One of the first victims identified among the 17 people killed was Aaron Feis, an assistant football coach and security guard. Feis was shot after reportedly throwing himself in front of students during the rampage. — Banno

I don't believe in heaven, or whatever, but cartoons like these kill me.

Mass shootings suck, and they make the news that is shown between commercials. But young people are more likely to kill you by drunk driving than with a gun, I believe, in the US. This is not at all to say that I oppose or favor this or that age restriction. Nor is it to say that I don't get the point of the cartoon. But we could just as easily show a cartoon of an 18 year old signing up for the Army or getting an abortion and not being able to buy bourbon.

It doesn't surprise me that there are 'absurd' situations in a democracy. The laws are not written by one personality. They are more like the result of sublimated civil war. This is not say that I am for or against this or that law, either. (I wouldn't expect a stranger's mere preferences to matter much, though I can imagine fitting into various pigeonholes in readers' minds.)

https://www.nhtsa.gov/risky-driving/drunk-driving

...so kids get drunk and kill each other in cars - and therefore one ought not reform gun laws?

Other similarly developed democratic nations don't suffer similar "absurd situations" re: gun violence.

Arming teachers will only make US school shootings worse

Why is there so little research on guns in the US? 6 questions answered

U.S. gun violence is a symptom of a long historical problem

Are Dead Children The Price of Freedom?

The moral perversity that allows one to think that universal healthcare is tyranny but dead school children are the price of freedom is what is corroding the soul of the United States.

...so kids get drunk and kill each other in cars - and therefore one ought not reform gun laws? — Banno

This is not at all to say that I oppose or favor this or that age restriction. — foo

This is not say that I am for or against this or that law, either. (I wouldn't expect a stranger's mere preferences to matter much, though I can imagine fitting into various pigeonholes in readers' minds.) — foo

The problem with heated political discussions is the tendency to misread and project.

I vote Democratic and would like to have voted for Sanders in the general election. Nevertheless, I find many of my liberal acquaintances too shrill.

I don't think the individual has much power to change things politically. I'm not saying they should or should not try. I'm bored with shoulds. Shoulds are as cheap as tapwater. I'm just saying that all the fervor has a certain absurdity for me. I may participate in a little earnest back and forth for the novelty, but I ultimately don't care what some distant stranger (or my next door neighbor ) thinks about the issues. Nonvoters or one little voter among millions of votes. And I'm really not sure what's best politically, and I don't mind being not sure. I do have a instinctive distrust of those who are very sure. At what cost that certainty? How homogenized is their social circle? How accurate is their sense of the kinds of people involved? For me a theoretical and imperfect neutrality is a way to stay out of red bubbles and blue bubbles where everyone sings the one true song about the bad people on the other side.

On the other hand, I like knowing that I have some way of protecting my little family against an extreme situation. The anti-gun argument tends to ignore that criminals aren't going to obey gun laws. — foo

I think, coming from a European country, this fear is probably exaggerated. Currently, most every criminal is carrying a gun because it's legal. If it weren't legal, most criminals aren't murderers that need guns and rather not serve extra time for gun possession or be labeled a criminal merely for gun possession. Most burglars, street dealers, hustlers etc. will give up their guns as a result.

In the Netherlands it's mostly organised crime where it's certain individuals' business is to kill others. They have guns and chances of you meeting them are slim as the more professional ones tend to wait until the victim is alone, if only to limit witnesses.

In summary, most criminals would obey gun laws.

I happen to fear criminals more than the state, and I don't especially fear violent crime (I'm more likely to be smashed by some texting teenager's Toyota). Nevertheless, the idea of being threatened in my own home without recourse is sufficiently odious to me that I'd miss my 'nuclear option' if it were no longer there. — foo

I can understand this sentiment. Breaking in and entry is a high impact crime that has a lot of emotional effect on the victims. On the other hand, I doubt they are often committed with the intent to commit violence - usually it's cash, phones, computers and TVs. The insurance covers those. Why even risk killing someone? I would hope killing someone is still more traumatic than being robbed and should be avoided.

Why do you put absurd in quotes? Don't you think it's an absurd situation? Perhaps you mistake me for a starry-eyed patriot. Nah, I was just born here. If Iceland will have me, I'm happy live in Bjork's garage.

I suspect moving to another country is your best solution.

What I find hardest to grasp is why Americans are so very, very frightened of their own government.

And I'm really not sure what's best politically, and I don't mind being not sure. I do have a instinctive distrust of those who are very sure. At what cost that certainty? How homogenized is their social circle? How accurate is their sense of the kinds of people involved? For me a theoretical and imperfect neutrality is a way to stay out of red bubbles and blue bubbles where everyone sings the one true song about the bad people on the other side. — foo

Isn't this informed by the assumption that all political debate is ideologically motivated or decided along partisan lines? How would that apply to Banno (Australian) or me (Dutch)? Even so, it doesn't have any bearing on whatever argument would be forwarded by either side or facts that can be checked.

Finally, at what cost is uncertainty where it concerns gun control?

I think, coming from a European country, this fear is probably exaggerated. — Benkei

Actually, I agree. Yes, it does happen. But it probably won't happen to me. There is a certain 'magic' or irrational attachment involved: 'happiness is a warm gun.' I think it's a bit macho. 'Guns are serious business, a real man's business.' But so is drinking and being proud of having a high tolerance. Or proud of having been a tourist in a risky country. Or the gentrifiers pride in living in a neighborhood that the less hip consider scary.

f it weren't legal, most criminals aren't murderers that need guns and rather not serve extra time for gun possession or be labeled a criminal merely for gun possession. Most burglars, street dealers, hustlers etc. will give up their guns as a result. — Benkei

That sounds plausible. If guns are banned, I'd give mine up. I don't know if it can happen here, though. And I would be afraid about what other parties might do. (It's just not a big issue for me. I just put my 2 cents in to pluralize the discourse a bit.)

I can understand this sentiment. Breaking in and entry is a high impact crime that has a lot of emotional effect on the victims. On the other hand, I doubt they are often committed with the intent to commit violence - usually it's cash, phones, computers and TVs. The insurance covers those. Why even risk killing someone? I would hope killing someone is still more traumatic than being robbed and should be avoided. — Benkei

I think it's Civilization and Its Discontents.

But you also assume prudence on the part of criminals. We are also a country of serial killers over here. Some of them will eat your privates. (That's meant to be funny, but it's true.)

What I find hardest to grasp is why Americans are so very, very frightened of their own government. — Banno

I don't know if the average American is all that afraid. Lots of us don't vote. When I was younger, politics was a boring channel on TV. The phrase 'belly of the empire' comes to mind. I think we have to balance the fear you mentioned with the confidence Americans have in American might.

I also think that political conversations are missing important voices, namely the voices of those who don't find it worth the trouble to participate in the conversation. Believers care enough to show up, so they clash furiously and forget that nonbelievers exist.

Something that occurred to me earlier was a Catch-22 in the American liberal's position on gun control. On the one hand, the cops are (systematically) racists, and on the other hand they should have the monopoly on legal force.

But on fear of gov., of course the drug war is violent and involves home invasion and seizure on the part of the government. I'm pretty sure we still have the gold medal on the proportion of the population we keep in cages. So that's a little scary.

But I'm more worried about some asshole texting in his or her Toyota. Seriously. And then, you know, cancer.

Banno is fine. I like Banno. But he did jump on me initially with a bad paraphrase or misreading of my point despite my anticipatory disclaimers.

I'm uncertain about the cost of uncertainty, too. I really don't know if my position is the good one. But I do believe that it doesn't matter much in the scheme of things. This is an uncomfortable thought, potentially. What if we are mostly picking out bumper stickers and making fashion statements? Do we enjoy breaking into 'tastes great' and 'less filling' groups? I think we do, and there's something dark in this that works against a willingness to tolerate the mere perception of complexity perhaps.

But you also assume prudence on the part of criminals. We are also a country of serial killers over here. Some of them will eat your privates. (That's meant to be funny, but it's true.) — foo

Totally. We're not immune unfortunately. It does assume prudence on the majority of criminals. It comes down to statistics and the relevant issues seem to be:

1. how many people want to get guns even though they're prohibited?
2. how many of those are prepared to use them against other people for other reasons than self-defense?
3. how easy is it to get a gun illegally?

I have a lot of trust that no. 1 as a percentage of the total population is quite low and that 2.as a percentage of 1. is even lower. I suspect most US gun owners are not prepared to use guns against others. 3. is the backstop for where 1 and 2 fail.

The idea is that 1, 2 and 3 taken together leads to a lower risk than:

1. how many people get guns if they're legal?
2. how many of those are prepared to use them against other people?
3. how easy is to get a gun?

So 2 is the same in both instances. 3 suggests that any type of gun control lowers risk. 1 suggests a downright prohibition has the largest effect.

All good points. Frankly, I'm not against a gun-free society. I'm open to the idea of only the police having guns. But I don't think it's a realistic possibility here. Too many out there. Too much association with the American identity perhaps. But I don't think my openness to the idea will have a measurable bearing on whether it ever happens.

Something I worry about, however, is that there may be a kind of mass killing 'meme' that will seek other means. Yes, guns are part of the problem. But is there not some twisted desire for instant fame? A nobody can become a somebody in the blink of an eye. Vilified, sure, but no publicity is bad publicity for some nasty part of human nature. The killers seem to plot so that their numbers are respectfully obscene. One or two corpses in a school would make the news. Will they switch to bombs or poison? This is no reason to keep guns out the hands of the crazy little shits. I just wonder whether we can stop this kind of thing altogether (which is not to say we shouldn't try, just in case I need to emphasize that for partisan ears.)

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2018/feb/22/trump-proposal-teachers-guns-schools

Just. Wow.

http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/trump-control-florida-shooting-school-teachers-arming-weapons-protect-parkland-a8222806.html

Key parts:

So these guns will be in a closet/drawer/briefcase which will obviously have to be kept locked so that students can't steal the gun and use it themselves. Because really, the most ideal situation for a school shooter would be to break in and access the gun they know is in their classroom rather than having to go through all the pesky admin of buying one themselves.

...

A teacher who is trained to be a good shot should have no problem whatsoever sensing the presence of an active shooter while in the middle of teaching a lesson on photosynthesis, unlocking the closet/drawer/briefcase where the pistol is kept, calmly pulling the pistol out, getting off a clean shot, and taking out the active shooter before he sprays bullets across the classroom with an assault weapon. No problem whatsoever.

'm a gun owning American (liberal/moderate, I suppose.) Maybe I can add some perspective. I would rather live in a society where I would never need a gun. Arguably I don't need the one I have. It mostly sits in the same place, just in case. And I surely don't want the legal trouble or the publicity that would come with using it.

On the other hand, I like knowing that I have some way of protecting my little family against an extreme situation. — foo

I'm under the impression that in the US if you keep a gun at home to protect your home and family while you are at home, what you have actually done is create a much more dangerous environment. Perhaps if you're really, really well-trained, a gun might help you in the case of a home invasion of some kind. But very, very few people are that well trained (and that includes almost everyone who thinks they are!). So score one on the side of guns creating/increasing danger in the case of confrontation with criminals. And, in some states in the US, your obligation and duty under the law is to retreat if you can. Score again for guns creating/increasing danger, this time from the law!

But there is also a whole raft of evidence that just the presence of a gun adds/creates a lot of danger of lots of different kinds, including a family member shooting a family member. The point is that your odds of being harmed in lots of ways, under lots of conditions is zero, if you do not have a gun. If you do have a gun, you're more likely to be harmed by it than protected by it. (To understand the underlying math, which is actually not too difficult, and makes sense once you get it, search Bayes' Theorem. Several Youtube videos do a good job explaining it.)

Bottom line: unless you are thoroughly trained and practiced, and experienced, you're much safer in your home without a gun than with one. That's the math; that's the statistics; that's the experience; that's the fact of the matter.

Assuming you're not very well-trained, practiced and experienced, for your own sake and for your family's and neighbors' and community's sakes, will you give up your gun? I suspect not, because behind all the macho posturing about protecting this and that, it's really all about owning a big metal penis. To which all anyone can say is, you're the danger! Get therapy, and grow up!

I'm just highlighting it.

It's all about money, really. In the end, this kind of thinking merely supports the sale of even more guns. More people with guns means more guns sold. The headline for this kind of advocacy should be: "PEOPLE WHO ALREADY HAVE GUNS WANT MORE PEOPLE TO HAVE GUNS TO STOP OTHER PEOPLE WHO ALREADY HAVE GUNS."

The purchase of guns is the end in view; it's the constant in this kind of "solution." The question to ask is: Cui bono (more accurately, cui bono fuisset)? Translation" "To whose benefit is it?" A maxim employed by my distant ancestor, Marcus Tullius Cicero, as an advocate, but which he ascribed to Lucius Cassius Longinus.

It's all about money, really. — Ciceronianus the White

If only they could be a little more subtle about it. But maybe they don't have to be any more. :death:

Dammit, you quoted my post before I could claim Cicero is my ancestor (this may be an exaggeration) and use some Latin. Sometimes I don't act quickly enough when being silly and showing off.

On the other hand, I like knowing that I have some way of protecting my little family against an extreme situation. — foo

Injuries and deaths due to firearms in the home.

Guns kept in homes are more likely to be involved in a fatal or nonfatal accidental shooting, criminal assault, or suicide attempt than to be used to injure or kill in self-defense.

Fact is, you have made your home less safe.