Another day, another shooting in the US

[MintyTheCat]

I want free gyros for life... that sound awesome. Now I'm hungry.

Yep, even in light of innocent US citizens shot and killed live on US television and you feel it necessary to trivialise the situation. Rather poor in my book, matey.

[BryanM]

Happens every day. Isn't this a fraction less awful than Eric Garner being choked to death by three dudes on TV and they didn't even go to trial for manslaughter? We should all be numb to the horror by now.

The lady's dad is right. Next week this will be forgotten and we'll be talking about the next one. And gun's right activists will be hounding this guy like they do Sandy Hook parents.

And in all seriousness, reforms that move us toward a society that actually gives a shit about people would probably have a larger impact than closing the gun show loophole. Though that's (the loophole closing) something everyone supports but only 50% of us vote for.

[MintyTheCat]

A Professor decided to shoot a couple of people:

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-34248767

[DEL]

You do know by now that all these reported shootings are Zio Media hoaxes for gun confiscation...?
They want your guns. They want you disarmed.

[NTSC-J]

You do know by now that all these reported shootings are Zio Media hoaxes for gun confiscation...?

Pretty clear at this point. Yesterday there were two other shootings, one in New Mexico and another in Louisiana.

Four victims in one, four victims in the other.

And what school did the professor at today's shooting teach at? Delta State University.

Delta.

Four.

They want your guns. They want you disarmed.

I have two bataka bats.

[MintyTheCat]

You do know by now that all these reported shootings are Zio Media hoaxes for gun confiscation...?
They want your guns. They want you disarmed.

Perfectly sensible thing to do.

[Ed Oscuro]

You guys know about the Phoenix I-10 shooter? Scary stuff, huh?

Up until this week, there's been a similar story playing out virtually in my backyard, just miles from my house. Nobody's been killed here, either, and the lack of news in recent days hopefully means the fool has stopped, hopefully for good!

Just to shake things up, though, why haven't we stopped crazy people from getting in vehicles? I've mentioned this a few times before, and sure enough we have crazy people getting in vehicles and killing people with them. Just like in many of the firearms rampage cases we talk about, the common thread is that the guy's mother tried really hard to get the perp institutionalized before the act, to no avail.

[GaijinPunch]

You do know by now that all these reported shootings are Zio Media hoaxes for gun confiscation...?
They want your guns. They want you disarmed.

Be cool to see someone say that directly, in person to the victims families. Good idea for a reality TV show actually...

[neorichieb1971]

I can't see any discussion about guns in America amounting to anything but political BS.

Imagine if ISIS have a plan to stealthy migrate 1000 members into the USA.. They stay there for 2 years and then all get permits/gun clearance to buy guns. A planned assault takes place where 1000 men and women rampage the streets of 3 or 4 cities. You would have literally 1000's of deaths in less than an hour. This is just one scenario I can think of where in this day and age having guns sold at retail is just a bad idea.

Remember what Jean Reno said in Godzilla when asked where he got the guns. He said "in America you can buy them in the shops".

I don't know.. I just think guns in public is a risk not worth taking.. but thats me.

[rancor]

then all get permits/gun clearance to buy guns.

lol.. you mean they're all over the ages of 18 / 21? That's all that's required if buying retail.

However, If you're buying from another person there are absolutely zero regulations, permits, or checks.

[Ed Oscuro]

I don't know.. I just think guns in public is a risk not worth taking.. but thats me.

No, it's not just you. Thankfully, a lot of people feel the same way and don't have guns in public, because they feel they don't need them and they would be a liability. Usually this is true; people with guns have to know what to do, and even many police aren't really up to the task. We have some police and former police who feel that they don't need them, though, and as a society we have to remain mentally agile and not just imagine that the world is always perfect and safe. To be honest, I think that people locally can have the right to try and ban guns from their community. I don't think that should be forced on everybody from the top down by the nation, as that makes it impossible to exercise choice in the matter.

The issue is (as with very many other issues) how much freedom people should get, and who decides. There's rights to be Charlie Hebdo and draw Mohammed cartoons and provoke ISIS, or to...wear a Burqa, vote, drive cars that aren't self-driving, download loli, yell at the theater, whatever. In many Western societies there are many variations in the rules or even outright bans on these issues, current or future; some differences are stark, some mild, but not everybody agrees. Why should everybody follow all the same rules for every last thing? Sometimes people don't like others the right to drink Carlsberg (Prohibitionists) or to have immigrants in your country (much of Europe today).

In the UK, there are some "progressive" new laws against the famous old "harmful" porn that ultimately just ended up targeting feminist porn producers. Why was it necessary? Who was asked, and who decided? Well, nobody, except for the official censors. The peoples' representatives had some words about that. The stakes are obviously not the same as a national firearms law, but it's also a different country.

These questions remind me of the recent /r/eddit shitstorm, where some people say that "all the bad people at Fat People Hate were just quarantined, and now look what you've done, they'll spread everywhere." I don't actually think there was a necessity to have a place for people to hate on fatness at /r/eddit, and I certainly wouldn't want to spend money on it if I owned Reddit. But when it comes to an entire nation, the US doesn't just believe in majority rule all the time (as should be evident from the elite in political parties anyway), nor should it. I don't think it would be right to say "here's the United States, now you have to follow all our rules." I don't mind a community out there having some strict rules about what you can do, but there should also be a place where you can go to execute some freedoms, like a nude beach, if that's your thing. It gets tricky on many issues - does somebody have a right to refuse a vaccination even if it will do them no harm and refusing puts their neighbors at risk? Well, apparently yes. There's the "religious freedoms" like the right to not pay your employees for health care because you don't want them to have it, a freedom you can claim only if you believe in the intangibles. The answer is apparently kind of yes, kind of no. The right to not do your job and issue GAYMARRIED licenses? Apparently that one's tough too. And then there's asshole HOAs that don't want you to park your work vehicle in your driveway because it's not upscale enough. Does Japan safeguard its society by denying citizenship paths to people who get too many speeding tickets?

I totally understand why the guns issue is a tough one; it's got public health and safety implications. But it's not an easy question like "is murder bad?" Murder is bad anywhere, but gun ownership certainly varies depending on your training and your reasons. Of course, we also have some police and ex-police who would say cops generally don't need firearms, so there's that too!

[MintyTheCat]

then all get permits/gun clearance to buy guns.

lol.. you mean they're all over the ages of 18 / 21? That's all that's required if buying retail.

However, If you're buying from another person there are absolutely zero regulations, permits, or checks.

The US appears to have stricter control over alcohol and entry into places that sell alcohol - that is truely nuts.

[MintyTheCat]

Most of your message, Ed, was along the lines of "who is to say what is right and wrong" which was what I was getting.

I totally understand why the guns issue is a tough one; it's got public health and safety implications. But it's not an easy question like "is murder bad?" Murder is bad anywhere, but gun ownership certainly varies depending on your training and your reasons. Of course, we also have some police and ex-police who would say cops generally don't need firearms, so there's that too!

It is a very simple issue that is taken to be a complex one due to mostly commercial interests.

You can argue as much as you like but many of us sitting over in Europe have stricter gun controls and we have less accidental/revenge/etc oriented gun situations and accidents.

I liken the gun situation in the US to the smoking situation in Germany. I think the main issue is that people get upset when there are sudden losses of life and indeed a gun is a tool that effects that role very well.

We've heard the argument that a gun acts as a deterrent but what happens is that when many people for any reason can acquire a gun or many guns it doesn't act as a deterrent any longer - in fact I would say it serves to accelerate the arming up of individuals as a sort of mini Arms Race if you will.

The US with its guns is a lot like Germany with its tobacco industry: it is simply worth far too much money to people in power to even begin to think about making a change. The rich will always find ways to protect themselves but it tends to affect the poor first and more strongly so and the rest of us pay the social costs for their gains.

I think you are living in cloud cuckoo land, Ed and it may well serve you to spend sometime outside the US to understand that is it possible to live without more guns in society: the two things the US police regret was firstly banning the sale of alcohol as it gave organised crime a leg up and secondly arming the police as the gun ends up being the baseline that all the bad guys have to at least reach and go beyond.

The fact of the matter is that more guns means more accidents and more deaths and the easier they are to obtain the larger the problem and the longer it continues. What you have over there is more over a culture of guns rather like Germany has its culture of smoking and culture is the hardest thing to break.

The best you guys can do is to extrapolate and try to imagine the end point and how this will end up playing out in the future. Ask yourself if it is less or more likely that guns will be big or small part of society? Will they be easier or harder to attain? Will they be more powerful and more varied? What will be effects be in a society that already permits individuals to own and use those weapons in the context of technological advances? If a more powerful weapon became available in the next forty years would citizens also be able to acquire them more so or less so in a society that already has few restrictions on guns at this time?

I cannot personally envisage any point in time where society will become 'safer' with large numbers of guns available. I feel that people make mistakes, they act mostly on emotions and let's not kid ourselves that many of us will opt for quick solutions and try to rid ourselves of those who we see as a threat in some way. This is largely human nature and it has to be understood.

The last few last stories in the US as of late due to gun killings have been either revenge or ideological in nature. Surely you can understand that this protects no one.

[Ed Oscuro]

I've traveled far outside the US, including Germany

Yes, "culture" is a big part of the problem, with people keeping and carrying around firearms that they probably should not. Of course, we can't realistically determine for everyone beforehand whether they are intent on murder, or suicide, or even less whether they will need it for self-defense (absent certain situations, in which people living in areas where they had to get special dispensation for a defensive firearm often got no help from authorities).

But look at any data tables showing both per capita gun ownership and per capita homicides.

Germany is #15 in the world for firearms ownership. Why is it that Germany has over 1/3 as many guns as the US per person, but almost 17 times fewer homicides per capita? Number of firearms alone isn't the issue. That word you used, "culture," is doing most of the work here.

Even within the US, there are lots of places that are quite safe even by European standards, often within miles of dangerous areas (i.e., places that aren't the South Side of Chicago). It's a big country. I live just a couple hours away from Detroit, where "WE KILL PEOPLE" as Robotron said. It would be nice to remove a bunch of firearms from Detroit, but what would it do to remove them from peaceful owners?

The US isn't like a number of countries that somehow ended up with racially and culturally homogeneous populations, with good education and no history of slavery. We have these problems and tackling them would go the farthest distance.

And for the simple answer as to why we don't get rid of our guns? It's a democracy and the people have said no. Frankly, I don't see how you can have a country as large and diverse as the US without its population having more flexibility to protect itself.

A lot of us made the decision, or have made it, that we're fine going about our business without packing. Rob the hiker, Roo, myself...we have varying opinions on whether firearms are needed, but firearms ownership rights end up being somewhat like capital punishment. It's ultimately a statement of opinion whether you think it's acceptable to sacrifice some innocents to (probably) get a good outcome overall. In the US, the answer has been no, that doesn't work.

In any case, I feel that the power of democracy and technology to help solve problems is pretty good. In a democracy we can enact sensible gun laws, or not enact them, as we see fit. And with "creepy" technology like personal digital assistants and surveillance, I hope that we get more tools (including more personal, automated mental health tools) that can spot and help people with problems. And, just as importantly, we need to end the state monopoly grant to drug dealers, and we need to tackle systemic inequality.

[BryanM]

You can take guns out of Detroit but it won't put gyros in bellies or a roof over someone's head.

I've always been bearish on gun control advocacy. Sure yes, background checks, close the flea market loophole, let cities ban them if they want to. But you have to fundamentally change who we are as a country to give a shit about human life to get any traction on this issue. You can't grow a chicken without first laying an egg.

Jim's routine really sums it all up.

[neorichieb1971]

Every American is an immigrant or a byproduct of an immigrant. So it does beg the question if the people that are moving there now in the 21st century are moving to the USA because of relaxed gun control.

I know people here in the UK that talk about going to America just to shoot guns. But to us UK'ers guns are just toys that can be used lethally. I certainly do not look at them as a murder weapon in the 1st sense. More like an adult toy.. And I wouldn't live anywhere in the world where I would need a gun for self defense. I have always worked on the policy that a criminal with intent will ALWAYS have the upper hand. They have the advantage of stealth, surprise, cunning, planning, camouflage and probably having more experience at killing people than the intended victim. I would have better chance of survival by hiding the under the bed.

[Ed Oscuro]

So it does beg the question if the people that are moving there now in the 21st century are moving to the USA because of relaxed gun control.

I doubt it.

I know people here in the UK that talk about going to America just to shoot guns.

I have been thinking that in some ways the rest of the world profits from firearms knowledge and manufacturing in the US, but this in of itself isn't what I'd consider a major or important reason to have relaxed laws.

More like an adult toy..

This is the mindset of a person who should not have a gun. Firearms are meant to project lethal force or force compliance through the threat of lethal force, nothing less.

Of course we have tons of people whose primary ideas about guns come through games, movies, and other media which have nothing to do with what they're supposed to be.

[MintyTheCat]

I've traveled far outside the US, including Germany

That's a good start. Did you feel safer or less safe in Germany? Did you see any guns? Did you feel that there is lot of crime in Germany? How long did you stay in Germany for?

Yes, "culture" is a big part of the problem, with people keeping and carrying around firearms that they probably should not. Of course, we can't realistically determine for everyone beforehand whether they are intent on murder, or suicide, ...

"probably should not" is hardly any argument. Most people are simply not equipped to int he first sense make the decision of when and how to use something that takes life and more over will be far more likely to inadvertently injure and kill either themselves through unwarranted use. Warranted in my sense would mean an invading force. Leave it to the professionals to handle who do have the training, insight and jurisdiction to determine when and where to take life - most members of the public struggle to work out a crossword puzzle and are not in any position to make that kind of choice.

Germany is #15 in the world for firearms ownership. Why is it that Germany has over 1/3 as many guns as the US per person, but almost 17 times fewer homicides per capita? Number of firearms alone isn't the issue. That word you used, "culture," is doing most of the work here.

Indeed, and it might just have something to do with that constitution of yours that sustains this culture.
I can tell you that you will not see guns over here. Germany is a highly regulated country and even simple stuff often has regulations - again this is a cultural issue over here but it does serve to limit the effects of certain things such as gun crime and accidental shootings.

And for the simple answer as to why we don't get rid of our guns? It's a democracy and the people have said no. Frankly, I don't see how you can have a country as large and diverse as the US without its population having more flexibility to protect itself.

A lot of this boils down to levels of equality. A larger part of this notion of democracy elects to have officials carry out the duties on behalf of the population and indeed this is why we have hospitals, fire brigades and indeed police and the army. This entails that you as an individual are not expected to put out fires in your neighbourhood wholely as this role is entrusted to those with better resources and more experience. The same applies here to the matter of shooting people.

I think that you may well find that parts of europe are more diverse than the US take for example France, Holland and the UK which all had large colonies outside of europe and then compare that level of diversity to the levels of equality in the US and the countries I just mentioned and I hope you will find that there is indeed less violence in those societies.

...we have varying opinions on whether firearms are needed, but firearms ownership rights end up being somewhat like capital punishment. It's ultimately a statement of opinion whether you think it's acceptable to sacrifice some innocents to (probably) get a good outcome overall. In the US, the answer has been no, that doesn't work.

But it clearly does not 'work'. It is did act as deterrent you would see less and less violent crime and murders. You have not seen a reduction and indeed you have a large proportion of citizens residing in state prisons. So I ask you if this policy ultimately works?

They have the same policy in Saudi Arabia. They have capital punishment and every cycle you will witness people being decapitated. You would expect that this to truely be effective would act as deterrent and no further acts that would result in capital punishment would be required? This is clearly not the case as it goes on and on.

You clearly do not have a 'good overall outcome' - you merely displace the effects amongst those with less wealth who cannot afford for one reason or another to move to these safe areas - low level crime rarely affects upper middle to higher earners, Ed. So it serves only to displace the effects of the violence and not reduce it.

In Germany, and it is an area that historically was a highly contested area and witnessed many conflicts over territory, etc. it was long decided to curtail the issue through greater equality. It is a safe country largely due to this. People do not worry about being shot and indeed even what the Germans would call a Ghetto the likes of me and you would laugh at. German Ghettos are missing the level of crime that you tend to find in the US and UK. The German system essentially puts the money into welfare instead of having to police a larger element of crime.

Democracy is the system used to elect those who govern and does not in itself grant a free for all as you are stating, Ed.

Technology is a factor but more over it is the social policies that ultimately influence how the man ont he street experiences the system.
I get the impression that the US is a 'every man for himself' kind of place which is actually anti-social.
You cannot sit in your gated community placidly ignoring the violence around you.

You can see that this approach never works out. Look towards some of the strife in South America where guns rule. Democracy only gets you part way.

I would also add that the man on the street doesn't know what is best for the country and suffers from myopia. Again, leave it up to the professionals who have the policies, insight, data and power to put things into effect. The job more over of people like most of us is to be informed and question the system and the policies at large within our systems.

You didn't answer my question further up so I shall ask you again, Ed:

The best you guys can do is to extrapolate and try to imagine the end point and how this will end up playing out in the future. Ask yourself if it is less or more likely that guns will be big or small part of society? Will they be easier or harder to attain? Will they be more powerful and more varied? What will be effects be in a society that already permits individuals to own and use those weapons in the context of technological advances? If a more powerful weapon became available in the next forty years would citizens also be able to acquire them more so or less so in a society that already has few restrictions on guns at this time?

So how do you see this turning out? What kind of end point do you envisage?

Following human nature I would find that arming up and giving more people the means to kill one way or another means that more people will die innocent or not and most likely innocents will be killed.

As they say: You've made your bed, now lie in it

[Ed Oscuro]

I'm still not getting the sense of your question. If you want to talk about "endpoints," you have to factor in the transformative power of technology, just to pick one thing I've mentioned. So, stop being selective with reading my work. Why don't you notice (or acknowledge) that I questioned you on Germany's relative safety to the US (as a whole)? As I said before, there's vast differences in safety from one part of the US to another. I can go from one end of town to the other and enter areas that historically are less safe than others (there has been a notable downshift in the murder rate lately, though). That said, I feel pretty safe anywhere here. The thing the anti-firearms folks don't get is that for somebody like me, who doesn't live in a slum, the statistics don't agree with everyday life. In some part, this explains why there is no political action on firearms laws.

The ironic thing here is that I didn't make the bed. Nobody said "oh, let's have a vote on the Second Amendment." We could - it's a democracy - but it's not going to happen. The main thing that makes me worry about the US is not its firearms, but the increasingly acid political climate on every issue, including firearms. If, for instance, people stopped believing that the US government was about to round up all the good old boys, and if we had people stop believing that they could gain immortality through mass murder, two of the biggest media stories about firearms would evaporate. We'd still have inequality and the higher overall murder and suicide rates, though.

Speaking of that, everybody - again - talks as if the US is somehow totally different just because of the firearms. Well, the Australian joker linked above lives in a country with privately owned guns. Minty lives in a country with privately owned guns. What's different is not just the guns.

[MintyTheCat]

Hardly selective, Ed. You barely answered any of the points that I raised.

If you cannot answer the questions posed, and even direct questions posed, that tells me something.

Laws and regulations are changed, altered and indeed evolve over time. The British system of law once included the right to bear arms as the US has today. It was eventually abolished.

To understand the present you must understand the basis for the laws and indeed attempt to make a projection for the future as to what may or may not occur if the present system and its laws are permitted to run their course.

I see with you the usual arguments for guns and gun ownership. You have told us here that the stats don't affect you personally where you happen to reside, that the country is a big place without examining the core issues.

The core issue for me is that your citizens will be affected through these laws and in turn innocent lives will be lost regardless of where you happen to be living within the states and more so as a function of your socio-economic class - which can change subject to factors.

Please don't deny the very obvious implications here. Only a frank discussion will make any real progress here.

[Ed Oscuro]

What in that response moves the discussion forward at all?

It goes without saying, I would have hoped, that ultimately law is not founded on rational principles. Attempting to use a utilitarian calculus for everything simply doesn't work and leads to absurdity and injustice on the individual scale, just as a totally irrational basis for law is unacceptable. As far as there are guiding principles to the US legal system, such as the belief that one should not be punished for the actions of a class of others, clearly there are many other currents (from the very concept of sentencing guidelines, to traffic laws, to guidelines for rationing organ transplants) that show us moving in a more orderly, stay-within-the-lines style of government. Why is it that sometimes we throw up our hands on these issues? I really can't say; emotion is one of the unpredictable but necessary motivations of having law in the first place.

It's clear that none of my interlocutors here really understand what my interest is. I'm not interested in defending firearms ownership by crazy people, or defending vigilantes in the style of The Punisher. Neither, I should add, did many people in these debates decide to arbitrarily create a wall for protecting "expressions of speech" like violent media culture, except for those of us who happen to be in the middle of those cultures and say "but I'm doing fine, so what's the problem?" If I mention media attention to serial killers, or the predominantly violent fixation of much modern culture, you know very well that I will bring down shrill cries of indignation from some of our fellow Forumers. And ultimately, to some degree, they're right: If one person is mature, what's the problem?

Vigilantism, if we just mean being watchful (as the word suggests) of ourselves just as of others, and not taking rash actions, and not treating life as cheap or firearms as toys, is fine.

Unfortunately we have a lot of unreasonable Punisher-style vigilantism, and preemptive conspiracy seekers, and people who walk around convinced that any person carrying a firearm and isn't in uniform is a deadly threat to be wrestled to the ground. None of these are healthy responses to the issues of our country, including easy access to firearms by ill people. It's not clear how we could avoid these heavily polarized responses to the current situation.

The problem for the total gun banishment argument, which seems to be what is being argued, is that I don't see anybody who can make it. Germany has firearms for hunting and target practice. Why? Isn't that also inviting disaster? And yet Germany has a lower per capita murder rate, and a lower per capita rate of murders by firearms still. I don't think that whether a murder is done by firearm or another method matters, as such, but this does apparently show that fewer firearms leads to a lower murder rate, but also (and just as importantly) that there is less interest in murder in Germany, even without taking firearms into account. If I say this a few times, perhaps you will understand why I bring this up. The US simply has some important variables in the mix other than firearms.

You're right to point out that the debate gets mired quickly in details, since there is such a level of distrust among the various factions in the US discourse in firearms law that any attempt to keep arms from the unfit is seen as setting off on the slippery slope. As individuals, I think that actually many of the top websites and blogs for firearms use try their best to promote a healthy discourse and mindset for firearms ownership, just as we should also have a healthier discourse and set of rules for how people interact with police. I think it is worth preserving and rewarding that.

And for one final thought by way of trying again to answer your persistence: What is the "endpoint" of firearms law? Since the Gun Control Act of 1968 there are already controls on a number of types of firearms, and yet from what I can tell owners of the most restricted types of weapons have proven safer than the people in caliber-restricted South American countries who can only obtain small handguns in calibers considered "sub-lethal" by many US shooters.

I think that one of the best features of a democracy is that we don't have to get into silly debates about trying to create laws that will hold forevermore, in every last situation. If the people feel that something requires more oversight - such as having hi-cap mags in a state - the people are free to vote on that and hopefully make the right choice. There is no endpoint where everybody has a right to have their own private nuclear arsenal - saying such shows a fundamental misunderstanding about the oversight function of a democracy, and shows a lack of logical discipline. There is almost nobody, aside from a handful of superRandian types, that think they would prefer to legalize such a thing. Rather, I would suggest that in a diverse country such as the United States, the high level of disagreement is suggestive that there are at least compelling arguments on both sides, even if not seemingly equally matched ones - rather than a complete wipeout of one side by another, as you'd get if the discussion was whether individuals need no oversight to hold nuclear weapons, or whether you need an automatic weapon to go hunt deer.

[MintyTheCat]

What in that response moves the discussion forward at all?

That works both ways, Ed Have a read and go through my points as I usually find myself going through your points.

It goes without saying, I would have hoped, that ultimately law is not founded on rational principles. Attempting to use a utilitarian calculus for everything simply doesn't work and leads to absurdity and injustice on the individual scale, just as a totally irrational basis for law is unacceptable. As far as there are guiding principles to the US legal system, such as the belief that one should not be punished for the actions of a class of others, clearly there are many other currents (from the very concept of sentencing guidelines, to traffic laws, to guidelines for rationing organ transplants) that show us moving in a more orderly, stay-within-the-lines style of government. Why is it that sometimes we throw up our hands on these issues? I really can't say; emotion is one of the unpredictable but necessary motivations of having law in the first place.

Indeed. Law is not akin to mathematical systems but more over based on history.
Yes, you raise this class argument - that it is other, nutters with their own agendas that are to blame.
That is correct as far as the outcomes are concerned. We know who these people are once they have committed crimes and shot people. We find in court when someone is shot that the situation may be debated in court to determine if the person who was shot was shot lawfully.

The issue that you are reluctant to examine is that having an availability of guns and easy access to them: on sale in shops most people can visit, the loophole in the second-hand market, etc. results in more people being inadvertently being shot - legally or illegally, as a matter of blessed defence or otherwise - the gun is merely a tool and it has no beliefs or say in the matter.

If you are honest with yourself and just say that you like owning guns then it makes more sense to me as to why you will not acknowledge this predicament that your country finds itself and indeed many with loose control over guns in.

When you choose to live in a society you have to adopt the "good for all" stand point which is why certain narcotics are illegal, why companies are not permitted to pump out Mercury into your local fields and why we have systems in place for driving cars, etc. These are only a handful of systems and laws in place to keep the majority safe.

I have heard this argument of self defence many times. Most people end up injuring themselves in the US or having someone steal or use their weapons for their own aims.

Admit that you simply love guns and be done with it. No matter what the costs to your communities you just simply have to have those guns as it makes you personally feel 'safe'.

It's clear that none of my interlocutors here really understand what my interest is. I'm not interested in defending firearms ownership by crazy people, or defending vigilantes in the style of The Punisher. Neither, I should add, did many people in these debates decide to arbitrarily create a wall for protecting "expressions of speech" like violent media culture, except for those of us who happen to be in the middle of those cultures and say "but I'm doing fine, so what's the problem?" If I mention media attention to serial killers, or the predominantly violent fixation of much modern culture, you know very well that I will bring down shrill cries of indignation from some of our fellow Forumers. And ultimately, to some degree, they're right: If one person is mature, what's the problem?

It matters not: gun availability means more deaths by gun fire. If you allow people to have ready access to guns you find a larger number of people use them for any purpose that they choose. If those weapons are stolen the purpose changes to the purpose of the one who acquires the weapon and so on.

I appreciate that you see yourself as being upstanding but the problem is not one person here. The problem is a culture of gun use and indeed a large financial in ensuring that guns remain available that is at stake here with unwanton deaths being the cost that you all pay.

Unfortunately we have a lot of unreasonable Punisher-style vigilantism, and preemptive conspiracy seekers, and people who walk around convinced that any person carrying a firearm and isn't in uniform is a deadly threat to be wrestled to the ground. None of these are healthy responses to the issues of our country, including easy access to firearms by ill people. It's not clear how we could avoid these heavily polarized responses to the current situation.

Yes, guns do grant power but they grant them to anyone who happens to have them at the time and time being something that guarantees change so too the 'power' granted changes hands.

You have to step back once again and determine what the purpose of a weapon is and how much so anyone requires a weapon in our present society.

I actually own weapons myself but the types of weapons that I own do not grant me the action at a distance effect that a gun grants. Guns are very easy to wield and require little conviction in order to use. the gun never asks 'do you really think this is a good idea right now?' to the user. I can tell you that knives and other hand weapons require substantially more conviction in order for the individual to use with intent but a gun can be used from a distance - be that physical distance and indeed moral distance I would surmise.

The problem for the total gun banishment argument, which seems to be what is being argued, is that I don't see anybody who can make it. Germany has firearms for hunting and target practice. Why? Isn't that also inviting disaster? And yet Germany has a lower per capita murder rate, and a lower per capita rate of murders by firearms still. I don't think that whether a murder is done by firearm or another method matters, as such, but this does apparently show that fewer firearms leads to a lower murder rate, but also (and just as importantly) that there is less interest in murder in Germany, even without taking firearms into account. If I say this a few times, perhaps you will understand why I bring this up. The US simply has some important variables in the mix other than firearms.

Germany has had a shootings - we had a Brit guy shot in Berlin last Saturday night in a flat - argument or drugs I do not know but the guy died.

The issue here is that it is very rare and uncommon to find it. In fact, the overall level of violence within Germany is low. You will not see people walking the streets with guns.

The German system does have armed police however even on the streets which is unlike the UK.

You're right to point out that the debate gets mired quickly in details, since there is such a level of distrust among the various factions in the US discourse in firearms law that any attempt to keep arms from the unfit is seen as setting off on the slippery slope. As individuals, I think that actually many of the top websites and blogs for firearms use try their best to promote a healthy discourse and mindset for firearms ownership, just as we should also have a healthier discourse and set of rules for how people interact with police. I think it is worth preserving and rewarding that.

And McDonalds sell raw carrots alongside the products that they market as 'food' to polish up their image, Ed

If I was selling narcotics to you I would no doubt tell you that narcotics are best as part of a balanced diet I would do that to convince you and play on your misgivings that it was a 'good idea'.
I'd do it for publicity and I'd do it to cover myself legally. If anyone who worked for me was ever tied to saying something against my public opinion policy - and it would be a policy, I'd have that person 'moved on' post haste. This is how you keep yourself as an organisation looking good.

A similar situation appears over the Porno Industry with its self governing STD screening policy. Of course it looks great that they test performers but you have to step back and appreciate whose aims they represent. They do report on who is infected and what not but they do it so project something to the public and the performers involved and all the while they protect the revenue of the porno film producers. All a very good method to influence perception but nothing else.

What is a healthy ownership policy? Here's an idea:

No one owns a gun. If you want to fire them, rather like how fireworks are sold in Germany, you go to a specific place and you use the guns that are provided by the operator who is legally permitted to run such a business. You guys get to fire your guns, the system is better regulated, less guns on the streets and in the hands of these 'lower classes' who carry out these crimes (bouncing off your arguments, Ed but I do agree that it tends to affect the poor more than those with better socio-economic standing) and you end up with less people being shot through accident or crime.
Plus, all the risk is on the operator and the government then so fewer people will be liable for misfires or what not. Of course their would be less guns in the hands of the public but would that make you feel safer? Do you think that could ever work as a practical solution to all these guns that you guys love to have?

In London in some of the poorer areas that have gun crime issues they campaigned to have the sale of toy guns made from plastic removed from sale. Kids would buy them and someone would shoot them as they thought from a distance that they had the real thing. People tend not to ask too many questions when threat is perceived and we end up with people - kids in this case, shot.

And for one final thought by way of trying again to answer your persistence: What is the "endpoint" of firearms law? Since the Gun Control Act of 1968 there are already controls on a number of types of firearms, and yet from what I can tell owners of the most restricted types of weapons have proven safer than the people in caliber-restricted South American countries who can only obtain small handguns in calibers considered "sub-lethal" by many US shooters.

Yes, South-Africa most certainly has its issues. Culture, availability, economics, politics and social factors not to mention civil unrest all play a part in the situation over there. You could conclude that the US is more 'stable' that South-Africa in many aspects.

There will always be people who are upstanding and make personal choices to do things a certain way. I choose not to do certain things despite them being easy for me personally that would net me some kind of gain. I do it mostly out of preference and I know that many people who own katana, bows, knives and even guns do have warrants and do follow the law and use them in a place designated and in accord with the rules. We are looking at the situation whereby people do not adhere to the rules and laws.

Once upon a time you could buy Cocaine in a German Pharmacy - they changed that.
You could buy Opium in England only going back a little in time - they changed that.

You could argue that many people used and use narcotics and alcohol responsibly. The issue is to how many and what proportion do not and the outcome of them not adhering has on the rest of society.

You cannot buy alcohol easily in Sweden - they had a massive issue with alcoholism and in the end the state changed the laws. You buy alcohol for yourself from state operated and approved places and they are only open at certain times during the week.

It is not the responsible drinker, drug user or person who collects guns that is the target. The focus is on the effects on the rest of society when these things are used outside the law.

I think that one of the best features of a democracy is that we don't have to get into silly debates about trying to create laws that will hold forevermore, in every last situation.

That's true: law is an evolving entity and it develops over time in complexity.
The law in many sense is a reactive system; something transpires, people in law discuss it and in turn formulations are put forward that result in a system of laws. As a society develops its level of complexity in law increases as more tenets are added and the relations to existing and new tenets are added. They actually calculate the growth of law over time as I recall from my University days

If the people feel that something requires more oversight - such as having hi-cap mags in a state - the people are free to vote on that and hopefully make the right choice.

People as individuals are often lacking in resources to assess the situations and more over tend to think of it their owns terms. People are often fickle and they lack statistics and facts.
The aim of citizens really has to be to be informed and to know what is going on but additionally most people have a full time life to run too. If I want some facts about the law I may read up on them but I will also at some point end up having to ask my Lawyer as he is the expert and has more resources and investment in this type of knowledge.

I work as an Engineer and people come to me to ask about certain types of solutions. I essentially sell that knowledge to them who have less of it or do not have the resources to invest in it.
This is fundamentally why most people are not aware of the system of law fully to take one example for the same reasons that most people are not experts in Mathematics or Pharmaceuticals - time is a limited asset and attention and focus are too - no one can invest in all things at all times as we only have one mind to apply to each factor

There is no endpoint where everybody has a right to have their own private nuclear arsenal - saying such shows a fundamental misunderstanding about the oversight function of a democracy, and shows a lack of logical discipline.

But why not? If the owner was responsible and obtained the weapon legally what's the issue here?
Logically it is the same situation - which is why logic alone never serves us fully in human and social contexts.

If the result of someone who owned nuclear weapons to misuse them and thereby be labelled 'mad, insane, etc.' would be unwanton death then I can see no difference at all logically.
If the nuclear weapon is one sale and I have the money to buy it then who is to say it is wrong?

The issue here, once again, is that we measure the effects of such policies and how it would impact society. Right now enough people in power and in society in the US implicitly and combined are approving the unwanton shootings and killings of innocent people due to the policies that it has in place and this is how the situation has played out since the US constitution was first put in place. England had the right to bear arms too and it was only really brought under control back in 1920:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_to_ ... ed_Kingdom

There is almost nobody, aside from a handful of superRandian types, that think they would prefer to legalize such a thing. Rather, I would suggest that in a diverse country such as the United States, the high level of disagreement is suggestive that there are at least compelling arguments on both sides, even if not seemingly equally matched ones - rather than a complete wipeout of one side by another, as you'd get if the discussion was whether individuals need no oversight to hold nuclear weapons, or whether you need an automatic weapon to go hunt deer.

Yes, take it with a pinch of salt. I only used that argument to hint at endpoints and how things play out over time given the legal and social - and corporate - frame of reference here

Weapons - a lot like narcotics - are subjects that ultimately boil down to a group of people who love them and want them and a group of people who cite the dangers and try their best to remove the threat as best they can.

For me personally it is balanced on the effects that they have on society.

You could argue that if we sell Heroine in the local Super Market that it should be allowed as only 47% of user die after using it for a year - why limit it if the other 53% do not die? Well, logically no reason at all, but socially, economically you end up with all sorts of issues such as theft and violent crime. The people attempt to determine if the crime is due to the drug being legal and easily available or illegal and harder to find. The end result is social turmoil and balance for balance most people do not want that as they are vulnerable to its effects one way or another.

[Bananamatic]

college shooting in Oregon, at least 15 dead, shooter seems to have announced it on 4chan's /r9k/ board

well shit

[evil_ash_xero]

This is getting absurd.

Oh well...nothing to be done. America wants it's guns. This is the result.

[MintyTheCat]

This is getting absurd.

Oh well...nothing to be done. America wants it's guns. This is the result.

BBC have this up:

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-34419802

Certainly some groups of individuals are making a lot of cash from this.

I would say it has gotten to be absurd and is fast becoming "part of the culture". Very ridiculous.

[Weak Boson]

This is so fucking scary

[JBC]

I'm afraid by the time I ex pat no one will ever trust me because the USA is full of idiots & psychopaths. It doesn't help that I'm from the south & will always have a slight accent, no matter how well hidden.

[Ruldra]

shooter seems to have announced it on 4chan's /r9k/ board

http://i.imgur.com/qid8o5R.png

[MintyTheCat]

I'm afraid by the time I ex pat no one will ever trust me because the USA is full of idiots & psychopaths. It doesn't help that I'm from the south & will always have a slight accent, no matter how well hidden.

I have met some decent Americans but I take people as they are

[louisg]

college shooting in Oregon, at least 15 dead, shooter seems to have announced it on 4chan's /r9k/ board

well shit

I've never really visited 4chan or reddit or any of those multiforum sites (think the last time I participated in general-purpose Internet forums was Usenet), but I want to know more about those kinds of communities. There always seem to be specific forums on those that are like some crazy dark corner of the Internet, and then other stuff that's fairly normal, right? I'm guessing it's kind of like how most of YouTube is fine but I can find fucked up stuff on it if I wanted to..? What's the deal with r9k? Seems pretty screwed up.