It's both interesting and terrifying. A glorious civilisation collapsing before our eyes. While an ancient one rises in the East (er... north, form here...)

Unfortunately, we live in interesting times.

I think Meghan got scammed. She kissed a prince but he's still turning into a bald frog.

While an ancient one rises in the East (er... north, form here...) — Banno

The next big question is
How far are they going to rise before we all get wiped out in the conflict?

I think Meghan got scammed. She kissed a prince but he's still turning into a bald frog. — Benkei

Yes, and that's why guns should be banned.

It's a combination though isn't it? The last thing you need in a toxic bullying environment is easy availability of guns. — Baden

It is a nasty combination and one that can be reduced by responsible gun owners keeping their firearms locked up, securely held and our children properly trained in what to do when they see a gun, how to handle it and who to notify if you stumble across a firearm.

Bullying has been around forever and in the past, the two foes would meet outside afterschool, under the bleachers and it would be attended by many and there would be one victor and one loser.
Now? In the age of technology and shock tv, you get kids filming a brawl that will be cast worldwide if not in real time. Imagine the magnitude of that kind of bullying, bullying that spreads like wildfire on social media that leads to being ostracized.

The one objective commonality is that it is males that are expressing themselves this way with a firearm or firearms. Something more than the availability of firearms to teenagers is going on in the home. Young men (hunters mostly) have learned how to use guns before the age of 10 for generations and school shootings were almost nonexistent. Something within our society, within the familial structures has changed.

It might have to do with two income families shifting from oddity to normalcy. And the reason I say that is as a stay at home Mom in 2002, I was checking on the kids playing in the driveway when I noticed two of the boys who lived next door using a hammer and a screwdriver trying to break something on the sidewalk. So I walked over and asked what they were doing and they had a handful of bullets and they were trying to crack them open to get to the black stuff that SNAPS are made of, so they could make more to play with. I asked them to give me the bullets and asked where they had gotten them? They said they were their Grampa's and he didn't know they took them. I asked them to bring me the rest of the bullets and I would return them to Grampa when he got home and then gave them a lecture about what I was worried about and how bullets and firearms should be handled.

Now, what happened after I talked to Gramps, I don't know but I did what I could given the chance I had.

I'm a responsible explosive collector. I keep explosives at my home, but I'm really careful not to blow myself or anyone else up, or allow the wrong people to get their hands on them, even though you can never be sure, but that's a risk I'm willing to take, because what's more important: human lives or my desire to keep explosives? It's my right to keep explosives, and I encourage others to keep explosives too, so long as they're responsible, even though I know that there are irresponsible people out there, and that, with the situation as it is, some of them will inevitably get their hands on explosives, wreak havoc, and, as a consequence, many innocent people will die. But it's my right, and besides, what if the terminator comes after me? I'll need explosives to protect myself and my family. Why should we allow the regular occurrence of massacres involving explosives to ruin it for the rest of us?

It is a nasty combination and one that can be reduced by responsible gun owners keeping their firearms locked up, securely held and our children properly trained in what to do when they see a gun, how to handle it and who to notify if you stumble across a firearm. — ArguingWAristotleTiff

But many gun owners aren't responsible. Is there a way to force them to be so short of threatening to take their guns off them?

But many gun owners aren't responsible. Is there a way to force them to be so short of threatening to take their guns off them? — Baden

You do not need to be a gun, or even explosives, collector to be dangerous to your kids. Most parents are careless with house cleaning products that are poisonous or flammable. Lots of parents don't have child protection locks on doors to places that can be harmful to kids.
But I would like to ask how many of these mass murderers used their family's guns to kill people?

I know that there have been many accidents and murders with the house protection weapon caused through carelessness or ease of access. But mass murders usually acquire their weapons just for that purpose and most families have no idea they have them.

The American obsession with guns is not behavioral. What's behavioral is the epidemic of bullying in middle and high schools. This Texas kid is yet another example of someone who was teased, belittled, and ostracized, not only by classmates, but by staff and teachers, as well. And if the one report I read is correct, then the shooter picked who to shoot, sparing those students who were likely kind and didn't bully him.

Being a millennial myself, and having experienced all sorts of different schools in several states, I don't see a gun issue when shootings like the Texas one happen, I see the effects of bullying and the utterly toxic and psychologically warped environment that is now the prevailing habitat in schools across America. It's pernicious, and I've seen first hand how most students aren't willing to be better or to check their own behavior and how it affects others. The world's just a fucking joke and a meme to kids of my generation, and the consequences of their actions have no bearing on their behavior. It's sickening to me, and I get tired of seeing people blame guns and Nazis and whatever else when there are some seriously fucked up shit going on schools and other places that contribute hugely to people doing even more terrible things. — Buxtebuddha

Except bullying isn't an epidemic exclusive to American schools. In fact, boys ages 11-15, in nations such as Canada, Switzerland, France, and Ireland have reported being bullied more often than boys in the USA. The only epidemic exclusive to the USA is the virulent obsession with guns.

But in your eagerness to blame everything save for the weapons themselves, perhaps you missed the important detail that one of the victims of the Santa Fe High School shooter was a girl who repeatedly turned down the shooter's increasingly aggressive advancements, until she publicly stood up to him in class. She was killed the following week. She did not bully him. She merely told him no multiple times and he could not accept rejection. This is precisely the toxic masculinity that we often speak about on the Left, and women have every right to fear for their lives over it.

Also the shooter literally had images on Nazi symbols on his now deactivated social media accounts, so it seems weird that we can't literally blame Nazism when the proof is in the pudding.

You do not need to be a gun, or even explosives, collector to be dangerous to your kids. Most parents are careless with house cleaning products that are poisonous or flammable. Lots of parents don't have child protection locks on doors to places that can be harmful to kids. — Sir2u

And around we go again. This response leads to a dead end, remember? There are other dangers, so it's alright to keep guns and explosives?

But I would like to ask how many of these mass murderers used their family's guns to kill people?

I know that there have been many accidents and murders with the house protection weapon caused through carelessness or ease of access. But mass murders usually acquire their weapons just for that purpose and most families have no idea they have them. — Sir2u

It isn't worth the risk, and that there have been many accidents and murders is reason enough. If such weapons could not be acquired in the first place, then it wouldn't be a problem. Reduced arsenal, reduced options.

But many gun owners aren't responsible. — Baden

That is a truer than true statement.

Is there a way to force them to be so short of threatening to take their guns off them? — Baden

I honestly don't know if there is "a" way because multi generations that have lived through different times than our current environment. So a multiple prong approach is necessary to address those underage, their parents and those elders who currently own firearms.

I think one of the best systems we have in place, which is voluntary and costs money, is to expose children to firearms in a controlled, safe and instructive environment. They are taught how to handle the finding of a firearm, they are made comfortable in informing an authority of the firearm, they are taught that firearms are not cool but are to be respected. They are taught such a different perspective than those who are not properly exposed. We have to teach our children to be leaders and not afraid to "tell someone" who can do something about it. See something, say something...is drilled into their psyche.

As far as those of us that are beyond our parents reach that have not been professionally trained? It's a crap shoot Baden. There are times when you can get adults to understand a new idea of how to look at things and then there are not. The adults willing to understand a new idea are not the same folks who leave their firearms/ammo or both unsecure.

People must have guns and use them to stop people who have guns and use them on people who have no guns and therefore cannot use them. When more people have guns, there will be less people who don't have guns that people who have guns and use them can kill, and more people who have guns and can use them on people who have guns and use them. Fewer doors means that fewer people with guns can use those doors and use their guns on people who don't have guns, and also means that people who have guns can more easily use them to stop the fewer people who have guns who use the fewer doors. More guns, fewer doors. It's all so clear.

It's a crap shoot Baden — ArguingWAristotleTiff

Wouldn't it be less of a crap shoot if training was compulsory?

Except bullying isn't an epidemic exclusive to American schools. In fact, boys ages 11-15, in nations such as Canada, Switzerland, France, and Ireland have reported being bullied more often than boys in the USA. The only epidemic exclusive to the USA is the virulent obsession with guns. — Maw

Yes, and females report having less affairs and sexual encounters than men, so women must all be telling the truth, even though its statistically impossible, :up:

But in your eagerness to blame everything save for the weapons themselves — Maw

Did you even read what I wrote?

This is precisely the toxic masculinity that we often speak about on the Left, and women have every right to fear for their lives over it. — Maw

Toxic masculinity is a horseshit and repulsive idea employed by sexists like you who want to make predatory and abusive behavior singular to the male sex. A creep is a creep, but if you want to fit people into your own perverted categories, go right on ahead, just don't expect people to take you seriously when you do.

Also the shooter literally had images on Nazi symbols on his now deactivated social media accounts, so it seems weird that we can't literally blame Nazism when the proof is in the pudding. — Maw

Yes, I'm sure Pagourtzis reads Mein Kampf, speaks fluent Bavarian German, has blonde hair and blue eyes, owns a Nazi Party membership booklet, yodels from the Alps, hates every Stein in the world...

The majority of crimes committed with guns use illegally obtained guns. More people in America have guns, about 1 per person, than in the last 20 years, and there has been a decrease in gun violence as a whole, despite what the media would have you believe.

Let's try this: is there anyone who believes that an individual in the US of A has a right to own a gun? And of those who do, how many believe that right is absolute, i.e., unalienable?

Ah, so when confronted with statistics that are at variance to your armchair analysis, those surveyed must simply be liars. That's the precisely type of absurd obtuseness I've repeatedly come to expect from you, Buxtebuddha. I guess the real epidemic here is that boys in various developed countries are lying! I did read your post - a vexing experience as usual - and it's filled with indigent scrutiny including bullying ( "What's behavioral is the epidemic of bullying in middle and high schools", "I see the effects of bullying and the utterly toxic and psychologically warped environment that is now the prevailing habitat in schools across America") and some strain of millennial nihilism ("The world's just a fucking joke and a meme to kids of my generation"), while being at best dismissive ("The American obsession with guns is not behavioral", "I don't see a gun issue when shootings like the Texas one happen") and apathetic ("Ban guns" may sound easy, and there are many measures we can and ought to take, but whether it helps those individuals who do want to kill people as an act of revenge...I don't think so") because it A) ignores the indisputable fact that the preponderance of guns is the only correlative answer as to why American gun violence far outstrips that of other developed nations and B) misses the point entirely, because gun violence is not reducible to school shootings, but is an every day occurrence in America.

Toxic masculinity is a horseshit and repulsive idea employed by sexists like you who want to make predatory and abusive behavior singular to the male sex. A creep is a creep, but if you want to fit people into your own perverted categories, go right on ahead, just don't expect people to take you seriously when you do. — Buxtebuddha

Let's be clear: toxic masculinity does not preclude the fact that women can be also abusive, predatory, or creepy. These are not exclusive phenomenon. But you are hopelessly clueless if you cannot acknowledge the extremity of toxic masculinity in practice, including Isla Vista, his imitator, and now the recent Santa Fe shooting.

Yes, I'm sure Pagourtzis reads Mein Kampf, speaks fluent Bavarian German, has blonde hair and blue eyes, owns a Nazi Party membership booklet, yodels from the Alps, hates every Stein in the world... — Buxtebuddha

Ah, so any modern form of Nazism is innocuous, because it needs to fit a certain stereotype in a certain time period that not even Hitler himself measures up to. Breathtakingly brilliant.

Ah, so when confronted with statistics that are at variance to your armchair analysis, those surveyed must simply be liars. — Maw

Reports don't always reflect reality.

That's the precisely type of absurd obtuseness I've repeatedly come to expect from you, Buxtebuddha. I guess the real epidemic here is that boys in various developed countries are lying! I did read your post - a vexing experience as usual - and it's filled with indigent scrutiny including bullying — Maw

You're enjoying practicing your writing skills right now, aren't you? Please, just look into my eyes when you finger your keyboard, it's hot.

some strain of millennial nihilism — Maw

How many fiery hoops did you leap through to get from "bullying is a problem" to "Buxte's a nihilist"?

dismissive — Maw

I'm allowed to be dismissive, right? You're being dismissive, so why can't I?

apathetic — Maw

I didn't know discussing a topic on an internet forum makes me apathetic toward the uh...topic. Hmm, yeah, makes perfect sense, bruh.

A) ignores the indisputable fact that the preponderance of guns is the only correlative answer as to why American gun violence far outstrips that of other developed nations — Maw

You're indisputably a moron. There, see? I can throw big absolutist words around too!

B) misses the point entirely, because gun violence is not reducible to school shootings, but is an every day occurrence in America. — Maw

Solving gun violence is also not reducible to banning guns as the sole solution. I offered but a window into some of the other factors that can go into mass shootings. If you're not willing to entertain those, whatever.

Let's be clear: toxic masculinity does not preclude the fact that women can be also abusive, predatory, or creepy. These are not exclusive phenomenon. But you are hopelessly clueless if you cannot acknowledge the extremity of toxic masculinity in practice, including Isla Vista, his imitator, and now the recent Santa Fe shooting. — Maw

I deny that toxic masculinity exists. Most people stand with me in that denial. Toxic femininity also does not exist. What does exist is the occurrence of ill deeds committed by people prone to immoral actions. If you want to pigeon hole every bad man into your pseudo-scientific categorization, go right on ahead. However, and as I said before, don't be surprised when few outside your clique take you seriously.

Ah, so any modern form of Nazism is innocuous, because it needs to fit a certain stereotype in a certain time period that not even Hitler himself measures up to. Breathtakingly brilliant. — Maw

Actual Nazism is a stereotype? :lol:

Talk to the hand.

I believe so. Guns are very important for fighting off tyrannical governments. Is it likely that a tyrannical government will arise soon? No, however I'm not going to take that chance, seeing as how all past democracies have failed and become tyrannical. Guns are also almost necessary for self defense, or fighting off home invasion. On top of that, many people rely on their guns for killing animals to eat.

I've come to the conclusion it's more of a cultural thing though and isn't going to change in the foreseeable. — Baden

As I was mucking yesterday, I began to think about the changes we can make to help keep the legal guns, in the legal hands of adults. Real change takes time and we are changing, slowly but we are changing.

Since the Parkland school shooting there have been changes in gun control but it won't ever be recognized because without complete confiscation, there are people around the world that will not be content with what Americans have rights to. Fair?

I will mention the changes that have been made, though I doubt the moves will ever be recognized on the world stage and that is okay with me. I want to turn our eyes inward to better our nation and am tired of giving two bits of a shit of what works in other countries because you are right, it is a cultural thing, a living right and one that is protected as vigilantly as our right to freedom of speech. One that no matter how many changes are made it will never be enough. Is that because of the controls that others have on their own lives that they have to live by?

Two of the largest nationwide private companies that sell firearms to the public, voluntarily raised the minimum purchasing age from 18 to 21. Knowingly taking a loss from those who are responsible firearm owners for the sake of public safety.

Some private businesses cut ties with NRA customers that used to receive discounts as a result of being a NRA member. Private businesses cutting ties with prospective clients is not a way to succeed in a capitalistic society. Yet hotels, car rental businesses and other associated businesses that rely on loyalty programs cut ties to do their part in the control of guns being used in a nefarious way.

Ironically, the one change that will make a difference has been made in Florida and five other states and has nothing to do with stricter gun control. No, it is implementing the 'Red Flag' legislation that allows the temporary taking of guns and ammunition by law enforcement officers and family members from people who pose a risk and show warning signs of violent behavior.

Do you have any other ideas? I genuinely want to entertain them.

The question had to do with right"and the nature of that right. You have instead answered with your view of a fantasy. Would you argue that individual ownership of guns is a duty and not a right, and (perhaps) everyone should be issued one?

Up above I posted a link to a funny video about guns, including about using them for home protection. Funny, but pointed. Assuming you own a gun for the reasons and purposes you listed, how exactly do you keep your gun for home defense?

I will say again, that the nature of the right to own a gun is for checks and balances of the individual or state-built militia against the federal government, if such a tyranny were to arise. I don't see how it is a fantasy, it is a logical conclusion considering past mistakes. It is a right in the sense that we as individuals have right to freedom, and to protect that freedom.

I don't own a gun, however it is very easy to own a gun and keep it in storage, whether in a case or just in a closet.

You apparently don't understand what a right is in a civil society, or what our constitution says. Of course you're "free" to operate outside civil society, but usually that makes you a criminal, and in any case it's likely that feel "free" to enjoy the benefits of that society, even as you cherry-pick its requirements.

And it appears you're ignorant of statistics that pretty much prove that you and yours are at much greater risk in every way from the presence of a gun than from any bogey man of your fantasies.

As to tyranny, I think no American of the 18th, 19th, or early 20th centuries would tolerate either the grand or petit tyrannies that are now everyday occurrences - flown anywhere lately? Which leaves the question, do you even know what a tyranny is? What's an example of a tyranny that would have you get out your gun and presumably use it.

And while you're getting locked and loaded, try to remember you neglect the weapon the rest of the world feels is much more powerful, and that the US Constitution both enshrines and protects: your vote!

You're telling me that you don't think freedom and protecting said freedom is a right? I don't understand. What sort of tyranny are you talking of? A foreign tyranny? The Constitution was designed to protect America and its people, and that's what I'm speaking of. An example of a tyranny I would rebel against would be one that redistributes my wealth to the poor, invades my right to privacy, and throws me in jail without habeas corpus. And please cite these statistics, I have many sources that state that gun violence has decreased, in spite of the fact that gun ownership has increased. (Take note, these sources I'm going to present you with are already left wing, therefore disproving any sort of agenda.)

Source 1, massive decline in gun violence: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2015/12/03/weve-had-a-massive-decline-in-gun-violence-in-the-united-states-heres-why/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.e3cda9da3cbe

Source 2, amount of gun ownership: http://www.politifact.com/wisconsin/statements/2018/feb/20/kevin-nicholson/which-higher-number-people-or-number-guns-america/

Source 3, more crimes committed with illegal guns than legally obtained: http://www.politifact.com/new-york/statements/2018/mar/12/john-faso/do-illegal-gun-owners-commit-most-gun-crime-rep-fa/

I do not understand what I did to deserve getting my comments removed. However, if you do not understand the implication of a government with control of all firearms, then you are lost. A government that has control of all firearms could easily become a dictatorship, allowing majority rule on everything in the United States. We have checks and balances that make sure something like this doesn't happen, which is why the right to bear arms is written in the constitution, same with the right to free speech, right to assembly, the reason the electoral college exists, the reason there are three branches of government, the reason there is a state and federal government, etc.

You're telling me that you don't think freedom and protecting said freedom is a right? — ep3265

What kind of a right do you think it is, and how do you think that right works?

An example of a tyranny I would rebel against would be one that redistributes my wealth to the poor, invades my right to privacy, and throws me in jail without habeas corpus. — ep3265

Hello! What planet are you on? Or, why aren't you on the road even as we speak protecting yourself, and presumably the rest of us, by using your gun on the folks who bring you these tyrannies. And who do you think authored the tyrannies you name?

which is why the right to bear arms is written in the constitution — ep3265

Sure, but this is not a right for an individual to own a gun. If you think it is, do some more reading. If' you're convinced it is, then you're the victim of a fraud. See two links to two videos I posted above, one with Chief Justice Earl Warren and the other with (?) Stephen Breyer. If you think any right in the Constitution is absolute, then you don't fully understand the document (see video of Justice Souter speaking at Harvard).

I noticed the references provided for statistics referred mainly to crimes. A lot of gun violence is not the result of a crime. I also find this:

" Gun violence in the United States results in tens of thousands of deaths and injuries annually. In 2013, there were 73,505 nonfatal firearm injuries (23.2 injuries per 100,000 U.S. citizens), and 33,636 deaths due to "injury by firearms" (10.6 deaths per 100,000 U.S. citizens)."

Compare that to wartime injuries and deaths among soldiers when America is at war. I find this online:
"The Vietnam Conflict Extract Data File of the Defense Casualty Analysis System (DCAS) Extract Files contains records of 58,220 U.S. military fatal casualties of the Vietnam War."

Anything about these numbers strike you as interesting?

The conclusion I come to is that guns are dangerous. Dangerous enough to require some appropriate action to reduce that danger to an acceptable level. How many people would you like to see die or be wounded by a gun in the US next year, so that you might enjoy your gun fantasies. I say fantasies deliberately. If you object to the term, then make it real.

What kind of a right do you think it is, and how do you think that right works?

I don't really understand that question. I think it's a human right, as do most Americans. I think it works because of the standards of living in America.

Or, why aren't you on the road even as we speak protecting yourself, and presumably the rest of us, by using your gun on the folks who bring you these tyrannies. — tim wood

Because none of these atrocities have been realized.

Sure, but this is not a right for an individual to own a gun. — tim wood

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.

If you think any right in the Constitution is absolute, then you don't fully understand the document (see video of Justice Souter speaking at Harvard). — tim wood

No right in the Constitution is absolute, this is why they are amendments instead of articles. However, no right in the Bill of Rights has ever been overturned, and it should stay that way.

I noticed the references provided for statistics referred mainly to crimes. A lot of gun violence is not the result of a crime. — tim wood

Um, yes it is. Gun violence is by definition a crime.

Anything about these numbers strike you as interesting? — tim wood

Not really. The American civilian population in the current day is considerably greater than the American military population during Vietnam. Overall the amount of gun violence is decreasing overtime, and I think that's a good sign. Even the amount of mass shootings have been decreasing over time. The news media over blows things out of proportion to make certain crimes seem more egregious than they really are, and even though they are very sad and devastating, it's our price for freedom.

Because none of these atrocities have been realized. — ep3265

Yes, they have, they are. Not that they're all atrocities. They're part of the air we breathe, which is perhaps why you don't even recognize them.

I don't really understand that question. I think it's a human right, as do most Americans. I think it works because of the standards of living in America. — ep3265

I was thinking civil right or natural right. Human right... what's that?

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. — ep3265

Three words: individual, person, people. They're not the same; they don't mean the same thing. And are you a well-regulated militia?

Um, yes it is. Gun violence is by definition a crime. — ep3265

You must be referring to crimes which involved gun violence. I was referring to the violence that a gun causes, whether in a crime or not. You might want to take some time and research the meaning of the word "crime."

The news media over blows things out of proportion to make certain crimes seem more egregious than they really are, and even though they are very sad and devastating, it's our price for freedom. — ep3265

More egregious than they really are? And it's not a price we pay for freedom; it's the price we all pay, some more than others, for a lunatic license.

Instead of arguing this anymore - and I'm not sure anyone else is interested - try by yourseof arguing the other side. At present, I think the fog around your thinking prevents you from even seeing it, and certainly interferes with your thinking. That is, I suspect you're a victim, and you do not even know it.