The answer: tighter gun control. — Sapientia

The question: in what specific way should they be made tighter?

One or two would be fine, but I really don't intend that this be a limericks thread. — T Clark

OK. (Y)

I think that's a good idea, given that this is a jokes thread. — T Clark

Don't limericks that make people laugh count as jokes?

An English bobby in the early twentieth century was asked about how they dealt with criminals.
We just leave them hanging around for a while and they never bother us again.

Cool, they mention one of my favorite books Plato and a Platypus Walk into a Bar.

There once was a forum for the philosophical

Where members would troll things fantastical

It happened one day

In a gruesome display

That Sir2u was marked ungrammatical — praxis

Now sir, that was funny. X-)
Maybe instead of jokes we could have a limericks thread.

Someone carrying a gun always intends to use it. Why else carry a gun? Nobody carries a gun with the intent not to use it. — Ciceronianus the White

As I have already said, I agree with this. But the distinction is as you say.

They intend to use it "when necessary." The law abiding citizen, presumably, intends to use it to protect themselves or others from someone also carrying a gun. — Ciceronianus the White

The non-abiding folks are intent on using as necessary to advance their own way of life, and bugger the rest.

I'm not at all certain that a law abiding, gun-toting citizen would do a significant deal of good in a public firefight. — Ciceronianus the White

That would depend on the situation. As I have said sometimes the presence of one and the knowledge that it will be used is enough to avoid further problems. I already explained my personal experience with gun carrying.
Another example that might be pertinent happened on the same bus route I use daily. Almost everyday one of the buses would be robbed. A different man would get on somewhere at the beginning of the trip and wait for the bus to fill up. Then he would reach into his bag and pullout a gun before making everyone take of their valuables, wallets, mobile phones and once even a pair of tennis shoes.
It stopped the day three people pulled guns on him. He got off the bus after returning the few things he had already picked up and started running. But as usually happens here phones are for taking selfies and no on thought to take his picture.

The case you mention as well as others involving police are not the norm. They are if you look at the big picture very rare incidents.

:-x — Sapientia

:-x

HaHaHa, at last you said something funny. You have decided to keep quiet. Good decision.

It's not about capability. It's about spending one's time wisely. If you're having trouble figuring things out that plenty of others can easily grasp, then you have my heartfelt sympathy, but that's all you're getting. — Sapientia

See, you did it again.

Who's time are you talking about?

I don't have a lot to spare but I do at least take the time to understand you, even if you refuse to explain things. What I don't have time for is googling all of your ideas to get explanations.

Have you tried knitting? — Sapientia

Been there, done that. Lots of fun but were I live we don't need pullovers.

Any further suggestions?

Although, if your comedy is anything like your grammar... — Sapientia

Should I try poetry then?

There was once an old fart from Maryland
Who considered himself so grand
He spent his days irritating people on a forum
Which he did with little decorum
And with many a comment oh so bland

Are you telling me that you genuinely expect me to take those replies seriously? Why would I do that? — Sapientia

See, you did it again.

You were the one that said no one can dodge a bullet so I figures that the worlds military organizations and I were missing out on something.
Are you not capable of explaining your own worlds?

When you want to have a serious discussion, let me know. — Sapientia

Is this kind of answer some sort of a defense mechanism for your inferiority complex.

It seems to happen a lot. Especially when you don't have sensible answers or anything of value to add.

I'm going to count how many times you have given answers like this to people. It might make some interesting statistics.

This is only a suggestion - but you guys could try telling actual jokes. That's kind of the idea behind this discussion. — T Clark

Do you think that they actually know any?

It’s Latin for wisdom. That’s not funny? — praxis

Oh yes, that's funny.

In more ways than one. X-)

What do you mean, "innocent" or "nice"? — Bitter Crank

It was just a thought that stuck me, everyone seems to take for granted that all of the people that have died in gun incidents are people that are undeserving of dying. I have not had the time to do any research but it seems to me that a fair number of the people that have died, not in mass shootings of course, might actually have had something to do with their own death.

Some people are involved in crimes, gangs, drug dealing, and so on, and happen to get shot as they walk down the street, say by rival gang members. Are they "innocent" and "nice"? — Bitter Crank

That might be part of the total, but how many of the deaths are related to them carrying guns with intentions to use them?

It is too quiet round here, time for another question.

Has anyone bothered to check out how many of the people that died because of guns were actually innocent nice people?

What do you call an ensho painted by a sentimental latin woman?

A sappy ensha — praxis

Why?

"Prevention" is the consciously locked gate that has to be opened to get on the property. "Prevention" is silent Rottweiler's that have access to their people's bedroom as well as the property line fence. "Prevention" is the consciously locked solid wood front door. — ArguingWAristotleTiff

And on top of that, prevention should also include the idiots thinking about what kind of trouble they are going to get into.
Why does prevention always have to be part of the good peoples lives.
If the bad guys what to stop their own deaths let them be preventive as well.

and was not what my statement described - or at least meant to describe - and that should have been clear. — Sapientia

I know someone that claims to be a good grammar tutor if you are interested in improving the way you express yourself.

It's physically impossible to dodge a bullet that has been fired in your trajectory. We simply aren't fast enough. — Sapientia

So why do the military need to produce so many millions of rounds of ammunition if the are crack shots. Would it not be easier to send someone to count the enemy and send the right amount of bullets with maybe a few extras?

Is that the best that you can come up with? Disappointing. Perhaps you should think it through a bit more. — Sapientia

You say this quite often don't you. Is there some special reason why? Did you never consider the fact that saying something is wrong is not enough, that there should be an explanation there somewhere.

Please be nice and tell me what is wrong with the post.

The thought that owning a weapon would be any kind of defense against the US Department of Defense, if it came to that, is surely a ridiculous fantasy. — Wayfarer

The threat of a real bloodbath would probably forestall any military action against the people. Could you imagine the American government being called out because they sent in the military to battle with the citizens. If there were no guns it would be a completely different story.

on the other hand, if arms really were to be organised and stored in the service of a 'well-organised militia', in a proper armoury, subject to checks, controls and balances, then you might have a workable model. — Wayfarer

And who would you say should have the job of organizing it? The military possibly.

But in any case, that was hundreds of years ago. — Sapientia

Yes that's right, the English have no memories of the rights they once had. The Americans do however.

And, moreover, why should what the Americans want take precedence over what's in their best interest? — Sapientia

It's their country, if that is what they want who has the right to deny their wishes?

I'd be strongly against the reintroduction of barbaric forms of punishment, such as hanging, beheading, and being burnt at the stake, irrespective of whether or not that's what my fellow Englishmen wanted. — Sapientia

I'll bet the crime rates were low in those times though.

And the armed Americans are going to let that happen? Maybe.

And is this a serious consideration worthy of bringing up here? No. — Sapientia

Based on the fact the the American want to keep this from happening to them and that the English have already let it happen, maybe yes.

I'm not sure whether you're making a bad joke — Sapientia

If that is what you want to call it. Maybe I could have worded it a bit better.
Who rules England? The government.
Who backs up the government? The military.
They don't need a coup because they already run the place, and could the citizens do anything about if they wanted to. No

Yes, a reproach for a moral lapse. That's what is not needed. — T Clark

It does not say anything about moral lapse, so either find a definition that does include it or leave it alone.

If there is no moral judgment, society's reaction to unwanted behavior is more likely to be effective. Punishment, retribution, and revenge make some people feel better, but they are not the best way to handle crime and other damaging behavior. — T Clark

Punishment, retribution, and revenge are not part of moral judgement either. That would be immoral.

Sometimes yes, sometimes no. That's the way it should be. Justice, fairness, and social control are different from punishment, retribution, and revenge. One focuses on effectiveness in protecting the public, the other focuses on moral and emotional satisfaction. — T Clark

So your local legal system deals out revenge to criminals?

I bet making it illegal to not wear a helmet at all times would save more lives, and prevent a lot of head injuries. Don't you want to protect everyone from head injuries? Leaving bed without a helmet ought to be illegal. — Wosret

I am 100% percent in favor of this idea. Draft the bill tonight and we can present to all of the governments in the morning. It is obvious that there are a lot of people walking around that have suffered grievous injuries to the point where their thinking is very unclear.

The English army haven't taken over control of the country since the times of Oliver Cromwell, around 360 years ago. That it would happen again any time soon is not a realistic prospect and should not be taken seriously. — Sapientia

I can't resist.
Of course it is not going to happen, even if they are shit sick of the idiots that rule them. They don't have any guns and the bloody government knows it.

You don't have to blame someone in order to hold them responsible for their actions. — T Clark

Blame:
An accusation that you are responsible for some lapse or misdeed
A reproach for some lapse or misdeed

Blame leads to punishment, retribution, and revenge. — T Clark

No, being responsible for something leads to punishment, retribution, and revenge.

What's needed is justice, fairness, and effective social control. — T Clark

Is that not what happens in the justice system when someone is judged to be responsible for some act that is considered to be against public well being?

As long as self defense doesn't infringe on the rights of others to live and be free of violence. — MysticMonist

Self defense cannot infringe on the rights of others without becoming offensive and stopping being self defense.

I was wondering about the possibility of military takeover in the US, would be possible. Some argue that the constitution provides a method of prevention. It seems that places where there are gun restrictions do seem to have quite a few military coups.

https://www.quora.com/Why-hasnt-a-military-coup-happened-in-Europe-or-the-USA

https://historyguy.com/coups_in_europe_since_world_war_two.htm

I don't know exactly what it means, if the public having guns does stop the military or not, but I think it would be damned hard for the American military to take over if they wanted to. How long would it take for the English army to have complete control of the country?

What's the philosophical rationale for an individual right to bear arms? — MysticMonist

Why would one be necessary?

all of whom disagree with me (and more than that, think that I'm an evil maniac), — Thorongil

I have had that feeling too. Silly me think it was just about me.

If you insist on playing this game, I guess banning guns makes all the rape, murder, and theft that people would have otherwise been able to ward off with a gun okay. I'm sure they'll find some solace in being scapegoats for "the greater good" and the moral consciences of The Philosophy Forum mod team. — Thorongil

Maybe we could arrange for people with those good intentions to go to the US. Then let them go around and take all of the guns off the bad guys. Once they have done that I am sure that the Americans will feel safe enough to hand over their guns.

Were the The Kardashians trashy when Deep Space 9 conceived Cardassians?? — Bitter Crank

Probably yes, although I am not exactly well up on either of their histories. But if you want to become famous the Cardassians will get you nowhere. And the kartrashians are just about as far into space as the Cardassians.

And what do the Cardassians think of all this? — Baden

Kartrashians don't think.

By the way, I notice that your spelling and grammar are showing signs of improvement. Perhaps my grammar policing has had an effect, after all. Keep up the good work. — Sapientia

I told you, if you had bothered to read my post, that as soon as you stopped pointing out stupid little things that have absolutely nothing to do with the topic being discussed I would stop making them.

If you intend to continue with your silly ways then I shall continue to do everything I can to make you look like the pathetic little nitwit that you are.

Bey bye.

What is a joke?

What is philosophy?

What is an oxymoron?