Lives in Greater Detroit, a heavily urbanized area. We generally do not have to worry about bears there, unless one manages to escape from the Detroit Zoo.

Good for him. The #1 most violent city in America.

However, bear attacks are OBVIOUSLY just a tiny fraction of the reasons why someone might need to protect him/her self. For heaven's sake...I just KNEW someone would comment on that, the second I typed it.

We live in remote wilderness, & my friend up the road has already had several break ins, (door/window kicked in), and I have had 1. Luckily for the thieves, no one was at home any of those times.

I'm sure it offends the delicate, refined sensibilities of the chic, urbane city folk (I used to be one myself) for a law abiding citizen to own, much less be permitted to CARRY a firearm in these violent times. My deepest apologies.

After all, only American babies count, right?
BB

I don't mind the thought of sensible people carrying guns.

What worries me is the idiots who would use gunfire to settle who's going to pick up the next round of drinks.

Well then, we actually agree...
My comment about city folk wasn't necessarily directed at you...

Use a legal hunting rifle to shoot the bears....If you have to, use it also to protect yourself in the scary place you've chosen to live.

Why shoot bears at all? They are a valuable species and endanger only fools.

Why not keep that bullet for yourself?

P.S. Clearly, this is truly the stupidest thread The Smirking Chimp has ever produced.

The subject of guns evidently shuts down human CPU's in a most terrible way...

Um, dude, I would only shoot a bear if it were attacking me.

I am against hunting unless a person is so poor that they truly need to put food on the table. I think killing animals for sport is barbaric.

Me, personally, I have no problem with recreational hunters that eat what they catch. I am opposed to them using bait piles or salt licks to condition the animal to come to where they put up their hunting blind.

Trophy hunters, though, total barbarians and bad for the animals' gene pool.

Yeah, trophy hunters try to kill the most robust animals, whose heads they think look great on their walls. Sick.
BB

And you will find that there are hundreds of (now) empty "quarantine" razor-wire internment camps with machine gun towers, all ready to be filled.

Fill 'em up, Jack. Or join the Amish Mafia...
BB

And that they're going to be used to house gun owners...and there are plenty of FOX news watchers who agree with you on that--but not so many years ago many here were sure that these camps were for liberal dissidents--well, it ain't enough anyway.

There are over 100 million gun owners, many of whom are off the radar, having never purchased one legally (like, say, your average skinhead or drug dealer). If only 1% were recalcitrant enough to be a refusenik and go to the camps--and I assure you that it would be a lot more than 1%--then each camp would need space and staffing for around 2000-9000 prisoners.

Yeah. A Republican controlled House is going to pony up the money to imprison 1-5 million gun owners. That'll just fly through the Ways and Means Committee.

John's right about the widespread violence that this would unleash. If one could stand back far enough, it would be interesting to see what happens when the world's best armed military takes on the world's best armed citizenry, including the world's biggest, baddest, and best armed organized crime.

I can't stand back that far, myself. Even though I live in a pretty liberal city, I still know guys in my neighborhood who play with paintball guns on the weekend, and are just itching for the big showdown. Which they now believe is going to happen just any day now. One of them asked if I would sell him my Lee Loader.

I lied to him and told him that I accidentally broke it. Which would be real hard to do. I hope he's not reading this.

If this is happening in Denver, then I can only imagine what must be going on right now in Colorado Springs...

Maybe they don't exist, maybe they do, but you can be sure that the Federal Gov't has very specific plans in place on what to do if the balloon goes up.
BB

Would that be?

BTW, one of the places that's sometimes listed as being one of these infamous "FEMA Camps", near Georgetown, CO, is also along one of my favorite off-road trails. There is lots of barbed wire. There are barracks.

It's a water treatment plant. The barbed wire is to try to keep people from poisoning the water in the holding reservoir. The barracks are for the firefighters who more or less live up there most of the summer. Pretty common setup in this part of the country. Lots of forest fires here.

With all the tensions in America and the world right now, the "balloon" could be any number of possibilities.

What if a terrorist decided to use a biological weapon that contaminated a lot of people or a whole city? What if the crazy survivalists organized and finally went psycho?

to the fellow? Why not just say, "No, I don't want to sell my Lee Loader". Am I missing something?

I think the author was only referring to banning all guns from private citizens. Let's hope so. It would be over the top kwazy for him to also want to remove firearms from private security providers.
But his reverse logic is astounding.
BB

So in the world that Lessenberry advocates, a rich man can hire someone with a gun for his protection. What about the rest of us?

Precisely.

You do not have the right to live in a world without hazards, any more than I have the right to intentionally create hazards.

You seem to be the one who is frightened. Frightened people are cause #1 of loss of civil liberties, like, post 9/11-- "If being strip-searched at the airport saves even one life..."

You're one of them, aren't you?

Leave it to JMad to come up with the old false equivalence argument.

I am not frightened, just pissed off that gun folk can't see there is a problem and offer any viable solutions just "you'll get my gun when you pry it out of my cold, dead hands." All those people dead and it's business as usual. And, yes, I value civil liberties, far more than you ever have, JMad. Otherwise, I wouldn't have even postulated a question (that none of you can answer directly or honestly.).

If you knew me, you'd know I'm no coward and I've less fear than you. I have faced men with guns and knives, unarmed. Yes, a little, short, 100 pound female. And, yes, consider myself fortunate to still live. They, on the other hand, placed too much value on their weapons and size advantage.

Oh, and those unarmed children and adults at the Sandy Hook School? They had more courage than all of us combined. JMad, I guess you'd rather be a live coward than be a dead mensch, because in this matter, you are either part of the problem, or solution.

Why do I even bother to expect some level of mature discussion here?

Civil liberties, then why do you attack them? Just those liberties that you don't like, apparently.

Apparently, you don't know me too well, either. I've focused almost my entire political life on a single issue that is at the very core of civil liberty. Prohibition. An issue that you safety fetishists can't seem to get around yourself. "But what about the children?" I hear that shit all of the time when I go to bat to end the lunacy that is the War On Freedom.

Yeah, I'm just a whimpering coward. Now go wring your hands some more about how bad people create hazards for you, and that it would all be OK if the government just stepped in and squashed the bad people like bugs, and took away their guns and baseball bats. Just like they took away all of the cocaine and meth. Oh wait...

Why, those spineless politicians should at least outlaw murder. They could also ban my target pistols again, like they did last time. Which, by the way, have never been carried around loaded or aimed at anything not made of paper.

Now I'm going to go out in the cold and try to lure some homeless people into shelters tonight. Unarmed. It's supposed to get to around 5F tonight.

Your weaponry is the key to your civil liberties?

Can't or won't answer Penumbra's questions?

What I think JMadison is saying is that PROHIBITION generally, not necessarily just regarding weaponry, is the source of many of the problems in America. With this, I fully concur.

Portugal has stopped fighting the pointless "war on drugs" (translated: war on people) & has decriminalized use of EVERYTHING, drug-wise. They report a reduction in overall use of hardcore drugs, significant reduction in violent crime, and saved millions of dollars of law enforcement money which are funneled into TREATMENT Services, rather than funding the jail culture, so popular in Amerikkka.

Law enforcement dollars are too precious to waste on such things.

required when clutching pearls and casting wide nets of bullshit.

No, I think "bat-shit crazy" sums it up.

Surely you can come up with a more concrete conspiracy than that.

I'm just cruising along reading posts on the internet, like this one by Paul Craig Roberts, who writes

The “fiscal cliff” is another hoax designed to shift the attention of policymakers, the media, and the attentive public, if any, from huge problems to small ones.

http://www.counterpunch.org/2012/12/18/the-fiscal-cliff-is-a-diversion/

In the case at hand regarding gun control, it appears the national attention has been captured, for the moment, by another old, old argument. Next week we could very well be arguing about DOMA (again). In the meantime... we keep spending and building...

So what do YOU suggest ?

Do you offer any suggestions ? Any ideas, at all ? Just a snarky comment and then leave the thread.

You ain't much of a problem solver either, ya know.

Nowhere in the article did the author suggest that guns should be seized from their owners. Yet the brainiac commenters here assumed so and ran off the rails on their crazy gun train. The commenters here are seriously paranoid.

I have solutions, but there is no point in discussing them with this audience. If you can't comprehend the writing of the author, you won't listen to me.

I'm listening.

What do you suggest ?

I owned guns for many years. Fired them often. Carried them concealed both legally and illegally depending on what part of the country I was in.

I know a thing or two about handguns, so let's talk.

I always love it, when someone says, "let's talk" while holding a gun.

That's all you managed to effectively communicate.
Have you got anything to say to that?

Let's talk.

I'm listening.

wealthy collectors. Years ago, I attended a few gun shows. In the corners were the rich guys trading those super fine hand built English and German shotguns that the wealthy colonialists used to hunt big game in Africa. Some of these guns, like Holland and Holland rifles and shotguns from that era sell in the hundreds of thousands of dollars each.

Even Winchesters from the American golden era sell for several thousand bucks apiece nowadays.

The wealthy guy buys these guns up like collecting art, and stows them in a hidden gun safe in his mansion and can have as much as a million or so dollars in one collection, with no property taxes to pay as long as these guns are off the books and hidden.

Little delegations of Japanese were at most shows searching for high quality samari swords that were lost during WWII. The families whose loved one was killed wanted the family swords back. Some of those were a couple of hundred years old.

Getting these guns and weapons away from people will be difficult for government.

Also, most gun prices have actually risen while prices of many other things in our economy have declined. So, even ordinary type guns have some monetary value for the owners. This makes banning them more difficult.

I can't believe how many alleged liberals are ardent authoritarians.

But you have to play the cards you're dealt.

But there really is no right and left. It's like George Orwell wrote:

"The real division is not between conservatives and revolutionaries, but between authoritarians and libertarians"

See, it's not just about guns or being a "gun nut". It's about understanding that the nature of prohibition always leads to creating more problems than it solves. The War On Guns will do the same damage as the War On Drugs and the War On Terror, and whatever other bogeymen you can come up with.

Prohibitionists believe that they can sweep their problems away by decree. They are people who are more than willing to give up liberty for safety. But every time another prohibition is enacted, the government, with your blessing, has become more powerful, and quite likely more aggressive.

I'll bet that you've complained before about the militarization of our police. A little research will show you that much of this is financed by the proceeds of drug forfeiture, and is always justified as being necessary to combat drug dealers.

Which is another group of people that are enriched and empowered by prohibition. Organized crime. Who get great new business opportunities every time another prohibition law goes into effect.

The banks and insurance companies are cool with it, too. Good profits to be made laundering illegally obtained money.

So you may think that banning guns will simply make violence go away, or at least be reduced dramatically. I believe that to be false. What is easily demonstrated, though, is that it will further empower an already strongly authoritarian government, and give organized crime a nice shot in the arm. They need it, now that cannabis prohibition is starting to show cracks in the seams.

That's where I'm at. There are reasonable measures, such as centralized registration or microengraved bullets and cartridge casings, that I could easily agree to, and would not have any constitutional objections to. But the author of the piece, and many of the posters here, are calling for outright prohibition.

That's authoritarian.

You nailed it, JMadison.

I would add that even regulatory measures like onerous taxes and levies on ammunition could stoke a brutal black market dynamic that would create obvious problems of its own.

I can’t believe how many alleged liberals are ardent NRA gun nuts.

But somehow, I'm not really surprised.

In the end, it all logically fits.

I don't personally like the concept of abortion, but I believe no woman should be denied the procedure if she wants to have one.

And here's where I am going to go off the rails in the eyes of most here: I am staunchly anti-war, against the death penalty for any crime, and agree that murder is morally wrong. But I also believe that the manufacture and sales of range weapons like guns be allowed, with minimal restrictions.

I also do not believe death is the worst thing that can happen. That might have something to do with my position.

On no other thread, that has ever been posted here on Smirking Chimp over the past ten years, have I ever read so much perfectly blended crap as on this one.

It appears, that normally reasonable and enlightened members of this site become mindless idiots, when it comes to the question of giving up or regulating the possession of their guns and various assault weapons.

Between reading fluffed-up, infantile statements concerning their perceived “rights” as gun-owners and hysteric accusations that “authority” might somehow curtail their insane affinity for those objects, that do nothing else than take life, I am caused to seriously wonder, whether I have carelessly stumbled into the high-security section of an insane asylum.

This is not a debate about abortion and it is not a debate about the sanctity of life. It is a debate about the “right” to walk about with weapons on one’s person, in order to “blow away” anyone some idiot might consider “threatening”.

As we have noticed, the definition of “threatening” can be most variously interpreted. Last time I noticed, 20 children and six adults lay dead when that took place. I seriously question, whether a paranoid and increasingly mentally ill U.S. population can even recognize, to what incredible depths it has fallen.

The situation reminds me of James Clavell’s 1962 novel “King Rat”, where the prisoners of the Japanese POW camp, despite their starved and emaciated conditions, were unable to subjectively recognize the degree of their own deprivation for lack of comparison, until the well-fed allied military forces finally release them from their prison. Until that occurred, everything to them seemed “normal”.

Well, I'm telling you you aren't normal.

At this point, it might just be best to sell Americans any and all the military hardware they want to buy and carry off home. The more the better. At some point, something will “set them off” and they will all be sitting there in their stupid circular “firing squad”, taking each other out. Allowing this to go forward without interruption for as long as it takes, we may assume that a good majority of the truly insane living in the U.S., will then have effectively killed each other.

I now see no sensible reason, why anyone should attempt to stop either America or Americans from simply killing each other in a happily organized massacre of their own choosing. They now possess all the weapons they need, carefully hoarded over decades in order to do so, don’t they? This is what they want, isn’t it?

We all come here saying, “Stop!” “Don’t do this, for so many will die!”

Why should we do so? What simpler way could be found to get rid of a bunch of inherent idiots?

No, on the contrary, carry on!

As cynical as it might sound, I hope the most forward “proponents” of massive gun ownership here all come “towards the front” in the “first battles”. I will bet you anything, however, that when things get really “thick”, they will be the first to run, as anyone who feels they need a gun or any weapon to define who he/she is, clearly has nothing but a long, yellow stripe running down their backs.

If you take their guns away from them, these little shits and all their personal complexes crumble into piles of pathetic and gutless dust.

Go NRA! Sell as many assault weapons as the market will bear! In a few years there will be 400 million weapons privately owned in America.

God, think of it! If you do it well, in the end no one will be left but the original native Americans! They are simply too smart to get caught in the crossfire, for they knew how to deal with bears without guns before we ever arrived.

Americans now just have to deal with their perverted and specially orchestrated “end times”.

Good luck and keep the popcorn coming.

Love your writing, always have. But as crappy as this thread has turned out, I'm certain you have probably read crappier ones here.

Of the others posting here, I am not sure which ones your are referring to as "mindless idiots," but I can only assume you're including me in that number. Allow me to cause you further distress by attempting to distill our respective positions in this "debate."

Your side says that guns are used for killing, and have no place in a society that claims to maintain that killing is not a good thing. Since they have no place, all existing guns must be rounded up and destroyed, no matter what it might cost or take. However, if that is not possible, these guns must be regulated in such a fashion as to prevent future occurrences of mass murder.

MY side agrees with you on the first sentence, disagrees with you regarding the second sentence, and agrees with you on the third.

Now, how crappy is that?

Hi Pdub,

My comment was not addressed towards your posting. Yours was simply the last sensible one I found on this thread, in a long line of comments, that I found incredibly disappointing.

I will not go into it any further, but I must admit that at the moment I am, perhaps, disillusioned regarding the level and quality of what I have read from some people here.

It appears, that those suggesting better gun-control legislation have been put on the defensive by a few delusional proponents of uncontrolled gun-ownership and violent death.

However, I have never stated that “all existing guns must be rounded up and destroyed, no matter what it might cost or take”. I do not believe you will find any posting on my part requiring that in any way.

What I have stated, is that there are numerous, very successful models that have been legislated and enacted among all the other industrialized nations. That legislation ensures that guns are properly registered and owned by individuals, both licensed and trained to carry them, based on a clearly defined need or requirement.
Anyone else, in my view, is a dilettante and should not even be allowed to hold a gun, much less own one.

A society, reduced to individuals all armed with lethal weapons, in order to successfully interact in a normal social environment, is essentially a society of cripples – or to put it more kindly, of the severely mentally handicapped.

Perhaps, however, it’s just a question of social intelligence.

Very far down-thread a poster wrote the following:

“I grew up on Long Island and lived in Manhattan for many many years....Outside of the movies or on the police, the word "gun" was foreign to me....Guns were simply a non-subject....Never in real life did I know a person who owned a gun....Neither for fun nor for protection....Was I missing out on something?

So it has gradually come as a shock that there are HUGE numbers of Americans out there who love and are so attached to their guns and fear to let them go....I am particularly saddened that so many on Smirking Chimp are included in this group.”

I fully understand this poster’s feelings and share them - and his sadness - without reservation.

Over many years, I have had the privilege to live in and travel through over 45 countries, the world over. On none of my extended journeys have I ever carried a weapon, needed a weapon or ever thought of one as a solution towards any situation I have ever been confronted with.

Even when sailing the pirate-infested Straits of Malacca north of Indonesia or sailing the coasts of Croatia, Serbia or Montenegro during the Yugoslavian war, when anarchy reigned and life was cheap, did I ever require a gun. I experienced several, critical situations including having my boat fired-upon by Serbian artillery while sailing southward along the coast en-route to Kotor, but a gun then or at any other time, would never have been the solution, but only the harbinger of incredible problems.

One gets through life by being civilized, not by pulling a gun.

There are many situations in this world, where pulling out a carton of Marlboros or a bottle of whiskey and a big smile, at the right moment, can stave off a lot of harm.

What doesn’t work, however, is becoming obviously paranoid and an aggressive institutional case. That is the recipe for real catastrophe, because people immediately pick up on lunatics like that, crawling around, and have a tendency to do away with them quite abruptly, as is their way.

America might learn something valuable from that lesson.

given that the 'pereceived right' to own guns in the USA derives from the same source as the 'perceived right' to a fair trial and free speech.

Certainly societies with high gun ownership rates can manage to avoid slaughtering each other.

Look at the Swiss

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/1566715.stm

"The country has a population of six million, but there are estimated to be at least two million publicly-owned firearms, including about 600,000 automatic rifles and 500,000 pistols.

"

How many mass killings have happened in Switzerland?

Yes, those who stridently oppose gun ownership are pissing into the wind.

Certain restrictions, background checks, etc. are fine, but the level of sorge und angst by those who oppose trained armed guards (whether professional or fully trained private citizens) at schools is astounding.

pejorative names?

Actually a question: how do you propose confiscating all of the now illegal arms?

you can pontificate on this issue. Meanwhile stay the fuck in OZ....or alternatively you can come to my house and try to take away my guns. Even better, MYOFB.

The question : Where DO we go as a nation deeply entrenched in the culture of our guns ?

The moment when someone is reduced to invoking the "inanimate object" excuse in the assault weapons debate, they lose. And dressing a colossal failure up in a layer of pseudo-intellectual lipstick, doesn't save it.

At what point do reasonable people draw a line and admit that objects which serve no useful purpose, and have the potential to inflict massive carnage, have no business in the hands and homes of citizens?

In your case, apparently, an assault rifle with a hundred round drum magazine doesn't cross that line. What about flame throwers? Land mines? Chemical weapons charged artillery shells? Where's your line, Jack?

One has to either recognize the distraction that is the "inanimate object" argument, or find themselves occupying the same ridiculous world that gives credence to the likes of Donald Trump and the birthers.

By all means, do whatever is necessary to change America's culture of violence. But in the meantime, if you want to address the specific problem of gun violence, you have to do something about the guns (yes Jack, there's a reason why the word gun, is included in that phrase).

But seems to fall apart at the very end, when you say that weapons will disappear from the streets by attrition, and that it doesn't matter how long it takes.

During Prohibition, did alcoholic drinks disappear by attrition? If so, how long did it take? Our War on Drugs has been waged for decades; has attrition reduced the amount of illegal drugs available in this country?

I am not arguing the need for, or utility of personally owned firearms in this country, but we cannot pretend that mere legislation will make 300 million guns and billions of bullets simply cease to exist. You must admit that in the end you are calling for an expansion of our already over zealous police state in order to enforce such legislation in any meaningful fashion.

Or perhaps you expect all current gun owners to simply relinquish their weapons out of empathy for gun violence victims, past and future?

I'm not calling for an expansion of the police state, nor am I calling for a utopian society where people turn in their firearms out of kindness or charity. I'm calling for common sense laws to get some of the worst weapons out of production, and for a national conversation to change minds about what these destructive weapons actually do to society--in other words, I'm calling for the political will to take on this issue and look realistically at the harm caused by these weapons. It might take 30 years to achieve this, or it might take 50, but it's worth starting NOW. Other countries have achieved this goal.

Also, by comparing sensible gun control laws to bans on drugs or alcohol, you are comparing apples to oranges. Drugs and alcohol are not weapons of aggression--guns are.

eliminated from our streets without more criminalization and killing to take them from gun lovers.

Our nation is in an orgy of violence as far as entertainment and fear and agression against the surrounding world and towards our own neighbors.

If we drive gun owners underground, we will have the same problems we have with criminalized drugs and with prohibition during the 30s.

Gun running and imprisoning gun owners and gun runners will become the new for profit illegal systems that support new criminal justice measures and imprisoning of citizens for gun ownership crimes.

The problem with violence is not with the guns, but with the people running the show nowadays who glorify violence and send our young around the world to kill millions of people to in order to dominate the earth.

End the violence mindset, and citizens will see little need of gun ownership. Create fear and hatred and aggression, and guns are seen as being needed.

Outright bans and criminalization of large segments of the population will open a can of worms that few people can imagine, but it will create lots of jobs for police and authoritarians while anti gun folks can feel good about seeing their neighbors dragged off to prison or worse.

But they won. And the win is what is important nowadays no matter how many people suffer violence in the processes.

Defuse this situation before it becomes worse.

I'm a Quaker, and so I'll use the example of Quakers and slavery to make my point. In the 1700s, the Quakers began to question the morality of slavery and held it to be unjust. They cleaned up their own house first, ousting people who held slaves from leadership roles in their community. They became actively engaged in the education and safety of slaves and former slaves. They made a push to sway public opinion and by the 1830's, abolitionist movements were in full force. It took nearly a century for the Quakers to achieve their goals.

The morality of having guns and semi-automatic weapons on the street is equally heinous. If we don't start by pushing for sensible gun laws, we will never accomplish this goal. And there will be pushback--you bet--from people who are brainwashed or afraid. There is also the risk of our own government turning against us, but to me, that risk is worth taking. What's the difference between having madmen mow us down at a movie theater or having the government mow us down on the street? And so, we have to keep our heads and weigh the risks. Otherwise, we'll be afraid to leave our own homes--we're halfway there now.

How do we diffuse the fear and hatred that has caused this situation? Just like the Quakers, we examine our own consciences, clean up our own house, attack the fearmongers such as Fox News and others, and then try to educate people in a new way of thinking. In short, it's hard work and will take years and years, but this is the price of being responsible citizens in this or any other society.

Yes, cognitive recognition of a cultural and structural paradigm of "the mind" that results in direct harm to others...an awakening.

Such circumspection and understanding about "social consciousness", how we think about the world and how such thinking ultimately becomes systemically influential and pervasive and manifests itself in a culture's actions, is a necessary first step.

Having the conversation is the beginning to change.

However, you then jump ahead, way, way, past this beginning point discussion for our nation with regards to the cultural, structural, and direct forms of violence that are in fact an inherent part of our society of which local murder with a firearm is only one component.

You can not force fit a solution to a "symptom".

Slavery was a "symptom" of social and cultural cognitive dissonance; thinking.

Given you are a Quaker, I am surprised that you so narrowly discuss the issue of violence and aggression in our culture jumping to conclusions about "solutions" involving the control or elimination of "things".

Kind of like postulating that slavery, and the cognitive perception that justified and rationalized slavery and racial bias, could be eliminated without severe negative repercussions and blowback by force of will without first challenging and changing the cognitive basis by which slavery and racial bias are rationalized.

The cultural, structural, and direct violence against African Americans continued and continues to this day albeit in forms different than overt slavery.

Forceful repression and suppression aimed at narrow symptomatic manifestations has severe long term consequences because the fundamental root cause has not been addressed and aggression and violence will only take a different form of expression.

Incidents of violence in America involving firearms are not about "the tool used" but about our culture and society; not just about local systemic manifestation of violence and aggression but also about international.

It is a systemic issue and such discussions so narrowly focused on local manifestations of a culture cognitively mired in violence and aggression are so deeply hypocritical and filled with American hubris, delusion, and denial that the vowed sentiment and compassion expressed and the righteous indignation and presentation of "immediate" solutions is frankly, sickening.

Who is clearly calling for a "ban on all guns, now." Are you now making a distinction between what you call "sensible gun control laws" and Jack's across the board ban?

I need to stress that I agree with you that weapons are dangerous and have no place in polite society. But they are already HERE. I also agree with you that drugs and alcohol are not weapons, and I was not making the claim that they are. But creating legislation to outlaw a substance that is in high demand is exactly the same as creating legislation to outlaw a weapon that is also in high demand: the subsequent black market created will introduce an entirely new set of problems. My point is we have performed this experiment already; it has failed spectacularly.

This isn't about political will. This isn't about ignoring the harm of weaponry. But this also isn't about pretending that creating new laws to enforce will not mean giving even more power to law enforcement. You can't have it both ways.

I challenge you to name one country that has successfully convinced their citizenry to relinquish their firearms, without resorting to brute force and the power of mass imprisonment.

They initiated a gun buyout program and it worked.

It will take years to get the guns already in existence off the streets. And as I said to John, there will be a risk of accelerating the police state, but then, that's been a threat for some time now.

It's my feeling that when we see or recognize things that are morally wrong, we need to fight to right them, no matter what or how long it takes. Otherwise we're pretty worthless to ourselves, our families, and to society. Like Gandhi said, we need to be the change we wish to see in the world. So yeah, I do stand with Lessenberry and if it was up to me, I'd get these weapons off the street tomorrow.

But really, our discussion is purely academic--there won't be any changes made once the school shooting runs its course in the news cycle. But there will still be people like me who don't believe in bearing arms and who work constantly behind the scene in our churches and communities to rid society of these senseless weapons.

Roman Empire with exactly the same tactics those Quakers used and still use. Repay violence with love.

And you are right about taking a long time and provoking violence when you start out on this path.

Jesus message of love and forgiveness was alien to the powers of his day, and he paid a heavy personal price for his theories.

Still, when he was murdered by Rome, it drove a major nail in Rome's coffin. Those little ladies and his disciples who kept holding those home meetings about how to follow Jesus teachings of love instead of revenge and hate gradually gained ground and by 345 AD, Rome was on its knees, and Constantine had to go to Church leaders and cut a deal whereby Christian followers would henceforth believe in Jesus name instead of his teachings. That was the Creed of Nicaea, or the common liturgy that many Christians repeat today.

Then, Christianity became a one day a week religion, and Rome continued to make wars and endless violence, but under the thumb of The Church which held the knowledge of how to bring down Rome. Gradually, the empire fell leaving only The Church.

So, yes it takes a long time, but love does work.

Creating angry confrontations right now between gun lovers and gun haters is still, in my view, useless except that resulting violence might so sicken both sides that they eventually become tired and sick from the evil the commit, and try to end it.

Switzerland did this. At one time, it was one of the most dreaded and deadly warlike nations on earth, but in the 1400s it grew weary of war and violence, and ended its violence toward the outside world. However, it became the secret bankers for many other people.

Still, when it ended its violence, it stopped completely, but did not disarm. In Switzerland, all male citizens keep automatic weapons in their homes under strict guidelines, and they have regular training and shooting contests with these guns, but gun violence is virtually non existent.

Even Hitler feared the Swiss, and left them alone. I read somewhere that they can raise a standing army of over 6 million soldiers in a matter of hours, ready to defend the every nook and cranny of their nation.

So, the problem is the violence mindset. Conquer that mindset and guns will not be a major problem.

But it will take a long time, and we must make a conscious decision to give up violence before we can solve our present violence problem.

Right now, we are moving in an opposite direction, and if there is anything at all that the deaths of those dear children did, it was to make us take a look at ourselves.

But, as you note, we will soon forget.

funky version of history.

Given that the postulated date of Jesus execution - around 33 AD is around the time when Rome had only just become an Empire. Likely Tiberius - only the second Emperor was in power. So not much of anail in the coffin of the empire really.

Constantine dide in 337 AD - and as such wasn't in much of a position to ask anyone for anything in 345 AD.

Oh, and the Nicene Creed was adopted in 325 AD.

So - on the whole - that's a heap of horseshit.

I was working from memory and yes, the Creed of Nicene was adopted in 325 AD instead of 345, but there is considerable credence that Christianity did have a good deal of influence on the decline of Rome that had so sickened itself with its corruption that it was fair game for both Christians and invaders. And yes The Church did eventually rule Rome with popes in charge.

One interesting thing about all that is that Christianity did very well in the Middle East at first until Christians abused Middle Easterners pretty badly and they finally turned away from The Church and toward the teachings of The Prophet.

Interestingly, Middle Eastern Jews and Muslims got along pretty well while Christianity was doing its worst in the Middle East because Christians did not treat Jews much better than Muslims during those times.

I learned this from lectures by a former head of the Theology department at Columbia University, so I believe the guy pretty much knew what he was talking about.

Did it remove all privately owned guns from Australia? From this review of the issue by Harvard (http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/research/hicrc/files/bulletins_australia_spring_2011.pdf), the Australian buyback program successfully bought back 650,000 guns in 1996. This study does not mention what actions were taken by Australian law enforcement if gun owners refused to participate in the buyback program. The study even concludes:

It does not appear that the Australian experience with gun buybacks is fully replicable in the United
States. Levitt provides three reasons why gun buybacks in the United States have apparently been
ineffective: (a) the buybacks are relatively small in scale (b) guns are surrendered voluntarily, and so are
not like the ones used in crime; and (c) replacement guns are easy to obtain.

According to this site, the UN estimated that in 1999, Australia still had 3.5 million guns in private citizens hands (http://www.gunpolicy.org/firearms/region/australia).

According to that same site, there are over 270 million guns in private ownership here. What type of political will would it take to institute a buyback program that would make a meaningful dent in that number? How much would that cost?

Do not dismiss our discussion as academic. As you said earlier, we need to have this conversation on a national basis to work this out. Again, I am in agreement that personal ownership of deadly weapons in general is a mistake that must be corrected. But I disagree that legislation will be the leading cure.

Here's an article that gives a little depth to the Australia story. And with this, I'm out of here--I rest my case!

http://www.slate.com/blogs/crime/2012/12/16/gun_control_after_connecticut_shooting_could_australia_s_laws_provide_a.html

Interesting to see that this Slate author and I both "cherry picked" the same 2011 Harvard study, to different ends! That says something about the argument. Toodles, river walker. I can empathize with your desire to retreat from further discussion.

In the meantime, I'll drop this link to today's post by the Rude Pundit, who sees it both ways, about the futility of attempting to confiscate all guns, but the absolute need to do SOMETHING: http://rudepundit.blogspot.com/

you would be an idiot.

Is espousing an all or nothing attitude here? You seem to be. The author of the piece definitely is. I actually have listed measures that I think are reasonable and constitutional, central registration being the main piece.

What is an assault weapon? Definitions are important. As I mentioned earlier, the previous assault weapon ban made it illegal to buy a gun that is used almost exclusively in competition, and has been linked to very few homicides. It's the gun that I used to punch holes in paper for the 20 years or so that I was a competitor (apparently, my choice of sports makes me a "nut"). The same gun that I took to the US team trials in 1987 became (temporarily) illegal to sell in its competition configuration.

Why? Because the now expired law defined any repeating firearm with a capacity greater than 10 as an "assault weapon". No exceptions made for small caliber paper punchers. We're talking about a gun that has been used in the Olympics in an event most frequently won by Germans. Rapid fire pistol, which isn't really what it sounds like, but the 11 round capacity meshes well with the rules of speed events, which are actually most popular in Europe.

That would be the "large clips" that you refer to. Actually, they're called "magazines". Clips are a tool used for loading the magazines of rifles that have internal magazines.

So there you go. The assault weapon ban made the world's most popular small bore target pistol illegal, but left Glocks (Swiss-made police pistols) on the shelves, since their magazines only hold nine rounds.

That's what a lot of us are worried about. That the people who make the laws generally don't know shit about guns, and end up banning target pistols while the guns most frequently used in crimes stay on the shelves.

Or that they'll just go for a total ban, no matter what sensible regulations that we may agree to.

'Cause that's what you really want, isn't it? You don't really want "sensible regulations" at all, do you? Just a complete ban, which you apparently imagine will bring about a Utopian happy safe fun land. Everything will be OK just as soon as you get all of the things in the world that make you uncomfortable to go away, and all of the bad people put in prison.

about my stance on guns and I'm still waiting for some reasonable gun control options. If you would stop being such an alarmist, we could have a fair discussion of this problem.

Obtusely, you absolutely made my point, finally. Since you know so much about gun ownership and these weapons -- shouldn't people like you be making suggestions about how we quell gun violence?

I notice that the NRA's solution to guns in school is to offer us more guns in school. The argument being that the only way to stop a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun. Essentially, then the answer to gun violence is more guns. From my perspective (and I am sure I am not alone), that really doesn't strike me as a viable solution. It only further increases the likelihood of the wrong person getting a gun.

So, why aren't we talking more about preventing the bad guy from getting the gun in the first place? An analogy to car licensure and ownership is that in some circumstances, one has proven themselves to be either an irresponsible or a hazardous driver and so the car is removed and one's license is revoked. Or how do we minimize the possibility of mass killings like Sandy Hook?

If you would, please list the measures you've discussed? I seem to have missed those, somehow. Centralized registration certainly sounds like it would help. However, correct me if I am wrong, but aren't background checks and other forms of registration we now use optional or casual at gun shows?

Matter what I say, since you dismiss everything out of hand.

Centralized registration, competency testing and better tracking technology are about all you can add to existing measures short of confiscation. When I say "microprint", I'm talking about an already existing tracking technology that could easily be mandated and made universal.

You can't have your happy joy land of no violence. It's never existed and never will. The closest you can get in a large and diverse country would be along the lines of Mao's China or Stalin's Russia, both of which had remarkably little gun violence. Citizen to citizen, anyway.

I live in one of the states that has closed the "gun show loophole". Even casual sellers are required to run and pay for a background check on their buyers. That's reasonable.

It's already illegal to own a gun if you're mentally ill, an illicit drug user, or a convicted felon. It is also illegal to buy a firearm if you are under the age of 21, although you can still possess one. Like the .22lr target rifles us lawless desperado Boy Scouts had available to us at camp.

What do you want? You haven't put anything forward yourself other than prohibition and confiscation. Everything else you've mentioned had already been put forward by myself on this thread, or is already the law.

That's where it all leads. Pass more laws. More laws. More laws. Maybe if you pass enough of them people will suddenly start obeying them, right?

Or maybe it will just further empower an already overwhelmingly well armed, highly authoritarian police state. Come to think of it, Franco's Spain had amazingly little gun violence.

Unless you were standing against a wall.

I do tend to ignore your insults, because I'm not petty. I have put forth nothing because I do not own a gun and have not suggested confiscation nor prohibition.

What I want is to hear what would be reasonable gun control standards by someone who knows and enjoys guns. Just because I don't, doesn't mean they should be banned. We both have rights. Yours includes gun ownership and I choose not to exercise that right; your right to own a gun ends where my right not to begins.

Which brings us to LaPierre's speech today. It was so cynical -- essentially supportive of the very authoritarian police state most NRA supporters seem to hate. Ironic, too, most liberals would agree with them on that.

It is time to address the issue of gun violence because the incidence is rising.

So you said:
-- Centralized registration
-- Competency testing
-- Tracking technology are about all you can add to existing measures short of confiscation. When I say "microprint", I'm talking about an already existing tracking technology that could easily be mandated and made universal.

Who would best conduct the centralized registration? Could you tell me what issues this would solve?
Who would be best to conduct competency testing? Would there be different levels of competency for handling, perhaps, different types of guns or bullet calibers?
I am familiar with microprinting with regard to counterfeiting, but I fail to see how this would improve tracking of guns. Could you explain how it would work and what problems this will solve?

You also state:
That's where it all leads. Pass more laws. More laws. More laws. Maybe if you pass enough of them people will suddenly start obeying them, right?

So, it sounds like you are of the opinion that our current laws are not being enforced? I'd like to hear more about that.

The homicide victimization rate in America is at a 30 year low after peaking in the late 80's and is approaching a low not seen since 1950; this includes homicide with firearms.

Bureau of Justice statistics,Homicide Trends in the United States, 1980-2008 with 2009, 2010 annual rates

The rate of homicides involving multiple victims is about 4% of total homicides; the majority involved two victims.

The percentage of homicides involving more than 4 victims is less than 0.1% and 6 victims 0.05%.

Relevant to this post is that handguns used in homicides, while still the most prevalent type of firearm used in homicide, is at a 30 year low and downward trend.

Historically most homicides are felony, gang, or drug related and offender and victim know each other in some way.

Recent trends see a significant upward trend in homicides where there is no apparent relationship between victim and offender, about 40%.

This trend almost correlates perfectly with the upward trend in "justifiable homicides" perpetrated by citizens; the only category of homicides showing a significant upward trend.

The rate of firearms usage in overall homicides is literally unchanged over the last 30 years except in those case representing an "unknown" relationship between victim and offender.

This "changing demographic" should be compelling with regards to cultural violence and aggression regardless of an overall 30 year downward trend in homicide overall.

Keeping in mind the conflicting evidence and complete lack of correlation between "number and type" of total firearms in private hands in the US, violent crime and homicide rates; significant increase in number of firearms owned with a decrease in violent crime and homicide over the last 30 years.

If "firearms" are the "source" of the problem how can such be reconciled?

....from the laughably named Chimpster calling himself, AntiSpin.

Of course you did. And I'm sure you found the visit extremely helpful in concocting the 800 lb straw-man you've left in the room.

How fucking pathetic do you have to be, when you try to portray gun owners as the victims of this tragedy? Who here (other than you), is referring to gun owners as "savage, brutal, and inhuman"? No one here is suggesting that gun owners are drinking toasts and high-fiving each other over the deaths of these children and their teachers. Asshole.

Were you really "shocked and astonished", or were you faux shocked and fake astonished? Which version better suits the obvious attempt to promote your own agenda?

One more time (in case anyone forgot who the real victims are), "Instead, I found exploiters of tragedy trampling across the bodies of innocents in their rush to hurl ad hominem screeds, and a myriad of falsehoods, against those who own guns."

Jesus. There's enough densely packed horseshit in just that one sentence alone, that it may actually qualify as dark matter.

So, you're furious and outraged when you hear it, but how do you feel when you're the one writing the "lies and slanders of the right"? Not so furious and outraged now, I guess.

Btw, thanks for the link to The Easy Bake Gun and Truthiness Club. Here's a sample of what AntiSpin and Wayne LaPierre would call, "a good guy with a gun".

From the website....

Clear cut case of self-defense? Hardly.

aren't doing a stellar job either mind you

USA :10.2

Canada :4.78

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_firearm-related_death_rate

And Canada isn't without it's own crazies.

I would question the numbers you posted, though, as the stats are for single, different years. The same year numbers were 14.2 vs 4.78. I know in BC there is a fair amount of drug gang rivalry which gets people killed, innocents and notso. An end to marijuana prohibition would do a lot to help reduce our numbers.

Peace

could make a similar argument.....

was going to be legalized. Would Canada and Columbia have the same level of violence if not for the U.S. "War on Drugs"?

Peace

compelled you to come up with that interpretation of the songwriters message?

Sad really.

Peace

Um, I fully realize that this is an anti-gun song. Your reading comprehension level seems to have missed the point I made at the end.
Sad, really.

of the writers message.

What didn't you get?

Peace

Saddened that so many "liberals" are such ardent supporters of a militarized police state.

Be careful what you ask for.

This is likely the end of this thread but I'll try for one more comment:

"Militarized Police State"?....Never advocated that....But perhaps we're already there....Just reporting my own personal experience....This gun attachment/love culture, for me, is like somewhere in the twilight zone....It feels so uncivilized....As I asked previously, was I missing something?....Perhaps I've been walking through life like some sort of deluded idiot.

Why doesn't this gun-love thing exist in European countries?....Why the low murder rate in Europe?....There must be some correlation....They also had violent histories....But for the most part they came out of it....America remains primitive in comparison.

Forgot to mention, I did play with water guns when I was little but never connected them to real life guns.

The gun cult movement is uniquely an American phenomenon. What societal factors may have played in?

It's an insane asylum. Maybe it always was.

I lived 28 years in USA and never once felt I needed a gun for protection.

Quote: JMadison

“Saddened that so many "liberals" are such ardent supporters of a militarized police state.

Be careful what you ask for.”

* * *

Do you really believe that the pragmatic and workable gun legislation enacted by all other industrialized nations in the world, is but the product of “militarized police states”? Am I to understand that Sweden, England, Austria and Denmark, to name just a few, all fall into that category?

You have, once again, made a complete ass of yourself.

As none of these countries are anywhere as close to being “militarized police states”, as the U.S. already has already become, I would suggest that your position on gun-ownership does more to realize that fear, than you can possibly imagine.

Before you open your mouth, think.

What you are missing is that times have changed. Wally & the Beaver have grown up.