Another day, another shooting in the US

[mesh control]

Jesse Ventura?

[Moniker]

The second amendment should really be the first amendment, since when push comes to shove, the first can only be defended by exercising the second.

But the gun control advocacy position often seems to be that if it allows for some reduction in crime then it's worth it.

Of course there's something different between a tool used for an action, and something that might motivate you to use the tool one way or another. But in both cases, you could make the argument that if it leads even in some cases to some public ill, then a ban is in order.

I can appreciate the position.

So let's say we have a (more) perfect world where civilian disarmament would go off without a hitch. In the short run, a gun ban would almost certainly be more beneficial than detrimental. The only real negative would probably be a bump in organized crime needed to facilitate the black market, which would very likely be far offset by a reduction in gang violence and incidental violence from your run-a-day crimes. This makes it a no-brainer for most people, since we aren't living in a particularly tumultuous or divided nation at the moment (there are obviously big issues, but nothing nation-breaking).

Let's posit that the police are adequately checked by the public media and federal oversight. No ballot-intimidation, systematic prejudice & so forth. Let's posit further that checks and balances on the federal level, including pressure from voters, ensure that federal oversight is just. The powers that be are more afraid of the ballot box than civilian uprising, after all.

Sounds pretty good.

[Skykid]

e: You know what, screw it, we are actually a pretty fucked country and any old school yay freedom pride is pretty much just a dead idea at this point. It's hard not to try and defend your country though

Don't be so blue friend, it's Christmas!

The thread isn't about bashing, it's just a sad case of firearms being responsible for indiscriminate murder. America is a great country with great people, and has achieved many magnificent things, especially in sciences, social solidarity and finance (at one point.) It is responsible for deluding its people a little too brazenly, but that's a different thread altogether.

For now, just do something about all those easy guns.

[Ed Oscuro]

Let's posit that the police are adequately checked by the public media and federal oversight. No ballot-intimidation, systematic prejudice & so forth. Let's posit further that checks and balances on the federal level, including pressure from voters, ensure that federal oversight is just. The powers that be are more afraid of the ballot box than civilian uprising, after all.

Sounds pretty good.

I don't know why it's a sticking point, but I think the common-sense response to this is that it has very little to do with the very imperfect situations which happen entirely outside the auspices of the system.

Unfortunately many people get sidetracked with proliferating "what-if" situations (like Jews vs. Nazis, It Could Happen Here!, there's counter-arguments to that which in turn miss the point) and only tangentially hitting the point which is that - as a whole the system's as good as can be expected, but in individual cases, things might go wrong and the system can be of little help (at least as it's currently set up).

Many pro-gun advocates (reasonably, I think) assert a personal right to be prepared even for unusually dire scenarios (again the partisans / resistance in WWII Europe example), but many people argue that this is a qualified right, because if the only justification needed was "preparation for bad things" then a lot would fly (including personal nukes like I mentioned earlier; many people tangentially hit this point with the "you need modern arms to fight a modern army, so forget it" response, which I think fails for a variety of reasons, including that you want the public to be as knowledgeable as possible about many things).

A detailed case:

"Policing necessity" is given priority over citizen rights in warrant searches - the door comes flying in, with a dozen pairs of boots following before the hinges stop moving. In practical terms, it's probably often good that criminals don't get forewarning that they are being raided. (Lots of things may be "often" good "in practical terms," like the judicial systems in many nations that put the burden of proof in trials on the defendant, or which allow juries to draw an inference from remaining silent during cross-examination; lots of things may also sacrifice the innocent for the sake of keeping the machine running quickly.) This has (I've mentioned it before) given an opportunity for some criminals to game citizen expectations, as all they need to do is bash down doors and shout "FBI" or "police" while wearing official-looking clothes and flashing spurious documents to trigger compliance in many people (possibly the fake FBI in the linked video were simply too decent people to actually rush into the house with guns and murder the occupants in cold blood, but you'll have to wonder if they have drawn conclusions about it this time). There's a difference between being respectful of police, and of feeling utterly unable to do jack shit when they appear; you still have rights. It seems to me that the current way this has been decided (by one of the august courts of our nation) is broken. The problem: There is a fundamental uncertainty about whether the "good guys" are actually trustworthy (i.e., are these "real police" or not?), but we also say you probably shouldn't gun down anybody who breaks into your house on suspicion they might be fake. At the same time, I have to say that what a jury thinks from the safety of a courtroom, or legislators in the Capitol, ultimately they are armchair quarterbacking somebody who has made the best choice. In world politics, when two groups of people with retaliatory capabilities were in a dispute, the best course of action was ultimately detente - everybody cools their heels for a moment and we figure out where things stand. I don't mean that the people are fundamentally opposed to police, but just as there was suspicion about motives during the Cold War, surely anybody with a brain may be suspicious when their house is raided for no reason known to them. Yet it could be a fundamental mistake. I think both sides need to account for this - it can't be just the homeowner's responsibility to do so. No unwarranted faith in firearms; no unwarranted faith in the system. Neither is a magic bullet.

I have to ask - if a person is thought to be armed and dangerous, what's the problem with setting up a negotiator and snipers and taking time to find out if people in the place being raided are actually of concern? The police, being many, would seem to have resources available in many situations to handle raids in a way that does not put them at risk, but if your only reason for an unannounced raid is "we have a warrant," that is far less than the "reasonable suspicion" that allows police to do unusual things in other cases, and which would allow a different response to a hostage crisis than to a simple raid on a residence.

I wonder if this particular example shows that people want to have things both ways - a speedy police response (and no doubt the police want it done quickly too) but they also want not to be unfairly targeted or the unnecessary danger I think unannounced warrant searches, or raids, puts people in. I think that you have to balance these things, and when you do you find that an individual person has the final call and responsibility of trying to decide whether they should go along with what is being asked of them, i.e. in determining whether the police are real or not, or whether to be suspicious. You can always cooperate with police, but what if you're not cooperating with the police? The system hasn't broken down, but it has forestalled your ability to think and react as an individual in this case.

We definitely want to find a way that people have less uncertainty about whether they are being served a warrant (most importantly they should be able to call in to ask a 911 operator), and we want police to have the best tools possible (without running over citizen rights - let's not forget that police already deal with some restrictions in the name of freedom) without being put in danger when confronting a possibly dangerous citizen (they don't know if it's you, me, Jane Q, or Serial Killer X on the other side of the house or car door).

Oh, and on a different note - it's not even been 50 years since some people (possibly FBI) threw dynamite at a temporary Tuscon residence of the mafioso Bonanno family. Not much longer since J. Edgar was running the Agency for his own political purposes - one of my favorite J. Ed stories is that he had a special agent fired because he "looked stupid, like a truck driver." At heart, not exactly the technocrat the media portrayed him as, and seem to still do. The impersonal bureaucratic touches to the modern society may help prevent some of the typically human pettiness at times, but it also allows people to ignore their moral duties.

[Randorama]

Interesting post

As Skykid mentioned, USA is now a police state with a tight control on its citizens. To cut a long story short, a gun will not do much against the troops, as an eventual "plain" war between "we, the people" vs. "the government" would be so un-even, that it would be lost before anyone would shoot a single ammo.

Guns in the US are a placebo for the lack of various other things (freedom, rationality, safety, a decently long cock for the straight males, etc.). They buy the illusion that things are fine, when they are not. Troubled individuals need placebos to keep going, so if one removes the placebo, the troubled individual will simply over-react and act in an irrational way (Yes, I studied this stuff).

Besides, violence is slowly decreasing, in US and in several other countries. My hunch is that these random episodes of madness are attracting more attention, precisely because of this reason. The less violent a society becomes, the more random bursts of violence shock the population.

Steven Pinker's latest book contains a lenghty discussion about this.

[Casey120]

After the school shooting there's a run on AR 15 as the new popular weapon to own !

Lets all pose before the Christmas tree with the new toy :

http://www.theatlanticwire.com/national ... mas/60306/

[neorichieb1971]

You know. I've made quite a few American enemies over this. But to the last two, I decided to make up with them since its Christmas. I backed down and just wished them happy holidays. They suddenly became very civilized.

Although, some were very uncivilized. To the point where they dictated to me that Europe was a poor mans America and America is superior and the elite. Oh well! Its America, its not my country. My values are not their values. I am happier on this side of the pond, they are happier on their side of the pond. But one thing is for sure, Americans don't like to be told how they should run their country. They want to make examples, not follow examples. They absolutely hate it with a passion when someone of non American origin talks down to them or tells them how they should live. In this type of situation, stats mean nothing to them.. "Screw stats" is their reply to that little game.

Piers Morgan is treading on this ice over there. Its obvious people have a problem with him because he is not a US Citizen. They also hate the fact that he comes from a country with tight gun controls and relative ideals.

I've said it before and I'll say it again. It will take more than 20 children murdered to overcome this gun hurdle. It would take a scene out of "Heat" where quite a few law enforcement get overwhelmed.

Its rather screwed up though, that in a country where movies are made, usually showing the rest of the world just how violent some Americans can be. That they allow guns to be freely distributed. Some kids had 11 gun shot wounds apparently. WTF man! Thats even worse than killing, thats some kind of RAGE going on there that I've never seen before.


Anyway, its Christmas.. Something cheerful needs to be discussed now.

[hail good sir]

is

[O. Van Bruce]

lots of stuff

But we don't have that police distrust nor any of those problems. If the police acts allways like they are the though and badass guys it's obvious that people will hate then.

In fact, I think that you answered the post of some one that is used to watch the police as a very friendly force that will only enter your house with a good reason AND good manners (when possible). And obviously, you, as a citizen, are completely sure that they will enter your house only when you have commited a crime and, in the case they make an error, they'll humbly apologize and provide reparations.

The only part of the police, at least in Spain, that has a bad reputation, for obvious reasons, is the riot control corps.

Perhaps the police should be reeducated in America to win the trust of the citizens again so people can't use that excuse to have guns in their houses.

[hail good sir]

times

[Ed Oscuro]

Interesting post

As Skykid mentioned, USA is now a police state with a tight control on its citizens. To cut a long story short, a gun will not do much against the troops, as an eventual "plain" war between "we, the people" vs. "the government" would be so un-even, that it would be lost before anyone would shoot a single ammo.

Such arguments tend to be simplistically constructed and unrealistic. A civil uprising that has no support from any of the people in the military - that would be unprecedented and also probably a sign that the people doing the uprising are not good guys. Lots of defectors from the military in Syria and Libya.

I think there's a couple things that could be used to explain a distinction between people owning specialized weapons of war versus people owning weapons, and it boils down to the second distinction - who assumes the risk in society?

First, what is the good the policy attempts to preserve? In the case of private gun ownership it is the ability to be personally responsible in reasonable circumstances, and to allow people a tool to assist them in asserting their equality with others, if the situation needs it, so that the law (or at least justice) can be served in situations that normally fall outside the system of law and order. In the case of owning a weapon of mass destruction, it is the ability for a group of people to repel the concerted efforts of aggressors in a wartime situation, or to enforce a just order if the existing one fails.

Secondly, who in society can reasonably assume the risks? This is interwoven with a third distinction - Even if we mention that a person is accountable for their actions before their peers (like going to court to prove they used a weapon justly), you can still say that more people's input does increase the reliability of the justice of the system. The problem is that it doesn't happen this way in some situations: Imagine if the jury was at the scene of the violent act like a Greek chorus: They could offer their advice. Of course it doesn't really work that way in practice; as I mentioned, more people's input is often worthless in cases of personal violence because it amounts to so much second-guessing bereft of many of the clues which prompted the defense in the first place, and a lot of extraneous stuff which the defendant could not have known (the bad guy was sympathetic because he was a single father, etc.; stuff that nobody cares about when being violently attacked). We grant the individual relative autonomy in these situations because they are unable to draw on the wisdom and assistance of others.

Compare this to the reality of a military situation (as opposed to the sometimes dangerous abstraction of the "chain of command"). It takes an obvious concerted effort to wage wars, so that many people are actually present and can be drawn upon as sources of wisdom in approaching the situation. Sometimes it is the individual person who refuses to go along that proves the worth of this "many parts" situation; other times, it is the pressure of the active whole - when many people can exert influence on the system - from voters to members in the armed services - it becomes more likely that the system can act in a just and considered fashion. Consciously or otherwise, when the effectiveness of a fighting unit is increased by the development of a new weapon, we tend to restrict the freedom of that person's operation with the goal of increasing the amount of consideration that can be given to the use of that weapon, and this is especially obvious for nuclear weapons.

The question seems to become "how precise must the response be?" A nuclear weapon or a personal tank serves an individual little extra purpose over more conventional weapons while their impact is such that targets of such weapons will be large and therefore should be fairly well-defined - and so the threat should be a relatively known quantity. A personal rifle or shotgun (or a pistol or knife, in extreme situations) is enough for most any encounter a person is likely to encounter, while not being ineffective, and such weapons have a relatively precise nature so that they can be used with less fear of unintended damages, and so fewer variables must be considered in their use. This makes them more effective for random encounters.

None of this is to say that there aren't unusual situations so that a nuclear weapon could justly be used in an unforeseen, seemingly random situation, or a personal small arm couldn't be used against a structural threat. However the procedure for making the claim to such events is such that for the sake of safety one should first strive to address a situation from the most structural and considered point possible, and then address the situation with increasing severity. But for practical purposes, such "escalating response" is more than a private individual acting to a random encounter can reasonably be expected to exercise, because time and force pressures forestall extra consideration in such cases (just as they prevent the structure of police or military from responding in that person's defense), so it seems reasonable to allow the individual some degree of latitude in determining how they will be armed.

[Ed Oscuro]

The only part of the police, at least in Spain, that has a bad reputation, for obvious reasons, is the riot control corps.

But aren't they "necessary?" Is it just that people like to throw a paver every now and then because of being tired of bailout-forced austerity? So let me get this right...in a situation that everybody knows about where the police are acting against a greater threat than most people are aware of, living comfortably in their own homes, the police are seen as worse. What reason do you have to think that you have the right perspective to say that the police are acting right when you're not around? My bigger point would be - why is it when the police are acting against a greater threat, the people are less happy? Could it be that the police are granted too much power and the individual has too little autonomy in such situations?

Perhaps the police should be reeducated in America to win the trust of the citizens again so people can't use that excuse to have guns in their houses.

This would be great, and if citizens didn't have guns then hopefully police could calm down with the swat tactics and shooting people chilling in their living room because they bust through doors hyped up and expecting heavy resistance.

O. Van Bruce obviously has not understood what I wrote (to be fair, the responses to this are somewhat scattered, but I think I made one of the strongest ones - the police cannot protect you in time), but you have. I don't think this comes from watching too much Reno 911 either.

[O. Van Bruce]

But aren't they "necessary?" Is it just that people like to throw a paver every now and then because of being tired of bailout-forced austerity? So let me get this right...in a situation that everybody knows about where the police are acting against a greater threat than most people are aware of, living comfortably in their own homes, the police are seen as worse. What reason do you have to think that you have the right perspective to say that the police are acting right when you're not around? My bigger point would be - why is it when the police are acting against a greater threat, the people are less happy? Could it be that the police are granted too much power and the individual has too little autonomy in such situations?

By general rule, the police is respected and cases of force abuse are very rare and isolated. Thus, we trust our police and we know they are doing their job. They are constantly checked, also, by the juridic power, the politicians and the citizens. The only exception to this is, curiously enough, here in Catalonia. the autonomical police corps called "Mossos d'Esquadra" has earned a very bad reputation through repeated incidents and some people has even asked for their dissolution. All of those incidents has been judged.

Outside of Catalonia, every police corps has a good reputation. Even the "Guardia Civil" that earned a very dreadful reputation during Franco's dictature as a very repressive and spanish ultra-nationalistic force has won a good reputation among the catalan and basque nationalists.

Perhaps the police should be reeducated in America to win the trust of the citizens again so people can't use that excuse to have guns in their houses.

This would be great, and if citizens didn't have guns then hopefully police could calm down with the swat tactics and shooting people chilling in their living room because they bust through doors hyped up and expecting heavy resistance.

O. Van Bruce obviously has not understood what I wrote (to be fair, the responses to this are somewhat scattered, but I think I made one of the strongest ones - the police cannot protect you in time), but you have. I don't think this comes from watching too much Reno 911 either.

Here comes the stalemate. We don't fear robbery to the degree of demanding the right of owning a gun without striong reasons. If a robbery happens there are other ways to catch the criminal (like cameras, control of the second hand market, descriptions of the criminals) but, obviously, if you aren't armed you are almost at the mercy of the criminal.

Anyway, robbery rate here is so low, specially in middle and low class homes that we'll barely have the opportunity to use said guns wether in our house or our neighbours'.

[Randorama]

EDIT: Shmups first, so no time to waste on rants except for:

Such arguments tend to be simplistically constructed and unrealistic

But we are talking something else: that the only way for citizens in the US to actually get their freedom back, involves taking action in a way they would not even dream of doing. And so on, and so forth. Joe citizen is happy with guns and Ponies, so he'd never dream of actually going to Washington and shoot down the nazists who wrote the patriot act. They got tanks, and tanks are serious business.

...but what I really wonder if you'll post some other 2-pages off-topic, high noise-to-sound ratio tangent for this comment, too.

[Ed Oscuro]

I don't see how it's off-topic, since I've been responding directly to things people are actually saying and interested in. All you've done here is reassert the same nonsense that I already said was a non-starter in this discussion, so your post is pretty much that noise you pretend to be upset with.

But I know not to expect more out of you, unfortunately. All posturing and no contribution to the discussion.

[O. Van Bruce]

I don't see how it's off-topic, since I've been responding directly to things people are saying. All you've done here is reassert the same nonsense that I already said was a red herring in this discussion, so your post is essentially meaningless.

But I know not to expect more out of you, unfortunately.

I still can't understand that, if the second amendment have a purpose and applying that purpose is nowaday impossible then it's useless.


It's something out of the XVIII-XIX century to think that the populace can overthrow a government by the force of arms. It can be done when the said country has a very weak military compared to their enemies' (like Lybia and Siria's case). But in your case it would be the biggest and better prepared military force in history. You would achieve a lot more by civil dissobedience and pacifist pressure against the government, but mos peoples nowadays don't have the patience to do that.

lol, there were a lot of pacific demonstrations and movements that achieved great things by pacific ways in the Ex-sovietic countries and sphere and in dictatures in Europe, Southamerica and Asia.

[Ed Oscuro]

I mentioned Syria and Libya as cases not because they had "weak" governments, but because defections from the military allowed the resistance to work. I don't think anybody should dispute that the idea of "just citizens" overthrowing a government without any help from the military or is unlikely, but it is actually nonsense to talk of a "government" as not having ordinary people in it when it clearly does. In Syria, Libya, and indeed many other places, bureaucracies are still composed of people, and a revolution's task is to demonstrate the rightness of its cause so that it brings in members from all over society. A revolution has the same duty of seeking to preserve life as a government. Being in the military might make a person reluctant to disobey their official orders, but they are still a person who can ultimately decide those orders are no good. In essence a revolution is the peeling away of a dysfunctional official layer and the re-emergence of the people.

There can be situations (for example, racial conflicts where the weapons and power are held by one group) where it's conceivable that you could have a just revolution that did not gain support from members of official bodies (as distinct from gaining the sanction of an official body, which is a useless concept if it just means that one person in a position of power speaks for the entire organization), of course, but it's obvious such a situation wouldn't be the situation that firearms activists would be referring to, and it seems less likely to be resolved rightly than the revolution that puts the people versus some corrupt officials in opposition.

In either case, of course peaceful resolution is the preferred way, just in the same way that a person who has a firearm should not be in the habit of thinking that their gun is the best way to resolve a problem. We are fundamentally talking about unusual circumstances; most arguments are resolved without anybody being killed, and American politics will continue to churn on ineptly without the nation exploding. But when you are talking about unusual situations those "best practices" are less likely to work, so it seems prudent to prepare for worse situations.

But as I said, I agree that the idea of armed rebellion is a silly thing to focus on: It's hard to imagine a cause just enough that Americans would be justified fighting the government with the aim of overturning it. It's not impossible, but it is very unlikely. That said, it's not so impossible to think that a person might find themselves wrongly targeted by the government, and that in that case they might use their arms to protect their lives in a short-term emergency, before they can take their case before the people and defend their actions in the preferred way.

[trap15]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=osgrd1MPb7I

[Randorama]

I don't see how it's off-topic, since I've been responding directly to things people are actually saying and interested in. All you've done here is reassert the same nonsense that I already said was a non-starter in this discussion, so your post is pretty much that noise you pretend to be upset with.

But I know not to expect more out of you, unfortunately. All posturing and no contribution to the discussion.

Except you cite my post to answer to some other post, which is bizarre to begin with. Besides, I see that you simply don't want to our point, so please keep posting extremely long posts, with an extremely thin amount of content, on pointless threads. You certainly will illuminate the masses with your concise and well-informed posture.

[Acid King]

As Skykid mentioned, USA is now a police state with a tight control on its citizens.

Just curious as to what makes you say the US currently has a police state. I'd say that's definitely what we're sliding towards, with the gradual erosion of the basic tenets of due process and the increasingly wide surveillance net the government is pushing out, but if you consider what we currently have a police state, it seems to be a pretty lame one from my perspective.

[Skykid]

As Skykid mentioned, USA is now a police state with a tight control on its citizens.

Just curious as to what makes you say the US currently has a police state. I'd say that's definitely what we're sliding towards, with the gradual erosion of the basic tenets of due process and the increasingly wide surveillance net the government is pushing out, but if you consider what we currently have a police state, it seems to be a pretty lame one from my perspective.

You'd be surprised tbh. The fact that life seems leisurely is, as Rando mentioned, fabricated from Ponies, mass media comforts and the illusion of choice. In reality the population and the population's collective consciousness is so tightly wound around the establishment's fingers there's barely a chink of daylight.

It's not just you though, the UK isn't far off: but the patriot act takes the biscuit. Probably the most invasive government act ever imposed undemocratically on a supposedly democratic nation.

[Randorama]

Just curious as to what makes you say the US currently has a police state. I'd say that's definitely what we're sliding towards, with the gradual erosion of the basic tenets of due process and the increasingly wide surveillance net the government is pushing out, but if you consider what we currently have a police state, it seems to be a pretty lame one from my perspective.

The erosion is more advanced than you probably think it is, I guess. My biased example is this. You guys have several agencies (FBI, Naval intelligence, probably CIA and other organs) that invest each tens, at times hundred of million dollars in Natural Language Processing tools to literally parse the internet for "dangerous information". The most researched upon languages are: Mandarin, the more important varieties of Arabic and...English. Basically, you have several of your institutions that are making titanic efforts to be sure that they can eavesdrop anything said by anyone, at any moment. And I even won a 14 month post-doc contract, to do that (I turned it down, though).

I don't doubt that it could be worse, e.g. China right now. But then again, Skykid replied to someone else that, unlike you, claimed for the situation in US to be just fine, hence the "police state" comment. Besides, I bet that if "we, the people" take their guns and march to Washington to wipe out the demotricrans, the republicrats and the other 20 shadow governments or so, said governments will bomb the fuck out of their beloved citizens.

Objectively, I think that the right to bear guns against the misgvinings of the government, now, is completely purposeless. They got tanks now, while they didn't in 1786. This, provided that any one would actually rebel, to begin with. Washington is far away - revolutions and coups d'etat in big countries are impossible for plain citizens, at least according to Luttwak.

But if you guys want your guns, I can't see anything wrong with it. Just be sure to take your prozac and other medications, and shoot deer and congressmen, not school kids.

[neorichieb1971]

I've noticed something. Its not your ex military guys buying these weapons. Its people just turned 21, wearing a frock. Or some guy who puts his gun next to his star wars collection

[Acid King]

@Rando

I'm well aware of the various datamining efforts by the government, which I alluded to in my question to you. Actually, it's gotten to the point where they are having problems processing all the information they're gathering and are looking for outside help to process it all. That is troubling to say the least, but it's too far in the background for it to become an issue for everyday Americans, which Is why I said it's kinda lame at this point. I suspect that once we get into a situation like Greece or Spain, where the debt and financial obligations of the federal government start to overwhelm political discussions, we'll get closer to that tipping point where shit like the NDAA starts to creep into investigating and imprisoning protestors and other people speaking up against the government. I think that'll be the true test of the second amendment and America's committment to the pricniples of the constitution. .

[BareKnuckleRoo]

I've noticed something. Its not your ex military guys buying these weapons. Its people just turned 21, wearing a frock. Or some guy who puts his gun next to his star wars collection

That's part of the problem too; people like to claim assault rifles are necessary to protect themselves from the gubmint/the terrorists/the muslims/the gays/whatever, but really instead of the attitude "well, I have a weapon now, hope I never have to actually use it", you have people getting them for christmas of all things grinning from ear to ear like it's the shiniest new toy ever.

And then they get stolen by their crazy relatives or whoever and we have yet another shooting.

[Drum]

Yeah, I'd be more sympathetic to advocates if guns were treated as the last line of defence instead of the first. If you own a gun for home defence it should be mandatory to have an alarm/camera system.

[Ed Oscuro]

Yeah, I'd be more sympathetic to advocates if guns were treated as the last line of defence instead of the first.

There are people out there who give firearms users a bad name through carelessness - as I've said before. Owning a firearm means you should view it as a last resort - and many do. As I said, lumping everybody into one big undifferentiated pile makes no sense. There are clearly lots of people who go out and get their training, learn everything they can, and abide religiously not only by rules of safety but also by the idea of non-escalation in conflicts. So it's hard to take you seriously when you say "advocates" treat guns as the only "line of defence" because this is simply not true.

Now, I will give you this - a lot of gun advocates roll out the "rebellion" talk as a first line of response when people attack the idea of gun ownership. As I have also said, I think this is not only a red herring but also somewhat self-defeating and it certainly doesn't reflect respect for authority. Then again, many people in that community have a pretty clear view of some of the pitfalls of bureaucracy and our current idolization of the power of authority in the face of common sense. I think there are other and certainly better responses to challenging firearms ownership but that is one that has become well entrenched as a meme by both sides. You can probably thank that stubborn Randian streak of American libertarianism for this in part.

I suppose we can all blame it on my unnecessary wordiness (for the purpose of informing people who don't care about the arguments and their justifications, which of course I don't blame anybody for - it's when they insist their conclusions are right when they haven't done the work of justifying them that it gets tedious) that people keep ignoring what I write, but if I give one response to one reposted off-the-cuff wrong assertion at a time, maybe some of them might stick.

[Randorama]

@Rando

I'm well aware of the various datamining efforts by the government, which I alluded to in my question to you. Actually, it's gotten to the point where they are having problems processing all the information they're gathering and are looking for outside help to process it all. That is troubling to say the least, but it's too far in the background for it to become an issue for everyday Americans, which Is why I said it's kinda lame at this point. I suspect that once we get into a situation like Greece or Spain, where the debt and financial obligations of the federal government start to overwhelm political discussions, we'll get closer to that tipping point where shit like the NDAA starts to creep into investigating and imprisoning protestors and other people speaking up against the government. I think that'll be the true test of the second amendment and America's committment to the pricniples of the constitution. .

By this point, I guess that we could debate on whether it is a question of either "if" or "when" it will happen. Besides, lame or strong, a police state is a police state, and you were not in that situation until the '80s or not, were you? Not that the same argument could not be applied to several other western states, anyway.

[neorichieb1971]

America needs a president who isn't everyone's best friend. Basically a leader should dictate depending on what happens during his tenure in charge. If all they are going to do is "condemn" acts to stay on the right side of "politically correct". I consider doing that is doing a crappy job.

Obama has hidden behind the couch on this issue.

It would be interesting to see how many guns are registered in each zip code? Is that possible? Can we get some stats?

Here is some from DC!

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/me ... tPageSize=

20001 83
20002 140
20003 51
20004 15
20005 26
20007 87
20008 49
20009 104
20010 40
20011 126
20012 68
20015 52
20016 151
20017 31
20018 45
20019 97
20020 79
20021 14
20024 49
20032 64
20036 15
20037 19

That seems reasonable to me. Although if a zip code war started I'd put my bets on 20016

If there are 300,000,000 guns in the USA. Its obvious about 96% of them are not registered/licensed. If you added each zip codes numbers you'd get nowhere near 2 million. That states to me there is no gun control what so ever.

[DEL]

Had to resurrect this one for the sake of this powerful short vid:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B23VnNg ... 7w&index=2
Learn from history.