far from inevitable they would have done the same thing with less efficient means.

---

My points are don't blow it out of proportion and understand the numbers. For example, Robert mentions "slaughter" in his latest post. Slaughter is blowing it out of proportion. According to the numbers ("facts"), there isn't a slaughter in the streets. The early 90s were way violent compared to now. Most gun deaths are suicides. The most common known crimes are property crimes.

I am not saying that United States is Maybury; however, it isn't the dirty world of Serpico.

The Second Amendment was based on a need; the need of the State to maintain a well regulated militia. At that time the State needed members of its militia to provide their own firearms when possible. That need no longer exists. Given the nature of modern weaponry it is no longer safe for the citizenry at large to arm themselves with the weapons of war. There is no longer any need to own a firearm, nor is there any longer a need for the Second Amendment. Its a vestige of day long past. Let’s repeal it before someone loses an eye.

Some hope!

High school kids gunned down, A shooter slays people watching a movie. A soldier goes on the rampage at a military base. Militia men face down US Government employees to defend a racist thief. And on and on.

Out of proportion in using the word slaughter to discuss the US obsession with guns? I don't think so notdrunk....

Gun Nutter
A person that refuses to discuss any rational attempt at gun control.


A person "says we can no longer stand by and do nothing while our children get slaughtered"

A gun nutter says "guns don't kill people"


From the Urban Dictionary

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Prospero

High school kids gunned down, A shooter slays people watching a movie. A soldier goes on the rampage at a military base. Militia men face down US Government employees to defend a racist thief. And on and on.

Out of proportion in using the word slaughter to discuss the US obsession with guns? I don't think so notdrunk....

---

Every year more people die on the road than die from firearms. You can look up the numbers to verify. Of course, people don't bring up slaughter when talking about fatalities caused by vehicles. There is an US obsession with cars too. So, yes, it is out of proportion.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by notdrunk

Every year more people die on the road than die from firearms. You can look up the numbers to verify. Of course, people don't bring up slaughter when talking about fatalities caused by vehicles. There is an US obsession with cars too. So, yes, it is out of proportion.

---

I drive places I could not plausibly walk. Driving enables me to see my relatives and aging parents. There is a danger inherent in driving but we accept the fact that modern life is impracticable without it.

On the other hand guns have the sole function of causing harm. When used for their intended purpose they maim and kill. Their utility is limited to the rarest of circumstances and is greatly outweighed by the destruction they wreak. I can't imagine what would compel you to compare modern transportation to devices whose utility can only be defined in terms of how well they threaten, maim, or kill.

I think I had this debate about a hundred pages back but it's worth noting as an analogy that people are willing to accept risks for those things that are indispensable. You see this most keenly in the regulation of drugs. If a drug saves lives then it is marketable even if it has a lot of side effects and low toxicity to efficacy.

People shouldn't object to risk alone. They should object to senseless risk. Uncalculated risk. Risk without any expected payoff. What does a gun offer for the risk that a child will accidentally blow his face off? Laughter? Bliss? A cure for disease?