# It's a dark world



## Dodecaplex

Sad. Very sad. 

What's the solution?


----------



## Ukko

Close Virginia Tech. Close Virginia. Remove the trigger fingers (both hands) from all babies at age one month. No that won't work; other weapons don't need those fingers - so kill all children at birth.

The problem will disappear in one generation.

Any other solutions?


----------



## regressivetransphobe

VT just can't get a break.

Nice to see Yahoo.com considers Justin Bieber and Lady Gaga more worth reporting on.


----------



## violadude

I don't think I wan't to visit the community forum anymore...it's starting to bum me out on a daily basis.


----------



## Klavierspieler

It's starting to make me not want to go to college!


----------



## clavichorder

Klavierspieler said:


> It's starting to make me not want to go to college!


Don't let the news get you down and limit your life though.


----------



## hawk

It can be a dark world if that is what we focus our attention soley on. It seems it has always been that our sources of information tend to report the dark stuff. Undoubtedly it is vital to be aware of these happenings~on some level it is part of who and what we are but ONLY one part. Like the thorns on a rose are only part of it...So why only focus on the thorns when there is so much more beauty to see and create??? We have some control over our vision of this world~might be time to excercise that control...
Make some Beauty in our World, see the Beauty in our world, it is there and it is easy to make...

Doesn't have to be complicated nor do we have to think in grand perspectives...Changing the world begins with self~look at the ways we are conditioned to be miserable and change them. Rain is a blessing not something to be cursed at, Cold is invigorating, Flowers smell beautiful, the Breath you just inhaled/exhaled is a Gift, your vision, hearing, sense of smell and taste, mobility and sense of touch/feel are all magical. There is tremendous power in a smile or friendly touch. Listening when a friend or stranger is in need of someones ears ~compassion.
I left $5 at the coffee place for the next persons coffee. When i returned several hours later the person behind the counter was astonished that the trend continued for such a long time~people sharing with no expectation of return...
These little things can have a profound impact on someone who feels alone~


----------



## Dodecaplex

Klavierspieler said:


> It's starting to make me not want to go to college!


Well, we do have the option of going to the UK (somehow). It's a lot more strict over there.


----------



## samurai

The solution, IMHO is to absolutely *stop* selling *any* type of military assault weapons {"street sweepers" etc. etc} to any *civilians* whatsoever, under *any* *circumstances*. These people are not in the Armed Forces, and therefore, no way in hell should they have access to or need of this sort of overwhelming fire power and the lethal effects it is capable of unleashing on other--*innocent*--civilians. Let the NRA and its allies be damned!


----------



## Dodecaplex

samurai said:


> The solution, IMHO is to absolutely *stop* selling *any* type of military assault weapons {"street sweepers" etc. etc}to any *civilians* whatsoever, under *any* *circumstances*. These people are not in the Armed Forces, and therefore, no way in hell should they have access to or need of this sort of overwhelming fire power and the lethal effects it is capable of unleashing on other--*innocent*--civilians.


I tell this to people all the time! Yet everyone says I'm just crazy! Why anyone would need such lethal weaponry is beyond me.


----------



## Polednice

samurai said:


> The solution, IMHO is to absolutely *stop* selling *any* type of military assault weapons {"street sweepers" etc. etc}to any *civilians* whatsoever, under *any* *circumstances*. These people are not in the Armed Forces, and therefore, no way in hell should they have access to or need of this sort of overwhelming fire power and the lethal effects it is capable of unleashing on other--*innocent*--civilians. Let the NRA and its allies be damned!


I was watching an episode of _Penn & Teller: [Expletive Term for Male Bovine Excrement]_ in which they said that the reason the U.S. is in the state it is with regards to guns is because the nation was democratised too early. In other countries, revolutions against monarchies were followed by some kind of disarming of the people before a representative government was put in place, but, in the U.S., the democracy began with guns and (arguably) the right to guns enshrined in the constitution.

Of course, the extent and practice of gun-ownership in the U.S. seems too ingrained for any effective action to be taken against it - instead it needs to be something that's controlled as best as the country can manage. More generally, this issue leads me to question the widespread American feeling that the Bill of Rights is an unalterable list of necessary freedoms. Certain freedoms _are_ timeless, but the second amendment is too specific and too parochial to be a fundamental right, and so its relevance to 21st century society ought to be brought into question. If the conclusion to that question is that it is wrong, I think it ought to be scrapped without it being seen as a crime against the rights of the people.


----------



## samurai

@ Polednice, IMHO, You are absolutely right. The *2nd* *Amendment* so beloved by the gun faanatics and their allies refers to *state* *militias* and the private citizens who comprise them having the "right to bear arms". How this has gotten so twisted and skewed to the point where just about any American nut job can walk into a gun store--especially in the South and West--and buy whatever type of arsenal he or she so desires is simply insane, not to mention criminal. This country is still reaping--and will continue to do so--the grim whirlwind as long as this type of permissiveness continues to exist.


----------



## hawk

Gun control gun control~it's all been talked about so many times........
What are you (each of you/us) doing to reduce the dark of the world?


----------



## Dodecaplex

hawk said:


> Gun control gun control~it's all been talked about so many times........
> What are you (each of you/us) doing to reduce the dark of the world?


Until a solution is found, it _should_ be talked about. Because having lunatics going around shooting _schools_ is certainly not even close to a solution.

Also, I study. It's really all I'm capable of doing at the moment.


----------



## samurai

All I can do in my puny way is to support those politicians--yeah, those guys--who are courageous enough to stand up and fight against the powerful lobbies {money] which the NRA and its ilk are able to mobilize in Washington. I really think, though, that after all is said and done the lunatic fringe--as represented by the leading Republician presidential contenders--may well win out in the end. I fervently hope that I am wrong in that assessment.


----------



## hawk

I don't really disagree~people shooting each other is, in my opinion, a symptom that won't be addressed by limiting ar talking about limiting the weapons we use. What is the cause of our need to inflict damage to each other, individual against individual or Peoples against Peoples?? I do think there is a biological component to it, there is a violent aspect to we humans as there is with many other animals on this earth but it feels as if we have lost the balance with the other aspects of our selves. Yep regulating guns or pepper spray or tasers or rocks and sticks will have a temporary impact on our violent actions towards each other but at best it is only temporary. It's dealing with a symptom....


----------



## Sid James

Until something really big happens, politicians won't do anything about gun control.

Here in Australia, in 1996 a lone gunman went on a shooting rampage with automatic weapons in Port ARthur, Tasmania.

About 30 people were killed.

The then newly elected Howard government bought in tough gun control laws that have been in place since & it's worked, I don't think anything of that magnitude has happened here again, and the spate of massacres we had here in the 1980's & '90's stopped, as far as I can remember...


----------



## Ukko

samurai said:


> All I can do in my puny way is to support those politicians--yeah, those guys--who are courageous enough to stand up and fight against the powerful lobbies {money] which the NRA and its ilk are able to mobilize in Washington. I really think, though, that after all is said and done the lunatic fringe--as represented by the leading Republician presidential contenders--may well win out in the end. I fervently hope that I am wrong in that assessment.


Thanks for the revelations,_sam_. Those rat ******** in the NRA (I am a life member) are running around shooting people. Somehow, I was led to believe otherwise.


----------



## Sid James

^^I'm for gun control but it has to be commonsense. Eg. you are a farmer, so you need to have guns. But not automatic rifles, I think. Our government did good here to ban those kinds of automatic weapons which were used in number of horrendous massacres here as I said before. It's stopped now...


----------



## Polednice

hawk said:


> Gun control gun control~it's all been talked about so many times........
> What are you (each of you/us) doing to reduce the dark of the world?


Lighting it up with gunfire.


----------



## Polednice

hawk said:


> I don't really disagree~people shooting each other is, in my opinion, a symptom that won't be addressed by limiting ar talking about limiting the weapons we use. What is the cause of our need to inflict damage to each other, individual against individual or Peoples against Peoples?? I do think there is a biological component to it, there is a violent aspect to we humans as there is with many other animals on this earth but it feels as if we have lost the balance with the other aspects of our selves. Yep regulating guns or pepper spray or tasers or rocks and sticks will have a temporary impact on our violent actions towards each other but at best it is only temporary. It's dealing with a symptom....


Accepting this analogy, I think it is actually reasonable to only deal with a symptom when the underlying cause is so fundamental and likely ineradicable.


----------



## samurai

@ Hilltroll72, As a former member of law enforcement I resigned from the NRA after they refused to back a ban on "cop killing" ammunition. Whether you are tongue in cheek with your assertion about "rat ********" of the NRA "running around shooting people" or not that is certainly not my assertion. I just don't see why civilians need to be armed with M-16 s etc. as I was when I was a soldier. If that's a "revelation" to you, then so be it. I just don't see the need for it, that's all. And we are seeing the consequences--are we not--of what happens when so many people have such easy access to these most lethal of weapons. Are we looking at the same thing or not?


----------



## Philip

http://www.livescience.com/17378-rats-show-empathy.html


----------



## Ukko

samurai said:


> @ Hilltroll72, As a former member of law enforcement I resigned from the NRA after they refused to back a ban on "cop killing" ammunition. Whether you are tongue in cheek with your assertion about "rat ********" of the NRA "running around shooting people" or not that is certainly not my assertion. I just don't see why civilians need to be armed with M-16 s etc. as I was when I was a soldier. If that's a "revelation" to you, then so be it. I just don't see the need for it, that's all. And we are seeing the consequences--are we not--of what happens when so many people have such easy access to these most lethal of weapons. Are we looking at the same thing or not?


As a former lawman, you probably know that the 'armor-piercing bullet' bill was (deliberately) so loosely worded that it included most hunting bullets. I am _sure_ you know that full-auto guns are banned for civilian use.

I am a member of 'the excluded middle'* in the gun debate; I believe there are reasonable, logical restrictions possible on guns and gun ownership. Unfortunately, both the NRA and the anti-gun coalition are extremely polarized. There is also the Unrecognized Nutcase Factor; any workable solution for that will require a diminution in 'basic' civil rights, going well beyond the gun debate.

*The Law of the Excluded Middle is a term I came across recently. It seems to apply to all 'heated' debates.


----------



## kv466

The only gun control I can ever be in favor of is automatic rifles or as Samurai put it, 'cop killing' guns and ammo. There truly is no need whatsoever for the common folk to have such weaponry.

That being said,...try to cross my lawn to come and take my .223, .9mm, .22's, 30-30, 12 gauge or my beloved .38 special or my .357 Magnum and I'll apply the marksmanship I've developed over years to shoot that person right between the eyes. 

I'm not a member of the NRA for many reasons; one of which is the same Sam pointed out. I will, however, never stop loving my guns.


----------



## Guest

I understand the desire to ban assault weapons - I am not a big gun control proponent, I don't own any guns, I'm currently agnostic on some of the finer points of the issue - but I can tell you it won't end shootings. Sure, maybe these guys can shoot a few more with these types of weapons, but - and I know this is cliche - it is not guns that kill people, it is the people wielding them. When I was finishing high school, there was a school in a neighboring town that had a shooting. I knew a few people from the school, as well as a teacher who was shot. All the person had was a shotgun and a pistol - no fancy assault weapons, no armor-piercing ammo. Several people died, even more were injured. Another incident (sadly at the same school) - a group of teenagers went to the school with hockey sticks and beat the crap out of some others - one within an inch of his life.


----------



## Polednice

kv466 said:


> The only gun control I can ever be in favor of is automatic rifles or as Samurai put it, 'cop killing' guns and ammo. There truly is no need whatsoever for the common folk to have such weaponry.
> 
> That being said,...try to cross my lawn to come and take my .223, .9mm, .22's, 30-30, 12 gauge or my beloved .38 special or my .357 Magnum and I'll apply the marksmanship I've developed over years to shoot that person right between the eyes.
> 
> I'm not a member of the NRA for many reasons; one of which is the same Sam pointed out. I will, however, never stop loving my guns.


Why kv, why? 

I ask only half jokingly - as a Brit the concept of having a gun in the house (or ever needing a gun) is completely alien to me.


----------



## Polednice

DrMike said:


> I understand the desire to ban assault weapons - I am not a big gun control proponent, I don't own any guns, I'm currently agnostic on some of the finer points of the issue - but I can tell you it won't end shootings. Sure, maybe these guys can shoot a few more with these types of weapons, but - and I know this is cliche - it is not guns that kill people, it is the people wielding them. When I was finishing high school, there was a school in a neighboring town that had a shooting. I knew a few people from the school, as well as a teacher who was shot. All the person had was a shotgun and a pistol - no fancy assault weapons, no armor-piercing ammo. Several people died, even more were injured. Another incident (sadly at the same school) - a group of teenagers went to the school with hockey sticks and beat the crap out of some others - one within an inch of his life.


This ties into my earlier brief remark about it being reasonable to treat the symptom (gun violence) rather than the underlying cause (human violence). The thought "it's people who kill people" suggests one of two things:

1. So what if it happens? Get over it.
2. Deal with the people, not the guns.

To 1 there is no answer, to 2 my answer would be that it's impossible to remove all desire to inflict harm on others, so it's better to remove tools that make it far easier to do far more damage.


----------



## Ukko

Polednice said:


> Why kv, why?
> 
> I ask only half jokingly - as a Brit the concept of having a gun in the house (or ever needing a gun) is completely alien to me.


I think you mean as a _new Brit_. A hundred years ago, or even fifty, many Brits had a different understanding. Was the WW2 Home Guard unarmed (I ask because I don't know)? And if they _were_ unarmed, were they trained to yell *Boo* very forcefully?

In the US, Home Guard has more than one meaning; it can mean the National Guard (though lately they haven't been home much) and it can mean _home guard_ in the literal sense. Not so many years ago, most 'uninvited guests' were professional/semi-pro, usually unarmed burglars, who had no wish to even see a homeowner, much less attack one. Now the drug addiction and its peddlers have expanded to the small towns in the hinterlands, and these people have no sense of style.

In the inner cities, homeowners/renters tend to have three deadbolts on their doors, and/or electronic intrusion alarms. I choose instead to have three handguns strategically placed. I'm just following the hillbilly tradition, you see.

:trp:


----------



## LordBlackudder

i would just turn the light on. it gets dark earlier in the winter. no big deal.


----------



## Polednice

Hilltroll72 said:


> I think you mean as a _new Brit_.


Yes, when talking about my experiences as a Brit, I also don't mean to suggest that I share feelings with pre 10th century Brits, or the Brits of the 11th, 12th, 13th, 14th, 15th, 16th, 17th, 18th, 19th, or even some of the 20th centuries. When calling myself a Brit though, my existence in contemporary society is usually taken as a given.


----------



## kv466

Polednice said:


> Why kv, why?
> 
> I ask only half jokingly - as a Brit the concept of having a gun in the house (or ever needing a gun) is completely alien to me.


Sorry, Poles...I just like shooting my guns. I was aggrandizing it a bit, though...I wouldn't wanna shoot anything or anyone...I just like shooting my guns.



violadude said:


> I don't think I wan't to visit the community forum anymore...it's starting to bum me out on a daily basis.


Just go the feel better about ourselves thread!


----------



## Polednice

kv466 said:


> Sorry, Poles...I just like shooting my guns. I was aggrandizing it a bit, though...I wouldn't wanna shoot anything or anyone...I just like shooting my guns.
> 
> Just go the feel better about ourselves thread!


I can understand that - I like swinging my sword.


----------



## Ukko

Polednice said:


> Yes, when talking about my experiences as a Brit, I also don't mean to suggest that I share feelings with pre 10th century Brits, or the Brits of the 11th, 12th, 13th, 14th, 15th, 16th, 17th, 18th, 19th, or even some of the 20th centuries. When calling myself a Brit though, my existence in contemporary society is usually taken as a given.


Sure. Given your subject of study, I had assumed a broader interest. My bad.

I sincerely hope that your Krystal Nacht never comes. Hell, I hope that *mine* never comes. But if it does, I also hope to make it expensive for the folks in the boots.


----------



## Dodecaplex

Polednice said:


> This ties into my earlier brief remark about it being reasonable to treat the symptom (gun violence) rather than the underlying cause (human violence). The thought "it's people who kill people" suggests one of two things:
> 
> 1. So what if it happens? Get over it.
> 2. Deal with the people, not the guns.
> 
> To 1 there is no answer, to 2 my answer would be that it's impossible to remove all desire to inflict harm on others, so it's better to remove tools that make it far easier to do far more damage.


Wiser words have never been spoken. I absolutely agree.

Unfortunately, the majority of people (at least in this country) never seem to go anywhere beyond the second option's implication that it's impossible to remove the desire to inflict harm on others, so they simply give up and stop right there. What they don't realize is that this desire, along with the ability to act upon it, should be restricted as much as possible.


----------



## samurai

About that whole inane axiom about "people kill people not guns" {sic}, I really get tired of hearing this used as a justification by those who are against gun control. I mean, how much easier is it for someone to kill someone else with an AK-47, M-16 or some other type of similiar semi-automatic weapon than it would be if they were to use their hands or a wooden plank etc., etc. In other words, if the person *didn't* *have* *that* *weapon* in his hands, he could not inflict the grievous damage which he can when he does have it, and often at a distance {safe for him} away from his "killing zone".


----------



## Ukko

/\ You are obviously one of 'the polarized'. I know from long experience that reason will not penetrate.

(Just in case you are wondering why I am not entering the log-jammed debate. Life is too short.)


----------



## samurai

Your choice; go for it.


----------



## Scarpia

samurai said:


> About that whole inane axiom about "people kill people not guns" {sic}, I really get tired of hearing this used as a justification by those who are against gun control. I mean, how much easier is it for someone to kill someone else with an AK-47, M-16 or some other type of similiar semi-automatic weapon than it would be if they were to use their hands or a wooden plank etc., etc. In other words, if the person *didn't* *have* *that* *weapon* in his hands, he could not inflict the grievous damage which he can when he does have it, and often at a distance {safe for him} away from his "killing zone".


What a waste of energy to even worry about these weapons. What are your chances of being shot by someone with an AK-47 or M-16, compared with your chance of being run down in the crosswalk by some idiot yakking on a cell phone or sending a text message? Both weapons are already illegal in the US, except in a modified semi-automatic configuration. And both are ineffective if you want to conduct a civilian massacre, since everyone will see it and run for the hills before you even get a round off. Of the rare mass murders that have occurred in the US, most have involved mundane pistols, not automatic or semi-automatic rifles. San Ysidro involved a semi-automatic rifle for some killings, but Luby's and Virginia Tech involved pistols and lots of ammo. Ironically, 23 people were killed in Luby's because not one person in the restaurant had a gun to return fire, even though the attack took place in Texas!


----------



## Dodecaplex

^ What about college and high school shootings? Are you now going to say that there would have been less victims if the students at Columbine and Virginia Tech had guns with them?


----------



## Scarpia

Dodecaplex said:


> ^ What about college and high school shootings? Are you now going to say that there would have been less victims if the students at Columbine and Virginia Tech had guns with them?


I was addressing a post in which it was claimed that the presence of AK-47 and M-16 assault weapons was a problem in the US. I pointed out that the number or people killed with such weapons is minuscule. I see no reason that people should have them, but eliminating them would have virtually no effect on public safety.


----------



## Guest

samurai said:


> About that whole inane axiom about "people kill people not guns" {sic}, I really get tired of hearing this used as a justification by those who are against gun control. I mean, how much easier is it for someone to kill someone else with an AK-47, M-16 or some other type of similiar semi-automatic weapon than it would be if they were to use their hands or a wooden plank etc., etc. In other words, if the person *didn't* *have* *that* *weapon* in his hands, he could not inflict the grievous damage which he can when he does have it, and often at a distance {safe for him} away from his "killing zone".


Yes, and there would be less vehicle fatalities if we stopped letting people drive, and there would be less alcohol-related and tobacco-related deaths if we banned them. We could eliminate any number of problems that we face by simply banning this, that, and the other thing. Now, I understand that guns are a different matter. I don't know the statistics, but I'm going to go out on a limb and guess that a large proportion of shootings are committed with weapons that were not legally obtained. I do know, though, that the original VT shooting was not this case - the guy obtained the guns legally, although the gun sellers did not get the information about his history of mental health issues. But every time we have a shooting, there is a renewed outcry for banning guns. Is violent crime non-existent in societies where private gun ownership does not exist?


----------



## Meaghan

DrMike said:


> Yes, and there would be less vehicle fatalities if we stopped letting people drive, and there would be less alcohol-related and tobacco-related deaths if we banned them. We could eliminate any number of problems that we face by simply banning this, that, and the other thing. *Now, I understand that guns are a different matter.* I don't know the statistics, but I'm going to go out on a limb and guess that a large proportion of shootings are committed with weapons that were not legally obtained. I do know, though, that the original VT shooting was not this case - the guy obtained the guns legally, although the gun sellers did not get the information about his history of mental health issues.


Yes, precisely. Such a different matter that the car analogy doesn't really seem appropriate. Guns, while they are sometimes used for other purposes, are _for killing._



DrMike said:


> Is violent crime non-existent in societies where private gun ownership does not exist?


I would be very interested to see data on this question, and perhaps I will go looking for some. I highly doubt that it's "nonexistent," but I wouldn't be at all surprised if it were far less prevalent.


----------



## Ukko

samurai said:


> Your choice; go for it.


Looks like _Scarpia_ is attempting to force reason into the debate. It ain't going to work; there's no reason left in it. There is no middle ground, because that's been excluded. "AK-47s, M-16s, semi-autos"? What a strange juxtaposition that is - but it's a common one, and now we have a lawman using it. You city folks are fairly incomprehensible to me.


----------



## Ukko

Meaghan said:


> Yes, precisely. Such a different matter that the car analogy doesn't really seem appropriate. Guns, while they are sometimes used for other purposes, are _for killing._
> 
> I would be very interested to see data on this question, and perhaps I will go looking for some. I highly doubt that it's "nonexistent," but I wouldn't be at all surprised if it were far less prevalent.


Check out Nazi Germany while you are at it; they banned private gun ownership, shortly before...


----------



## Scarpia

DrMike said:


> ...But every time we have a shooting, there is a renewed outcry for banning guns. Is violent crime non-existent in societies where private gun ownership does not exist?


The murder rate in the US is 2 to 5 times higher than in most developed countries. Gun laws may or may not have something to do with that.


----------



## Meaghan

Hilltroll72 said:


> Check out Nazi Germany while you are at it; they banned private gun ownership, shortly before...


The historical and cultural context is... well... quite different. Which makes me rather skeptical that banning or more strictly regulating private gun ownership in the US is likely to lead to genocide.


----------



## Scarpia

Hilltroll72 said:


> Check out Nazi Germany while you are at it; they banned private gun ownership, shortly before...


Well, that's a specious argument. The Nazi's also built the Autobahns. Oddly enough, the US followed their lead and built the interstate highway system but concentration camps did not follow.


----------



## Guest

Scarpia said:


> Well, that's a specious argument. The Nazi's also built the Autobahns. Oddly enough, the US followed their lead and built the interstate highway system but concentration camps did not follow.


True, but throughout history, oppression has happened less in societies that tended towards granting more, and not less, liberties.


----------



## Dodecaplex

Scarpia said:


> I was addressing a post in which it was claimed that the presence of AK-47 and M-16 assault weapons was a problem in the US. I pointed out that the number or people killed with such weapons is minuscule. I see no reason that people should have them, but eliminating them would have virtually no effect on public safety.





Scarpia said:


> Ironically, 23 people were killed in Luby's because not one person in the restaurant had a gun to return fire, even though the attack took place in Texas!
> 
> 
> Dodecaplex said:
> 
> 
> 
> ^ What about college and high school shootings? Are you now going to say that there would have been less victims if the students at Columbine and Virginia Tech had guns with them?
Click to expand...

Do you now see the point I was actually trying to make?


----------



## Dodecaplex

Hilltroll72 said:


> Check out Nazi Germany while you are at it; they banned private gun ownership, shortly before...


Check out the UK:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_politics_in_the_United_Kingdom


----------



## Scarpia

Dodecaplex said:


> Do you now see the point I was actually trying to make?


My point in referring to the Luby incident was to point out that very few people actually carry guns even though they have a right to. Again, banning guns will have a vanishingly small effect on public safety, and is probably not worth the attention that it gets.


----------



## mmsbls

Gun control is a very interesting issue. About 15 years ago I read several books and papers by people who had studied the effect of gun control laws in the US. The idea was to look at changes in states after gun control laws were enacted or changed. The authors on both sides were able to use the data to support their views. I'm not sure if the data are better now, but a huge problem with the analysis involved the fact that states with strict gun control laws had neighboring states with lax ones and vice versa. 

I do not have much confidence in either side's views. I do have high confidence that the probability of my family being harmed by guns will go significantly up if I bring a gun into my house. On the other hand, the fact that neighbors may have guns in their houses might reduce my chances of being harmed by guns.


----------



## science

I don't have much of an opinion on gun laws, but on the general topic I do have a thought.

It really is a dark world, darker that we usually want to think about. A lot of that darkness comes from the human heart, and most of us are much worse than we think we are. 

Anyway, there are lights in the darkness: art, music, friends, sometimes family, the joy of helping each other, comedy.... 

What we usually do is drift along half-aware of things, moving from distraction and task to distraction and task. A better way, if it were possible, might be to be more conscious of the darkness, and more appreciative of the lights.


----------



## Ukko

Meaghan said:


> The historical and cultural context is... well... quite different. Which makes me rather skeptical that banning or more strictly regulating private gun ownership in the US is likely to lead to genocide.


Genocide seems unlikely to me too. There are two *basic* problems with "banning or more strictly regulating private gun ownership in the US" though, because there are so _many_ guns in private hands - in _many_ private hands.

1) the removal of those guns requires both voluntary surrender of them, and finding them through the use of the sales records kept by dealers. In both cases, only the legally owned guns of non-criminals will be collected. The many thousands of illegally held guns in the hands of criminals will not be accessible.

2) Many guns privately held by non-criminals were obtained though private sale. the 'trail' to these guns stops with the last owners to obtain them from a dealer. If those owners don't 'remember', and new owners don't 'heed the call', those guns are still out there. Given the last sentence in paragraph numbered 1, those unidentified owners will be very reluctant to disarm themselves.

There is yet another factor, involving "cold, dead fingers", which is probably 'basic', but of prevalence unknown to me. There are still other considerations, mostly affecting rural areas. Since only about 20% of our population lives there, they will get little consideration.


----------



## Polednice

DrMike said:


> True, but throughout history, oppression has happened less in societies that tended towards granting more, and not less, liberties.


An essential point that religious conservatives ought to consider more!


----------



## Guest

Polednice said:


> An essential point that religious conservatives ought to consider more!


I'm not suggesting we go libertarian or libertine. But a healthy fear of the electorate is something the rulers of any country should have. Although many in the U.S. have forgotten, or choose to forget - this country was founded, among other things, on the concept of self-sufficiency. Private property is an important thing, and defending one's property is one of the most fundamental rights. Indeed, when writing the Declaration of Independence, Jefferson is rumored to have originally written that the inalienable rights were life, liberty, and property, not the pursuit of happiness. Who were they concerned would take their property? Well, in addition to others, they also wanted to protect themselves against a usurping government - such as that from which they had just extricated themselves. The circumstances under which "the shot heard 'round the world" occurred were that the British were marching to a weapons' depot to collect the weapons, leaving the citizens defenseless.

Maybe things have changed since then, but the more they change, the more they stay the same. It is the heritage of this country that guns are legal to own privately. Various restrictions have been placed on that, but the basic right remains. Does it mean that there will be some misuse of them? Sure. Am I being callous for admitting as much? If that is what people like to think, so be it. There are any number of things that cause harm to others that we allow - again, alcohol is different, but I see no "need" to have alcohol, other than for personal enjoyment, and how many lives are wrecked by alcohol? Alcohol related traffic accidents and fatalities, health issues from alcohol abuse (cirrhosis, fatty liver disease, alcohol toxicity), increased rates of domestic violence linked to alcohol? Does everybody who drinks do these things? No - no more than everybody who owns a gun goes out and shoots up schools. Arguably, guns are more useful than alcohol. Guns can provide food through hunting. Guns can provide protection. Guns allow police to enforce the law when confronted with deadly force. What does alcohol consumption positively contribute? Sure, there are some studies that suggest that moderate consumption of red wine can be beneficial, but nothing that can't be achieved by some other means.

But guns, especially assault weapons can kill more people? The latest VT shooting had 2 fatalities? Alcohol-related traffic accidents can easily accumulate at least that many.

And let's face it - the only thing weapons bans will accomplish is to take guns out of the hands of law-abiding citizens. As we know, criminals will get guns or other weapons if they want.


----------



## Dodecaplex

DrMike said:


> And let's face it - the only thing weapons bans will accomplish is to take guns out of the hands of law-abiding citizens. As we know, criminals will get guns or other weapons if they want.


This takes it all back to the point I made about college and high school shootings, because whether or not law-abiding citizens are allowed to have guns, students would still be absolutely helpless. And I doubt that letting students take guns with them to school would solve anything. So, the only remaining option would be, like Polednice said, to limit the ability to acquire these lethal weapons in the first place.


----------



## Guest

Dodecaplex said:


> This takes it all back to the point I made about college and high school shootings, because whether or not law-abiding citizens are allowed to have guns, students would still be absolutely helpless. And I doubt that letting students take guns with them to school would solve anything. So, the only remaining option would be, like Polednice said, to limit the ability to acquire these lethal weapons in the first place.


I was surprised to read that gun ownership is quite high in Europe, especially in the Scandinavian countries. I wonder why this has not let to widespread mass murder? In Switzerland, all males between 20 and 34 are potential conscripts in the army, and are issued guns. Do they have widespread school shootings as a result, I wonder? After all, such widespread gun ownership surely must lead to widespread gun-related violence.


----------



## Polednice

DrMike said:


> I was surprised to read that gun ownership is quite high in Europe, especially in the Scandinavian countries. I wonder why this has not let to widespread mass murder? In Switzerland, all males between 20 and 34 are potential conscripts in the army, and are issued guns. Do they have widespread school shootings as a result, I wonder? After all, such widespread gun ownership surely must lead to widespread gun-related violence.


I don't think the issue here is of widespread violence, it's about even a small fraction of violence that can quite easily be stopped. Take a violent man's gun away, and he may well just reach for a knife, but at least many people will find themselves more capable of defence.

On your earlier points, I think I addressed a few in other posts - my general argument though would be that heritage doesn't count for much.


----------



## Dodecaplex

DrMike said:


> I was surprised to read that gun ownership is quite high in Europe, especially in the Scandinavian countries. I wonder why this has not let to widespread mass murder? In Switzerland, all males between 20 and 34 are potential conscripts in the army, and are issued guns. Do they have widespread school shootings as a result, I wonder? After all, such widespread gun ownership surely must lead to widespread gun-related violence.


And I was surprised to read that the example you used in your post, Switzerland, was actually quite unique compared to the rest of Europe. I was also surprised to read about the strict gun laws of Japan and the low rate of firearm homicides that it has.

In all seriousness, do you really want to play this game? To take the small data from one place and apply it to everywhere else?


----------



## Ukko

Dodecaplex said:


> And I was surprised to read that the example you used in your post, Switzerland, was actually quite unique compared to the rest of Europe. I was also surprised to read about the strict gun laws of Japan and the low rate of firearm homicides that it has.
> 
> In all seriousness, do you really want to play this game? To take the small data from one place and apply it to everywhere else?


And you carefully jumped over the reference to the Scandinavian countries? Didn't fit you program? C'mon, _Dode_.


----------



## Praeludium

Wow. I just feel like USA are an other world. 
I'm happy to live in Europe, to say the least. 
I can walk on the streets unarmed. The worst I could be frightened of is a gang - possibly with knifes - and really, that doesn't happen very often (actually this almost never happens in 99% of the places I can think of).
There isn't any gun at home. I don't think any of the persons I know have one.
Nobody play with these damn filthy vicious violent things, aimed at killing persons, possibly cowardly (it's not like you have to get close), saying that they just like firing. I don't think people are unhappy because of that. Those who use weapons use rifle in order to hunt (and they can't do what they want).

By the way, I have never hear of any school rampage in France. A few years ago there was this scandal about a kid being killed by a lost bullet in a difficult neighborhood. There was also this guy who tried to shot his teacher with a lead rifle (which is a kind of toy I suppose, compared to what I (18) could get in the USA).
And there are criminal in France, like everywhere else. There is gun traffic, too. But the police is here to protect the civilians from the armed criminals.
Finally, law in France is maybe not that stupid.
I think it's like that in most of the developed countries.

About Scandinavian countries, I'd be curious to know the kind of weapons they have. I wouldn't be surprised if they were mainly aimed at hunting...

Btw, the comment about the "Krystal Nacht" and these kinds of things are totally inappropriate. 
Anyway, a lot of German people of the 30's were for the Nazi regime (they voted for Hitler). Guns or not, it probably wouldn't have changed anything. What people should have done, they should have done it earlier. Anyway, this is way more complex than that.


----------



## Polednice

Praeludium said:


> By the way, I have never hear of any school rampage in France. A few years ago there was this scandal about a kid being killed by a lost bullet in a difficult neighborhood. There was also this guy who tried to shot his teacher with a lead rifle (which is a kind of toy I suppose, compared to what I (18) could get in the USA).


This has made me think that one of the extra difficulties in a country where it is fine for every household to have a gun is that, legal or not, this means it is far, far easier for temperamental, emotionally unhinged teenagers to get their hands on a deadly weapon. Yes, in countries like the UK, a determined adult can get their hand on a firearm and massacre a group of people - but a disturbed student who would _want_ to murder his peers wouldn't be able to.


----------



## Meaghan

DrMike said:


> True, but throughout history, oppression has happened less in societies that tended towards granting more, and not less, liberties.


Which liberties, though? I find that almost everyone who speaks generally about protecting liberties, whether they are liberal or conservative (with the exception of libertarians), actually just means the liberties they like. For instance: gun ownership, okay; abortion and gay marriage, not so much. Or vice versa. Though I agree with your general statement. It would be hard to argue with that.


----------



## Guest

Dodecaplex said:


> And I was surprised to read that the example you used in your post, Switzerland, was actually quite unique compared to the rest of Europe. I was also surprised to read about the strict gun laws of Japan and the low rate of firearm homicides that it has.
> 
> In all seriousness, do you really want to play this game? To take the small data from one place and apply it to everywhere else?


As Hilltroll pointed out, I spoke of Europe in general, and then zeroed in on a few countries. I'm not aware of any European nations that completely ban guns. Can you point me to one? Point me to a country that has no private gun ownership so we can compare. I believe private gun ownership is very tightly controlled in China - and citizens get run over by tanks in the streets.

I find it interesting that some of the largest mass killings in this country were not committed with guns - the attacks of 9/11 were perpetrated by a group of determined individuals wielding nothing more than box cutters. Timothy McVeigh used fertilizer. We are zeroing in on some rare occurrences at colleges - and based on those anomalies, we want to pass sweeping legislation, fundamentally altering a right that has been guaranteed for as long as this country has existed. Yeah - they get a lot of press, and the gun control groups exploit them to no end. All our ills will be solved by banning just one more thing. I'm sorry, but if making something illegal will decrease its use, please explain to me the widespread use of illegal drugs? And how wonderfully did prohibition work?


----------



## science

"All our ills will be solved" with stricter gun laws. 

I figured someone should actually make this argument so that Dr. Mike's argument against it would matter.


----------



## science

Anyway, the root problem in the gun control debate is that there are some very different situations: suburban and rural people who want to defend their homes, and "inner city" people who want the shootings in front of their house to stop. This is also the problem in the debate over marijuana legalization. You can see that it's not about government control: on each issue, one side wants more and the other one wants less. It's about whether you see green grass from your doorstep and worry about what might be coming, or whether you see drug dealers on the corner from your doorstep and worry about what is already there. 

And of course there is the NRA and private prisons, with industries to protect.


----------



## Sid James

Scarpia said:


> I was addressing a post in which it was claimed that the presence of AK-47 and M-16 assault weapons was a problem in the US. I pointed out that the number or people killed with such weapons is minuscule. I see no reason that people should have them, but eliminating them would have virtually no effect on public safety.


Well banning automatic & assault weapons here in Australia in 1996 has lead to NO big massacres happening, as happened in that year (the Port Arthur massacre in Tasmania, which lead to the government acting on this issue). Previous massacres I can remember from the 1980's, happening when I was growing up in Melbourne, the Hoddle Street massacre and the Queen Street massacre. Then there was the Strathfield Plaza massacre in the early '90's in Sydney.

Nothing of this magnitude has happened since here, as far as I know. So most likely a ban on these weapons in the USA would STOP these types of massacres from occuring...


----------



## Ukko

Sid James said:


> Well banning automatic & assault weapons here in Australia in 1996 has lead to NO big massacres happening, as happened in that year (the Port Arthur massacre in Tasmania, which lead to the government acting on this issue). Previous massacres I can remember from the 1980's, happening when I was growing up in Melbourne, the Hoddle Street massacre and the Queen Street massacre. Then there was the Strathfield Plaza massacre in the early '90's in Sydney.
> 
> Nothing of this magnitude has happened since here, as far as I know. So most likely a ban on these weapons in the USA would STOP these types of massacres from occuring...


I'm pretty sure it's useless to tell you this _Sid_, but those bans are already in place, have been for decades. You need to find another theory.


----------



## Air

I'm not an expert by a long shot - but I'm curious, how will banning firearms be any different from prohibition (the 18th amendment and Volstead Act) in the 20s? Or the outlawing of marijuana in California right now? Forcing firearms into the hands of the criminals and gangs is a risky situation; riskier, certainly, than the possible threat of isolated shootings such as those at Virginia Tech.

My heart reaches out to those at Virginia Tech though. Two shootings within such a small time period is certainly not fair for a school of such good repute, or any American public institution for that matter. To think that it might have happened at CAL, or Stanford, or any other school that I'm familiar with, certainly provides a good incentive to explore better methods of gun and violence control.


----------



## Sid James

Hilltroll72 said:


> I'm pretty sure it's useless to tell you this _Sid_, but those bans are already in place, have been for decades. You need to find another theory.


I was responding to Scarpia who said what I quoted above. I assumed on the basis of what he wrote that banning those weapons would have no effect (or not much effect) on public safety. I was not theorising just responding to what he said. I took it based on that quote that these weapons are not banned in the USA but I am open for correction. I was focussing on what happened here in Australia in/since the ban on these weapons in 1996...


----------



## Scarpia

Praeludium said:


> Wow. I just feel like USA are an other world.
> I'm happy to live in Europe, to say the least.
> I can walk on the streets unarmed. The worst I could be frightened of is a gang - possibly with knifes - and really, that doesn't happen very often (actually this almost never happens in 99% of the places I can think of).
> There isn't any gun at home. I don't think any of the persons I know have one.
> Nobody play with these damn filthy vicious violent things, aimed at killing persons, possibly cowardly (it's not like you have to get close), saying that they just like firing. I don't think people are unhappy because of that. Those who use weapons use rifle in order to hunt (and they can't do what they want).
> 
> By the way, I have never hear of any school rampage in France. A few years ago there was this scandal about a kid being killed by a lost bullet in a difficult neighborhood. There was also this guy who tried to shot his teacher with a lead rifle (which is a kind of toy I suppose, compared to what I (18) could get in the USA).
> And there are criminal in France, like everywhere else. There is gun traffic, too. But the police is here to protect the civilians from the armed criminals.
> Finally, law in France is maybe not that stupid.
> I think it's like that in most of the developed countries.
> 
> About Scandinavian countries, I'd be curious to know the kind of weapons they have. I wouldn't be surprised if they were mainly aimed at hunting...
> 
> Btw, the comment about the "Krystal Nacht" and these kinds of things are totally inappropriate.
> Anyway, a lot of German people of the 30's were for the Nazi regime (they voted for Hitler). Guns or not, it probably wouldn't have changed anything. What people should have done, they should have done it earlier. Anyway, this is way more complex than that.


They say US citizens are notorious ignorant of the rest of the world, and I find it comforting, in a way, to learn that we are not alone in this. I get the idea that your idea of the US comes from watching the TV show "Dallas."

Despite what you may think, people in the US do not routinely walk around carrying guns. A sizable fraction of the US population thinks that a US citizen has the right to own a gun, but that does not mean that all of these people carry or own guns, or that there are no restrictions on the ownership of guns. Access to hunting rifles is fairly free in the US, and many people in the vast rural areas of the US own guns for hunting. But owning a handgun or carrying a handgun typically requires a permit which can be difficult to obtain. Unfortunately, there are a few states where the laws controlling gun ownership are weak or weakly enforces, which has facilitated trade in illegal guns.

And regarding Nazi Germany, very few voted for the Nazi party. There were many parties and the Nazis prevailed with a small fraction of the total vote. Once they were in power, however, they made sure that no one had the opportunity to vote again.


----------



## Ukko

Sid James said:


> I was responding to Scarpia who said what I quoted above. I assumed on the basis of what he wrote that banning those weapons would have no effect (or not much effect) on public safety. I was not theorising just responding to what he said. I took it based on that quote that these weapons are not banned in the USA but I am open for correction. I was focussing on what happened here in Australia in/since the ban on these weapons in 1996...


OK. The thing is, full auto (selective fire) weapons play a _very_ small role in crime in the US, street crime or otherwise; partly because they are_ banned_, partly because they eat too much ammo, and even partly because their use is conducive to 'collateral damage'. Military issue full auto weapons are really rare on the street. Semi-auto versions of those weapons are legally obtainable by supposed non-felons, and those are the ones that the ignorant call 'assault weapons'. Those are, I gather, somewhat more common out there, and some of them have been illegally converted to full auto.

There are remedies for these problems, but they come from the 'excluded middle', and so have no chance of being implemented.


----------



## Scarpia

Sid James said:


> Nothing of this magnitude has happened since here, as far as I know. So most likely a ban on these weapons in the USA would STOP these types of massacres from occuring...


I don't know of a single "massacre" in the US which was undertaken with such weapons in the past 25 years, so it seems clear that banning them would have had no effect whatsoever.


----------



## Vaneyes

Guns are sexy.


----------



## Praeludium

Scarpia said:


> They say US citizens are notorious ignorant of the rest of the world, and I find it comforting, in a way, to learn that we are not alone in this. I get the idea that your idea of the US comes from watching the TV show "Dallas."


I've never seen Dallas, but I've seen Bowling for Columbine, that was quite enough. 
By the way I'm not that ignorant of the world, thanks (otherwise I wouldn't (try) to speak/write English). It's just that what we see from the USA (and I don't watch TV) is Fox News, gun rampages, tea party, Iraq/Afghanistan war, big lobbies (bigger than anywhere else), the border between Mexico and the USA, etc. and then, the good things (there are a lot of good things of course).

I know this isn't a sociological study. I also know that if I were in the US I'd be able to walk on the street without carrying a bazooka.
This was just an ironic exaggeration. Actually, I was also referring to the fact that I didn't need to carry a gun because I knew nobody could have one.
I've never been afraid that someone (crazy, criminal, whatever) could have a gun, and I think being afraid is the first step to violence (including guns, but also in politics...).

And how can one be sure he know how to use his gun when you really need it (if it happens someday) ? How many persons are capable to shoot someone in a "normal" mindset (eg.still having some reason) ? Are you sure you could use it in a 2012 Krystal Nacht in the USA ?
I mean, unless you train four hours a day and sleep with a gun under your pillow, I've hard time imagining someone save his family or whatever with a gun.
How much example of someone successfully defending his life with a gun ?
I say that because I practice boxing as a hobby. Doing things correctly in sparring is already way harder than when you're alone. I don't think that if I had to fight for my life or whatever of this kind (it won't happen, but anyway...) I'd be able to punch or kick properly or whatever.
How about using a gun ? And bullet isn't like a punch, it has to stop somewhere and with some bad luck I don't see why it couldn't be in the head of your wife or whatever. It meets what Samourai was saying : a civilian isn't a military, so putting a gun in his hands is...

I still think gun are (at best, for people who finally don't use them on anyone, and will never) dirty little toys for adult. Who can (and are designed for) killing someone. (excepted the rifle for some rural people/hunter)


----------



## science

Another thing we might consider is Mexico's point-of-view. I think recent events have made it clear that US gun policy can no longer be considered with only American concerns in mind. Of course there are those who think an American voter shouldn't care whether Mexicans are killed in drug wars, but ideally we'd have a larger sense of the world. 

I'm really not sure what such a consideration would lead us to conclude. Any sufficiently powerful criminal organization will be able to tap into the black market in automatic weapons, and I doubt that any state or likely coalition of states could significantly hamper that market. And of course there's always the problem of unintended consequences. 

But I suppose if we can't consider what the world looks like in some other American's neighborhood, we won't consider what it looks like south of the border. 

Or perhaps part of the point of having automatic weapons in every would-be gangster's hands is that it gives us sufficient cause to arm our own police more powerfully. Everybody wins. Hopefully soon we'll see the Barney Fifes of the world packing their own PDW. We'll all be safer. For my part, I'll have my groceries delivered. "Just leave them on the top step, Mac." 

This post is not meant to be productive. I have no productive thoughts on gun control. It's an issue I've carefully avoided learning anything about. But my very personal interest in global mafia is leading to that issue, and eventually I won't be able to avoid it any longer.


----------



## Polednice

For the record, I don't think firearms should be banned in the U.S. Although I think widespread gun ownership is a repugnant practice, it's a 'tradition' the U.S. is stuck with, and banning guns would only make things worse. On the subject of consistency, I would be interested to hear which (probably conservative) gun advocates think that drugs should be legalised too.

My purpose on this thread has been more about questioning the idea that a U.S. citizen has the _right_ to own a gun. You have a constitution that says that you are allowed, and should always be allowed, to own a gun, but it is not a _right_. A country such as the UK is not backwards in granting personal freedoms by having stricter rules on gun ownership. If we disallowed free speech, we would be oppressive. If we disallowed free religion, we would be oppressive. But gun ownership is _not_ a right, and it's a great shame that its inclusion in the U.S. constitution has led to the warped idea that it is.


----------



## Ukko

Vaneyes said:


> Guns are sexy.


The young lady isn't dressed for the pictured environment. Bugs.


----------



## Ukko

Yep, it's a right.


----------



## Guest

Polednice said:


> For the record, I don't think firearms should be banned in the U.S. Although I think widespread gun ownership is a repugnant practice, it's a 'tradition' the U.S. is stuck with, and banning guns would only make things worse. On the subject of consistency, I would be interested to hear which (probably conservative) gun advocates think that drugs should be legalised too.
> 
> My purpose on this thread has been more about questioning the idea that a U.S. citizen has the _right_ to own a gun. You have a constitution that says that you are allowed, and should always be allowed, to own a gun, but it is not a _right_. A country such as the UK is not backwards in granting personal freedoms by having stricter rules on gun ownership. If we disallowed free speech, we would be oppressive. If we disallowed free religion, we would be oppressive. But gun ownership is _not_ a right, and it's a great shame that its inclusion in the U.S. constitution has led to the warped idea that it is.


No offense, but there is a difference in liberties and rights recognized in the UK vs. the U.S. While much of our government is based on British concepts, much was also reactionary. Part of the problem that the colonists saw was that the British government could dictate policy to them without their input, and when they resisted, the government tried to step in and take their guns, making them impotent in the face of tyranny.

And might I mention a recent shooting rampage that happened NOT IN THE U.S. - but in Norway? Anders Behring Breivik bombed a government building and then went and shot up a youth camp on an island. 6 people died from the bomb. Then somewhere in the neighborhood of 69 people died on the island. And he used a semi-auto 9mm Glock and a semi-auto Ruger rifle. No fully auto weapons. Compare that to the 2 deaths in the recent VT shooting. Yes, any loss of life is tragic, but you have to keep things in perspective.


----------



## Guest

science said:


> Another thing we might consider is Mexico's point-of-view. I think recent events have made it clear that US gun policy can no longer be considered with only American concerns in mind. Of course there are those who think an American voter shouldn't care whether Mexicans are killed in drug wars, but ideally we'd have a larger sense of the world.
> 
> I'm really not sure what such a consideration would lead us to conclude. Any sufficiently powerful criminal organization will be able to tap into the black market in automatic weapons, and I doubt that any state or likely coalition of states could significantly hamper that market. And of course there's always the problem of unintended consequences.
> 
> But I suppose if we can't consider what the world looks like in some other American's neighborhood, we won't consider what it looks like south of the border.
> 
> Or perhaps part of the point of having automatic weapons in every would-be gangster's hands is that it gives us sufficient cause to arm our own police more powerfully. Everybody wins. Hopefully soon we'll see the Barney Fifes of the world packing their own PDW. We'll all be safer. For my part, I'll have my groceries delivered. "Just leave them on the top step, Mac."
> 
> This post is not meant to be productive. I have no productive thoughts on gun control. It's an issue I've carefully avoided learning anything about. But my very personal interest in global mafia is leading to that issue, and eventually I won't be able to avoid it any longer.


Yes, I do feel sorry for Mexico - especially when we find out that so many guns in the hands of their drug cartels got there from idiotic U.S. programs that allowed the guns to go south of the border without bothering to track them.


----------



## Ukko

DrMike said:


> Yes, I do feel sorry for Mexico - especially when we find out that so many guns in the hands of their drug cartels got there from idiotic U.S. programs that allowed the guns to go south of the border without bothering to track them.


Yep, an idiotic 'plan' fer sure. Sometimes one has to wonder about motive, when an anti-gun administration does something like that. It's beyond idiotic, beyond the torment it caused innocent Mexicans. It's even beyond my comprehension of evil.

And yet, I looks like I'm going to be forced to vote for that 'team' again. As an independent, I have been voting for what seems to be the 'lesser evil' for decades now. Why is it like that?

BTW, I suppose I need to point out to the Europeans among us that none of those 'untracked' weapons were automatics; the victim dealers don't handle banned weapons.


----------



## Dodecaplex

I should like to remind myself (and tell anyone who'll bother to read this) that due to my OCD, as well as other psychological issues, I have a strong and irrational fear towards guns and shootings. I'd go as far as saying that arguing with me will probably lead to nowhere, since, I admit, everything I say here will be far more based on emotion rather than reason.

That's not to say that the pro-gun members are unbiased in their own assessments or that what they're saying is based on the results of years of studying and analyzing data; however, I just want to be honest and leave this here as it is.


----------



## Guest

I found a statistic on wikipedia using data from the UN Office on Drugs and Crime, stating the number of firearm homicides per 100,000 population. For the U.S. (and the numbers are from 2000 - I don't know how much they have changed in the last 10 years), the number was 2.97. To give you some perspective, that is a frequency of 0.00297%. That is about 1 in 33,333. As comparison, I am including an excerpt from an article I found from Reason.com from 2006:


> But how afraid should Americans be of terrorist attacks? Not very, as some quick comparisons with other risks that we regularly run in our daily lives indicate. Your odds of dying of a specific cause in any year are calculated by dividing that year's population by the number of deaths by that cause in that year. Your lifetime odds of dying of a particular cause are calculated by dividing the one-year odds by the life expectancy of a person born in that year. For example, in 2003 about 45,000 Americans died in motor accidents out of population of 291,000,000. So, according to the National Safety Council this means your one-year odds of dying in a car accident is about one out of 6500. Therefore your lifetime probability (6500 ÷ 78 years life expectancy) of dying in a motor accident are about one in 83.
> 
> What about your chances of dying in an airplane crash? A one-year risk of one in 400,000 and one in 5,000 lifetime risk. What about walking across the street? A one-year risk of one in 48,500 and a lifetime risk of one in 625. Drowning? A one-year risk of one in 88,000 and a one in 1100 lifetime risk. In a fire? About the same risk as drowning. Murder? A one-year risk of one in 16,500 and a lifetime risk of one in 210. What about falling? Essentially the same as being murdered. And the proverbial being struck by lightning? A one-year risk of one in 6.2 million and a lifetime risk of one in 80,000. And what is the risk that you will die of a catastrophic asteroid strike? In 1994, astronomers calculated that the chance was one in 20,000. However, as they've gathered more data on the orbits of near earth objects, the lifetime risk has been reduced to one in 200,000 or more.


Interesting - they found that you were about as likely of dying by falling as from murder - and that murder number includes all methods. According to that same UN report, firearms account for 65% of homicides, so that puts it in perspective. So yes, when you come to the U.S., there are two things you must guard yourself equally against - being shot to death and falling!


----------



## Guest

From Wikipedia:
School massacres from 1980 on in U.S. and Europe-
2007 - Virginia Tech - 32 killed, 17 injured
1996 - Dunblane, UK - 17 killed, 13-15 injured
2002 - Erfurt, Germany - 16 killed, 1 injured
2009 - Winnenden and Wendlingen, Germany - 15 killed, 9-13 injured
1989 - Montreal, Canada - 14 killed, 14 injured
1999 - Colombine, U.S. - 13 killed, 21 injured
2008 - Kauhajoki, Finland - 10 killed, 1-3 injured
2005 - Red Lake, U.S. - 9 killed, 5-7 injured
2007 - Jokela, Finland - 8 killed, 1 injured
1989 - Stockton, U.S. - 5 killed, 30 injured
2008 - DeKalb, U.S. - 5 killed, 18 injured
1983 - Eppstein, Germany - 5 killed, 14 injured
1988 - Jonesboro, U.S. - 5 killed, 10 injured
2006 - Nickel Mines, U.S. - 5 killed, 5 injured
1998 - Springfield, U.S. - 4 killed, 18 injured
2009 - Vrasene, Belgium - 4 killed, 12 injured
1992 - Olivehurst, U.S. - 4 killed, 9-10 injured (this is the one I mentioned earlier, and I knew one of those injured)
2001 - Santee, U.S. - 2 killed, 13 injured
2006 - Montreal, Canada - 1 killed, 19 injured
1984 - L.A., U.S. - 1 killed, 13 injured
2006 - Emsdetten, Germany - 0 killed, 22 injured
2001 - Red Lion, U.S. - 0 killed, 14 injured
2009 - Ansbach, Germany - 0 killed, 10-15 injured

Certainly not limited to the U.S.


----------



## Ukko

DrMike said:


> I found a statistic on wikipedia using data from the UN Office on Drugs and Crime, stating the number of firearm homicides per 100,000 population. For the U.S. (and the numbers are from 2000 - I don't know how much they have changed in the last 10 years), the number was 2.97. To give you some perspective, that is a frequency of 0.00297%. That is about 1 in 33,333. As comparison, I am including an excerpt from an article I found from Reason.com from 2006:
> 
> Interesting - they found that you were about as likely of dying by falling as from murder - and that murder number includes all methods. According to that same UN report, firearms account for 65% of homicides, so that puts it in perspective. So yes, when you come to the U.S., there are two things you must guard yourself equally against - being shot to death and falling!


Not being at all good with statistics... using those formulae, what is the 'lifetime risk' of dieing from _any_ cause? I hope it's 1:1, but is that what these statistics get?


----------



## Scarpia

DrMike said:


> From Wikipedia:
> School massacres from 1980 on in U.S. and Europe-


Where is San Diego State University, 3 dead, 1996? In any case, the list is presumably culled from news reports, and whether or not a given "massacre" is reported depends on the whims of news organizations. And what defines a "massacre"?

What can we really conclude from an incomplete data set?


----------



## Guest

Scarpia said:


> Where is San Diego State University, 3 dead, 1996? In any case, the list is presumably culled from news reports, and whether or not a given "massacre" is reported depends on the whims of news organizations. And what defines a "massacre"?
> 
> What can we really conclude from an incomplete data set?


They included more than 4 people shot, I believe. And we can conclude much from an incomplete data set - we can conclude, at the very least, that school shootings are not limited solely to countries with a "heritage" of private gun ownership. That this is not a phenomenon solely of the U.S. That stricter gun laws enacted in more recent years in countries do not eliminate school shootings. We can't infer absolute frequencies, or compare frequencies with an incomplete data set, but we obviously can conclude some things from it. And under-reporting cuts both ways - if U.S. school shootings are under-reported here, then perhaps they are also under-reported in other countries.

At any rate, my final statement remains true - school shootings in the last 30 years are not solely taking place in the U.S.


----------



## Ukko

/\ I don't begrudge your 'point of focus' here, _DrMike,_ but I do question the relevance of comparing European counties to the US when it comes to the practicality of banning guns here. There are all sorts of interesting statistics, e.g. comparing Canada's incidence of burglaries-in-the nighttime before and after their draconian gun control laws went into effect (there seems to be quite a bit of available data re that), but the elephant in the room is that banning guns in the US would create a sonofabitch of a mess. Even _Poley_, in isolation from the world at Oxford, appears to have an inkling.


----------



## Polednice

DrMike said:


> No offense, but there is a difference in liberties and rights recognized in the UK vs. the U.S. While much of our government is based on British concepts, much was also reactionary. Part of the problem that the colonists saw was that the British government could dictate policy to them without their input, and when they resisted, the government tried to step in and take their guns, making them impotent in the face of tyranny.
> 
> And might I mention a recent shooting rampage that happened NOT IN THE U.S. - but in Norway? Anders Behring Breivik bombed a government building and then went and shot up a youth camp on an island. 6 people died from the bomb. Then somewhere in the neighborhood of 69 people died on the island. And he used a semi-auto 9mm Glock and a semi-auto Ruger rifle. No fully auto weapons. Compare that to the 2 deaths in the recent VT shooting. Yes, any loss of life is tragic, but you have to keep things in perspective.


No offence taken, but that may be because I have no idea what your post had to do with mine


----------



## Scarpia

I am generally in favor of stricter gun laws, but there is the inconvenient fact that the US is a democracy, and it would appear that it is not possible to get a majority of US citizens to vote for strict gun control. There is a history of getting the courts to impose things the public doesn't like by suddenly re-interpreting existing law a different way, but this ordinarily causes more trouble than it is worth.


----------



## rojo

It may be a dark world, but I don't believe it has to be.

Wouldn't it be something if, one day, everyone on the planet decided to put their weapons down, all together? Maybe we could all do a massive, global flash mob instead. Everyone on the planet, singing and dancing. Now that is something I'd like to see and participate in.

This could happen, I think, if enough people wanted it. 

I was reading the other day about a group of people (forget who) that decided to get together and consciously send messages of peace out into the world for a 24 hour period. Terrorism crimes during that particular time period were greatly reduced.

What if we could just put fear and anger aside. Imagine how free we could be. Easier said than done, I know. But it is possible, imo.

I'm going to hold a mental image of this global flash mob happening... woohoo! 

@hawk 

Love your posts.


----------



## science

I don't think anyone is seriously advocating banning all guns in the US as a practical policy. 

It's equivalent to the old crap about how liberals want to ban Shakespeare and force kids to learn ebonics and Keynesian economics always thinks the government can improve the economy by spending more money and you're not allowed to pray in school and so on.


----------



## Guest

science said:


> I don't think anyone is seriously advocating banning all guns in the US as a practical policy.
> 
> It's equivalent to the old crap about how liberals want to ban Shakespeare and force kids to learn ebonics and Keynesian economics always thinks the government can improve the economy by spending more money and you're not allowed to pray in school and so on.


Tell me where the criticism of Keynesian economics is off base, or how there is no effort to ban prayer in schools?


----------



## science

DrMike said:


> Tell me where the criticism of Keynesian economics is off base, or how there is no effort to ban prayer in schools?


Keynesian economics does not advocate government deficit spending in normal times - as anyone who knows anything about Keynesian economics can tell you.

There is no effort to ban prayer in schools. It's logistically impossible anyway. There is an effort not to allow anyone to try to force kids to listen to them pray, which of course feels to you like an effort to ban prayer. But believe me, I prayed all the time in school and no one knew or cared.


----------



## Guest

science said:


> Keynesian economics does not advocate government deficit spending in normal times - as anyone who knows anything about Keynesian economics can tell you.
> 
> There is no effort to ban prayer in schools. It's logistically impossible anyway. There is an effort not to allow anyone to try to force kids to listen to them pray, which of course feels to you like an effort to ban prayer. But believe me, I prayed all the time in school and no one knew or cared.


True - Keynesian economics doesn't advocate government deficit spending in normal times - so the modern day advocates are always looking for some cause to declare that we are in crisis so that they can implement Keynesian policies.

And way to play the semantics game with the prayer in school debate, but I find it disingenuous of you to pretend that there have not been efforts to ban prayer at schools and at school functions.


----------



## science

I'm sure people pray in those situations all the time. What is illegal - in public schools - is forcing others to join them. Of course it happens: I led the prayer at my public high school's graduation. It was of course, an Evangelical Christian prayer. I can only imagine what would've happened if I'd made the sign of the cross or mentioned Allah or Shiva or Kuan Yin in my prayer. Woulda been innarestin. But anyone whose traditions were disrespected knew they'd best keep their mouths shut, because it's West Virginia, and they're supposed to know that though they're tolerated, it's only as long as they recognize the right of the Evangelicals to run things. 

It's interesting that your identification with right-wing politics is so strong that you don't appreciate why religious pluralism is necessary. It's not going to be your tradition's prayers that are forced on people at school functions, man. You might think you're a normal Evangelical / fundamentalist Protestant, but lots of them - trust me on this, I grew up Southern Baptist and fundamentalist and we sometimes lived in Western communities with substantial Mormon populations - think you're going to hell and that your tradition is a cult. The most you could hope for is that your tradition not be mentioned if they get the right to enforce their religion in public schools (or at public school functions) again. 

Um, again, Keynesian policies in normal times advocate running a government surplus. I'm sure you'll remember Krugman's opposition to Bush's deficit spending until 2008.


----------



## Ralfy

The world will become "darker" as the years go by due to a permanent recession driven by financial speculation, a resource crunch, and the effects of environmental damage, including climate change. Additional problems will include greater social unrest due to high food and oil prices coupled with unemployment, resource wars, the effects of extended droughts, heat waves, and floods, and the threat of epidemics. These will make the effect of the use of firearms (I think the FAS reports a twentyfold increase in production the last two decades, with the effects of these and various anti-personnel weapons as more damaging to human societies than even WMDs) worse.


----------



## science

Ralfy, I've missed you! I need people to my left to feel secure.


----------

