I haven't mentioned explosives at all, but hand saws and Caustic Soda; both of which are freely available for purchase. — John

Then your point is even more attenuated. If you think that a guy with a saw and lye can cause as much death as a man with a gun, then you shouldn't mind banning guns. Arm yourself with lye and saws -- I hear they're just as deadly as guns. NOT!

But the proof's in the pudding: gun nuts use guns. It probably has something to do with how deadly they are even for unskilled dolts who worship guns. I suspect most people can run away from a man with a saw carrying ten kilos of caustic substances.

Your argument reduces to a claim that gun restrictions can't be perfect; therefore why have them? — Landru Guide Us

Try sometimes a new thing, Landru, read what the others actually write.

Take example from BitterCrank (or Throng above). They actually responded and made remarks to what I wrote and what I've been trying to say.

(One Canadian said to me once that Americans don't discuss issues in order to exchange ideas or viewpoints; they just pertinaciously and stubbornly repeat their own line and don't care what others say. Seems someone fits here into that category.)

Unfortunately guns, gun ownership, gun violence, the 2nd Amendment, and some other issues have been become so intertwined they are inseparable. — Bitter Crank

That's the main problem in my understanding too. Once you have the 2nd Amendment argument, the NRA has, well, a logical negotiating tactic of simply object to every legislation attempt. 2nd Amendment makes this easy as it makes gun regulation an issue of principle. This then makes it a "freedom that Americans enjoy", hence the issue becomes more than just some regulation, waiting times, bureaucracy to obtain a gun licence otherwise it would be. Gun legislation itself becomes this way "to attack the liberties that Americans enjoy". And what this means that the issue has ended up in a typical political cul-de-sac like many things in the US nowdays. And that cul-de-sac just creates a highly juxtapositional environment where there isn't any actual attempt to get a consensus. In fact, the "opposing sides" just keep mudslinging each other. And hence you end up with attitudes like Landru has here... and similar attitudes on the other side. And when the 1/3 of Americans owning guns means that a 1/3 (or even half of those) is a voter base far too big to forget.

You noted 5 well articulated problems. Gun legislation effects naturally every problem at least indirectly in some way. The biggest effect I see is the second problem, even if you correctly note that this is an health care issue too. Unfortunately how much an effective mental health care system prevents mass shootings we never can now. But actually if one really talks about gun deaths and to prevent them, then health care programs would be a major contributor to get the statistics down. Let's not forget that the majority of gun deaths are suicides. Sure, people can kill themselves easily by other means too, but proper health care can prevent suicides.

The third problem is difficult, because even now there are so many guns around in the US. Crime and for example gang related use of guns are part of the first problem you noted. Povetry is a cause for crime. Restrictions do work and so does police work, but the main cause is economic. Even if some people really want to be criminals, the majority just drift there.

So what could be done?

Well, you can hope that some massacre will create a opportunity to quickly put in some legislation, but that won't solve the thing. And not the political climate.

The first thing I think would be to try to change the self-defeating juxtapositional public discourse where this has become an issue that seems to divide by party lines. A good way would be to approach the legislation thing from the safety aspect. Starting from the fact that the US has statistically far too many accidents with guns than other countries have. That toddlers end up accidentally being killed with guns. Gun safety is something that even the NRA accepts. Approach the media here too. All those gun shows (or the new Gun TV) etc. wouldn't have a problem with it. Then approach the mentality just how and when to use guns. Like those people who are ready to fire their shotgun when somebody comes to their land. Yes, it may sound extremely lame, but the I think the main problem here is why nothing happens in the US is that everything in US politics has to be a fight and hence nothing goes through.

Try sometimes a new thing, Landru, read what the others actually write. — ssu

I prefer to deal with your gun fetish cliches as cliches

I thought this was a good response to the sanctimonious and hypocritical calls for prayers by various candidates for the nomination to the POTUS slot on the ballot.

Though there has been an uproar over the idea of prayer being the way to fix this problem, I do believe in the full quote that I read which was "God did not create terrorism, man did, so please do not look to God to fix terrorism."
At the same time, we are a nation who respects all faiths, so please pray if you wish but prayers are not going to settle this war between humanities.

There's a difference between a society with a police force and a militarized society where everybody is primed to engage in gun violence. One difference is that the latter consistently suffers from gun massacres and their public space is eroded. Which of course is the goal of the gun fetishists. Their attack is really on the notion of democracy and a public realm. — Landru Guide Us

There are more possibilities than two, however. Most gun owners are not "militarized" -- and even those who are are no more militarized than our present day police force ;). Owning one's violence does not mean that you are militarized, either. It means that your choices to use violence are closer to home and harder to forget. I certainly don't call the police to my house.

What you present here is a false dichotomy, and not merely in some hypothetical sense. Gun ownership and usage is not an attack on public space or democracy. Many people own weapons without the fetishism you're targeting.

In any case, the proposition that a armed society (forced militarization of every citizen) is a polite society is utter and complete rubbish. It's just the opposite of course. And the opposite is the purpose.

I've agreed to your first sentence, though I don't agree with the latter.

I certainly don't call the police to my house. — Moliere

If I may be so bold to ask: why you don't call the police to your house?

They treat people in our neighborhood differently than they treat people in other neighborhoods. There are worse places than my house, but the popo are hella corrupt in this city. I've witnessed them lie to defend each other in court -- I know they were lying because I had video evidence to the contrary. And they're an egotistical and trigger happy lot who don't go to the range as often as me. I'm also generally pretty good at de-escalating situations, where they. . . aren't.

Plus I've an anarchist streak through me, and so while I'm willing to work with the state, there's some personal disposition that just hates police in particular.

The reasons you expressed are exactly the same here in AZ. Somewhere along the way, the Peace Officer became the Police Officer who has now been militarized. It seems like a losing battle here with Sheriff Joe because any other person, who has done what he has, would be sitting in a Federal prison but I digress.

Today the talking heads suggested that the Police Officers we have on the street, are not only our first line of defense, but they are having to morph from being a Guardian of our promised security to being the Warrior that has to be willing to take a bullet for what is often a very unappreciative public that no longer trusts those who are called to "help".

Privately armed citizens are able to react within seconds of an attack, those we have to 'call in' might be able to arrive at an active shooter situation in somewhere between 5 and 15 minutes. The majority of the massacres are happening within the response time of a privately armed citizen, rather than a prolonged siege.

Just for the record: I live in Arizona and the law allows individuals, to legally carry a concealed weapon, without a permit.
However there are in fact individuals who have lost their right to own a firearm. I am one of those people because as long as I am a Legal Medical Cannabis patient and Cannabis is still against the Federal Law, the gun dealer would have to decline the sale of a firearm to me, because in the Federal Governments eyes, Cannabis consumption is against the law and they cannot sell to someone they know is breaking the law.

I have no objection to sincere prayer; neither does God (He said so). When politicians who are running for office call for prayer, especially those politicians who are highly unlikely to do anything about violence in America, one should presume that a mendacious travesty is underway.

Suggesting that our thought and prayers be with the victims is cheap grace. It's a ploy. It's an affront to both the victims and to the God to whom the prayers would be directed.

What the legislators should be praying for is the courage to do what any rational legislature would do, even if it means they are bounced from office in the next election: enact laws that tighten access to assault weapons and hand guns--laws that are as tight as the NRA's grip on these bastards' balls.

What the legislators should be praying for is the courage to do what any rational legislature would do, even if it means they are bounced from office in the next election: enact laws that tighten access to assault weapons and hand guns--laws that are as tight as the NRA's grip on these bastards' balls. — Bitter Crank

I am afraid that prayers are not going to give them the level of courage they need. It is going to take serious hard work, at every community level, to change anything regarding a limitation on firearms that are not already in place. Much like the Chinese Finger Puzzles, the harder the two ends pull, the tighter and smaller that middle ground gets.

We know the solution, right? One of the two opposing sides is going to have to willingly give in to the others idea in order to move anywhere. As divided as our country is, I just don't see the gun right advocates giving in and the sales of firearms and ammo since the attack in Paris are feverishly, perversely high. At the same time I do not see the gun control advocates backing down.

So tightly connected we are, stuck in the puzzle of our own making. Ironic thing about humanity is, that neither side will willingly give in, even though they know it is the only way to a compromise.

I prefer to deal with your gun fetish cliches as cliches — Landru Guide Us

Yep. You're just an internet troll.

No reason to respond to you.

Yep. Your just an internet troll.

No reason to respond to you. — ssu

You just did.

Meanwhile, not a single post by the gun advocates here is anything other than debunked NRA memes. NEXT DEBUNKED RIGHTWING MEME!

Just for the record: I live in Arizona and the law allows individuals, to legally carry a concealed weapon, without a permit.
However there are in fact individuals who have lost their right to own a firearm. I am one of those people because as long as I am a Legal Medical Cannabis patient and Cannabis is still against the Federal Law, the gun dealer would have to decline the sale of a firearm to me, because in the Federal Governments eyes, Cannabis consumption is against the law and they cannot sell to someone they know is breaking the law. — ArguingWAristotleTiff

Begging the question: Why? Why limit gun ownership and possession one case and not another?

If gun advocates really believe the 2nd Amendment doesn't allow us to limit guns in all sorts of reasonable ways, then they have to admit that it doesnt allow us to limit guns in all sorts of unreasonable ways.

A true gun advocate should argue that passengers on planes and courtroom observers, not to mention imprisoned criminals should be allowed to own and possess guns.

Fact is the 2nd Amendment is just like any other Constitutional right - subject to balancing. But you wouldn't know that from the virulence of the gun fetish advocates.

There are more possibilities than two, however. Most gun owners are not "militarized" -- and even those who are are no more militarized than our present day police force ;). Owning one's violence does not mean that you are militarized, either. It means that your choices to use violence are closer to home and harder to forget. I certainly don't call the police to my house.

What you present here is a false dichotomy, and not merely in some hypothetical sense. Gun ownership and usage is not an attack on public space or democracy. Many people own weapons without the fetishism you're targeting.

In any case, the proposition that a armed society (forced militarization of every citizen) is a polite society is utter and complete rubbish. It's just the opposite of course. And the opposite is the purpose.

I've agreed to your first sentence, though I don't agree with the latter. — Moliere

I'm simply following the logic of gun advocates, and it leads to forcing citizens to militarize.

If the proposed way to fight crime is to carry a gun and to be primed to use it at all times in a public space, you have essentially forced every citizen to militarize. And you have essentially destroyed the commons.

So my point is the proposition that an armed society is a polite society is exactly the reverse of the truth (which is the general strategy of conservative rhetoric). An armed society is a hostile, militarized, alienated society where might makes right and community is destroyed. This of course is the conservative agenda.

Then your point is even more attenuated. If you think that a guy with a saw and lye can cause as much death as a man with a gun, then you shouldn't mind banning guns. Arm yourself with lye and saws -- I hear they're just as deadly as guns. NOT!

But the proof's in the pudding: gun nuts use guns. It probably has something to do with how deadly they are even for unskilled dolts who worship guns. I suspect most people can run away from a man with a saw carrying ten kilos of caustic substances. — Landru Guide Us

Those who want to inflict harm and kill will always find ways to do so. Mass shootings constitute a tiny percentage of total gun deaths.

I am not against tighter gun laws for the US. Here in Australia weapons are required to be registered, but citizens may still own them, even semi-automatic weapons. Tasmanian has the highest gun ownership, with, according to Wiki, 1 gun per 4 people. The Northern Territory is second with 1 gun per five. The problem is there is not a clear correlation between gun ownership and gun deaths.

Given the US has always been a 'society of the gun', I think a nuanced approach will be needed there, not an hysterically extreme 'black and white' approach; which you seem to be advocating.

I am not against tighter gun laws for the US. Here in Australia weapons are required to be registered, but citizens may still own them, even semi-automatic weapons. Tasmanian has the highest gun ownership, with, according to Wiki, 1 gun per 4 people. The Northern Territory is second with 1 gun per five. The problem is there is not a clear correlation between gun ownership and gun deaths.

Given the US has always been a 'society of the gun', a think a nuanced approach will be needed there, not an hysterically extreme 'black and white' approach; which you seem to be advocating. — John

Feel free to discuss this with the local troll, who actually has already earlier on the thread stated that Australia has a ban on guns and that this ban has successfully ended mass shootings. Your opinion will put you in the gun-nut, right-wing meme & drinking Kool-Aid section.

Like all caricatures it's kinda funny, yet somehow sad :’( .

This is a video I saw on the NYT site of a man being shot by police. He was a suspect in a bank robbery. He was thought to be holding a barber's straight-edge razor. This is a good example of excessive force. The suspect didn't have a gun and hadn't displayed a gun in the alleged bank robbery. (He said he had a bomb.) Even though a throat could be cut quite nicely with a razor, a taser or a non-lethal shot (or maybe just a whack on the wrist with a club) would have been sufficient to disarm and or briefly incapacitate the man.

This situation is similar to a shooting in Chicago (from a year ago) in which an officer gets out of a squad car and in a few seconds shoots a young black male suspect (for something involving burglary, can't remember just what) who was running down the street, past the officer. The Chicago victim was not thought to have a gun. Shootings like this, of black men usually, are what infuriate the Black Lives Matter group.

Frequent gun fire in cities, frequent fratricidal killings by gangs and various criminal enterprises, gun ownership driven by fear of attack and fear that the police will fail to protect the community, high levels of suicide, undercounted non-employment, cutbacks in essential social support systems (the safety net), failing school systems, declining health outcomes (where that is happening), deep levels of chronic poverty, and so on are threats to the the liberty of a nation IN THIS WAY:

All these things undermine the average citizen's confidence in the institutions of society and lead them to be more susceptible to the harsher solutions offered by outright fascists, crypto-fascists, and proto-fascists. Is there a fascist plot in the works? I really don't know. I rather hope not--BUT, ineffectively controlled violence favors the development of fascistic groups. The militarization of police and the often disproportionate responses to any kind of resistance to the police are not typical of civil government.

I'm not blaming the heavy handed actions of the police alone. Liars, thugs, thieves, knaves, and scoundrels make their own hefty contribution to uncivilized life. They are not, generally speaking,any sort of force for good, civilizing influence, or democratic uplift movement. Neither are terrorists. Neither are mendacious, hypocritical, sanctimonious, devious, corrupt politicians. They all make it easier for some demagogue to step in and offer "simplification" with an iron fist.

Is Landru a real person?

Is Landru a real person? — The Great Whatever

Yes, Virginia, there is a Landru. Landru, an omniscient computer on the planet Beta III, had a near-tyrannical hold on Beta III's people until Captain Kirk put a stop to it. This is the way Landru wished to represent himself. Apparently Kirk wasn't quite as successful as he thought. Landru escaped from Kirk through an unguarded TV screen back in the 1960s. Just walked out of the screen into a state college dorm TV room and took over. A generation of leftist students was the result. There was infiltration and subversion. There were sexual outrages on campus. Lesbian separatists performing unspeakable acts on the Quad (It was quickly paved over -- literally - to contain the sacrilege. Sodomy in the stacks. Buggery back stage. Je suis l'homme -- well never mind.

Those who want to inflict harm and kill will always find ways to do so. Mass shootings constitute a tiny percentage of total gun deaths. — John

The sense here is either counterfactual or irrelevant, depending on what you mean.

In fact those who want to inflict harm don't always find a way. They find guns. Guns are a really effective way to kill large numbers of people. Knives and baseball bats aren't (Now watch ssu stupidly cite Rwanda, which involves a huge gang not a lone killer -- wait he already did).

In any case, I already said that gun violence is unique. It destroys public space. Banning guns ends gun violence. The UK and Australia ban show that. End of story.

Will it stop a greedy nephew from murdering Auntie Jane for her money? No. But that's not what were talking about so if this is your meaning you're distracting.

I am not against tighter gun laws for the US. Here in Australia weapons are required to be registered, but citizens may still own them, even semi-automatic weapons. Tasmanian has the highest gun ownership, with, according to Wiki, 1 gun per 4 people. The Northern Territory is second with 1 gun per five. The problem is there is not a clear correlation between gun ownership and gun deaths.

You're being disingenuous. The Australia National Firearms Agreement banned what we would call assault rifles, except special cases, and those cases are very restricted. It banned the importation of such weapons, and parts, suchs a banana magazines. It bought back 20% of the guns in Australia, the equivalent of 40M in the US. If required gun owners to have standardized security for the guns, and required licensing with an ID. In short, it was close to a ban.

So why are you being disingenuous?

The UK has an absolute ban. Since it did so, it has had no gun massacres. Neither has Australia since the Port Arthur massacre resulted in the NFA. Neither has Ireland. Neither has Japan.

Conclusions gun bans work to stop gun massacres. Anybody who says otherwise is just a gun nut.

Does a gun ban stop all crime. Of course not. Nothing does. Crime is a complex social phenomenon. Gun massacres aren't. They're easy to stop: ban guns.

Given the US has always been a 'society of the gun', I think a nuanced approach will be needed there, not an hysterically extreme 'black and white' approach; which you seem to be advocating.

I love it when gun nuts project and talk about bans as hysterical.

I tell you what, go to a gun forum and propose the NFA, and see who acts hysterically. Gun nuts are weird people

Feel free to discuss this with the local troll, who actually has already earlier on the thread stated that Australia has a ban on guns and that this ban has successfully ended mass shootings. Your opinion will put you in the gun-nut, right-wing meme & drinking Kool-Aid section. — ssu

Once you call out a gun fetishist, all he can do is sputter and blubber.

As I pointed out the NFA is effectively a ban. John is being disingenuous. But you and he can work it out. I bet if someone in Finland proposed an NFA you'd go all gun nut and say your rights are being infringed. It's what gun nuts do.

It's kind of funny that you're agreeing with John and don't have any idea what the NFA does. But than factual awareness is not a strong point of gun culture.

Yes, Virginia, there is a Landru. Landru, an omniscient computer on the planet Beta III, had a near-tyrannical hold on Beta III's people until Captain Kirk put a stop to it. This is the way Landru wished to represent himself. Apparently Kirk wasn't quite as successful as he thought. Landru escaped from Kirk through an unguarded TV screen back in the 1960s. Just walked out of the screen into a state college dorm TV room and took over. A generation of leftist students was the result. There was infiltration and subversion. There were sexual outrages on campus. Lesbian separatists performing unspeakable acts on the Quad (It was quickly paved over -- literally - to contain the sacrilege. Sodomy in the stacks. Buggery back stage. Je suis l'homme -- well never mind. — Bitter Crank

I'm trying to guide them, but like Kirk, they won't listen

This is a good example of excessive force. — Bitter Crank

It obviously is. There's something inherently wrong how US policemen approach these situations. Perhaps it's the response to 9/11 mentality: to show that the police are doing things, the kind of militarization happens. It cannot be anymore only the excesses, just a few incidents from many. Basically the militarization of the police is something real and severely counterproductive. When the first this is to take out the gun for a police officer, something has totally gone wrong in a lot of things.

Here's an "open carry" experiment in the US where a white guy carries a semi-automatic around and then a black guy carries the same weapon around. Both times the police stops the men (which is totally understandable), but the difference between how the police acts is obvious. Prime example of what "racial profiling" means in reality. The experiment was actually very dangerous ...and if you would have had a Middle Eastern guy with a beard, he would have likely been shot in my view.



The reaction cannot be because somehow policework is now more dangerous. The following graph tells it all just how dangerous being a policeman in the US has been. And no, it's not because the police is more trigger happy that the fatalities have gone down:



It really cannot even be the zero-crime-tolerance attitude or the "No-broken-windows" strategy. What I think it's basically comes down to is the "War on Terror" mentality (as I said before) where successfull Crimefighting means a "war against crime" that your ready to use lethal force all the time at the maximum. Hence the flakvests, assault rifles, SWAT gear. Hence if some police department doesn't have it's own SWAT team, heavy arsenal of weapons, it doesn't look like it's up to it's job. What if a terrorist attack happens and they aren't ready? It's this created atmosphere where the World has become far more dangerous than before. When it actually isn't.

Frequent gun fire in cities, frequent fratricidal killings by gangs and various criminal enterprises, gun ownership driven by fear of attack and fear that the police will fail to protect the community - The militarization of police and the often disproportionate responses to any kind of resistance to the police are not typical of civil government. — Bitter Crank

This fear is basically what the police responds to with a more aggressive stance. And people have these worries, rightly or wrongly. Yet a highly publisized attack will have big consequences: like that the guards at the mall will have submachineguns and flakvests. Best example are the armed voluntary groups that have sprung up... for example to patrol the US Mexican border.

(Obviously a Superpower cannot secure it's borders, so civilians have do it themselves...)

Begging the question: Why? Why limit gun ownership and possession one case and not another? — Landru Guide Us

There are a lot of limits on who can legally own and posses a firearm, I assure you that I am not the only person prohibited from doing so. If you are over the age of 18, you are allowed to posses a firearm unless you are disqualified by one of the nine categories listed below:

*Persons under indictment for, or convicted of, any crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding on year;
•Fugitives from justice;
•Persons who are unlawful users of, or addicted to, any controlled substance;
•Persons who have been declared by a court as mental defectives or have been committed to a mental institution;
•Illegal aliens, or aliens who were admitted to the United States under a nonimmigrant visa;
•Persons who have been dishonorably discharged from the Armed Forces;
•Persons who have renounced their United States citizenship;
•Persons subject to certain types of restraining orders; and
•Persons who have been convicted of a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence.

Though I felt slighted by the exclusion because of my medical choices, when I look at the others who are excluded under the same category, I understand and am amicable to the laws as they have sat since 1968.

Did I mention that all of the males here at the ranch are Archers as Marksman?

In case you are not an Archer, the arrow in the yellow ring, has another arrow shot directly into the first arrow. Not bad eh?
Now before we start controlling bow and arrows, let's remember that primitive bow and arrows can be found and forged from elements of the earth, the world over.

THE STRIP FROM THE NEW YORK TIMES

Now before we start controlling bow and arrows, let's remember that primitive bow and arrows can be found and forged from elements of the earth, the world over. — ArguingWAristotleTiff

No, let's ban guns and keep bows and arrows. You just argued that they're as deadly as guns so you shouldn't mind. Stock up on bows and arrows.

Ah the absurdity of a mind on gun culture.