Gun Control & RKBA
Related: About this forumThis country will never be able to control guns and there is only one inevitable conclusion...
I feel like the cat is out of the bag when it comes to guns, access to them, and and what people might do with them. We can't have a reasonable discussion about any kind of control, regulation or punishment that will be effective or stem the inevitable tide of what is coming.
What is coming? Lots and lots more random shooters for all sorts of reasons and no reason at all. The population combined with the amount of guns and people willing to sell them to anyone has created a no win situation for either gun control advocates or decent people who believe that they have the right to own a gun.
Then what? More shooters. More security. More guns. Even if the government could get some kind of gun control passed, there are literally thousands of massively armed people out there just waiting for a standoff. We all know it. No reasonable person wants that. It would be a civil war. So we sit here doing nothing. Like hostages.
I am at a complete loss as to what can possibly be done at this point to keep the inevitable from occurring which is unlike anything we have ever seen before. A complete collapse of civil society. Really, if anyone can tell me how this won't happen, I'd love to hear it.
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
discntnt_irny_srcsm
(18,476 posts)
daleanime
(17,796 posts)
discntnt_irny_srcsm
(18,476 posts)...change a criminal into a law abiding citizen and that a law will never stop those determined to engage in crime.
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)I have some ideas there. The same ideas that are currently trending violence down in this country anyway.
It involves things like accessible education, killing the drug war, empowering convicts to reintegrate after sentence is served...
You know. Treating human beings with respect. Respect garners respect. Mistrust generates more of the same.
discntnt_irny_srcsm
(18,476 posts)
pablo_marmol
(2,375 posts)No senseless demonization of an inanimate object. No culture war. I've posted this before.....and I'll continue to post it as long as we encounter OP's that blame gun violence on gun owners:
And there is a sense in which violence is a public health problem. So let me illustrate the limitations of this line of reasoning with a public-health analogy.
After research disclosed that mosquitos were the vector for transmission of yellow fever, the disease was not controlled by sending men in white coats to the swamps to remove the mouth parts from all the insects they could find. The only sensible, efficient way to stop the biting was to attack the environment where the mosquitos bred.
Guns are the mouth parts of the violence epidemic. The contemporary urban environment breeds violence no less than swamps breed mosquitos. Attempting to control the problem of violence by trying to disarm the perpetrators is as hopeless as trying to contain yellow fever through mandible control.
---Liberal criminologist James Wright
virginia mountainman
(5,046 posts)They, don't want results, they simply want the gunz.
And they can't get them, it makes them incoherent and makes them draw cartoons.
procon
(15,805 posts)Cost them a lot in political terms and money. Politicians lost their careers, but their country won.
http://www.cnn.com/2015/06/19/world/us-australia-gun-control/
luvspeas
(1,883 posts)The population of Australia is 23.13 million, less than the population of Texas at 26.51 million.
The population of the US is 318.9 million.
procon
(15,805 posts)Taking the first step is always the hardest, but we have to start someplace/sometime. The biggest obstacle isn't the size of our population, most people want better control, its the lack of political will in our government that acts like a well paid subsidiary of the gun manufacting industry.
Nuclear Unicorn
(19,497 posts)If gun owners won't register their weapons why is there any reason to believe they would surrender them?
And if they won't surrender them how would the law be enforced?
procon
(15,805 posts)It takes time, often a generation, but it happens all the time. Look at how we, as a country, have totally changed our views toward alcohol and cigarettes, and now marijuana is transcendent. Our collective attitudes on civil rights and women's are still expanding, and the rapid shift of our views on gays and the LGBT community is unprecedented. So changing our frame of mind about key issues like this that affect our country can happen.
Not every gun owner would, or even should give up their guns, and I don't think that is a useful perspective as it only provokes fear, anger and resentment. Look at the scope of the nationwide programs that were employed to change the hearts and minds of the"Mad Man" style dependence on alcohol that predominated our cultural norms as a social crutch 50 years ago. We already know how to to do this, but until we convince our timid politicians to give up their bribes and listen to their constituencies, we are stuck in limbo.
Nuclear Unicorn
(19,497 posts)But if you're talking about people voluntarily disarming then no laws would be needed -- which is in stark contrast to what the OP seems to have in mind.
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)But on the other hand, it shows how easy it is for the pro-ban camp to achieve their goals once a registry is in place, with the Hughes amendment.
Lizzie Poppet
(10,164 posts)...a buyback here would be a very difficult thing to fund. Obviously it wouldn't get anywhere near all of the 300MM civilian firearms, but if it did, the cost would be staggering. It's hard to determine what the average payout per gun would be, but it's not remotely unreasonable to think it would be at least $500 (and that's probably low...while a couple of my firearms are worth less than that, three of them are not...one by more than 15X). Any offers significantly less than the market value of the weapon won't get a lot of takers.
$150 billion to disarm almost exclusively* law-abiding citizens? I can't help but think there are far, far better ways to spend such a large sum on efforts to reduce violent crime.
I consider efforts to significantly disarm private citizens to be a bad idea, even if such efforts had any chance of success. But I most certainly do support some additional regulations: universal background checks, expansion of the NICS database to include certain types of mental health records (and an associated change in the diagnoses that result in prohibiting transfer), secure storage mandates, much greater efforts to find and prosecute straw purchasers and other persons who knowingly make illegal transfers, etc.
* While some criminals might be tempted by the offer, I suspect most would not only be dubious about sacrificing "leverage" in their profession, they would also be enormously distrustful of any assurances that they wouldn't be prosecuted for illegally possessing their weapons. Essentially, a program like this would fail to disarm the exact segment of gun owners that's actually causing almost all of the harm.
luvspeas
(1,883 posts)The end result is going to be the same. There are literally hundreds of heavily armed individuals just hoping someone will try to come get their guns. even a lucritive buy back or voluntary action will piss at least...Let's say 10 of them to leave their compounds and go apeshit in any number of places. So far no one has convinced me that this can't or won't happen.
procon
(15,805 posts)Yes, there area few crazy people who turn to gun violence every day in this country over any perceived slight... real or imagined, but we do not rollback the laws or stop enforcing them with every threat of retaliation.
I remember similar arguments were lofted over cigarettes and smoking, seatbelts, helmets, even mandatory auto (or healthcare) insurance, but look where we are now. The point is, we acted to mitigate those problems out of an abundant concern for public safety as well the the financial losses to our society in dealing with the aftermath of the problem. Doing nothing, letting the current status quo persist, makes us weaker as a modern society and only serves to enhance the power of the gun industry, and enable the greed of their political idolitors.
TeddyR
(2,493 posts)That the Second Amendment protects an individual right to keep and bear arms. A buyback program that is voluntary doesn't violate the Second Amendment, so feel free to give it a shot (if you can drum up the money). As for me, I'll pass on any buyback program.
procon
(15,805 posts)The first step in finding a solution is to acknowledge the problem exists and needs to be addressed. What do we expect will happen by giving up, just throwing our hands in the air and going along with the status quo? It has to start someplace and if one method won't work for you, then work on finding a different one that will.
virginia mountainman
(5,046 posts)If they did, we would have it. The political will, is where the votes are... 95% of the NRA's candidates won in the last election.. This "most people" you speak of clearly do not vote.
Their is political will, but it certainly is not for gun control, quite the opposite.
Fred Sanders
(23,946 posts)virginia mountainman
(5,046 posts)You stay out too late last night or something Fred? You seem to be under stress?? 
Fred Sanders
(23,946 posts)Hurts to see the NRA flag going down under the assault of logic, much like that other flag, I get it...
friendly_iconoclast
(15,333 posts)It will be nearly as great an honor as being blocked from GCRA, and nothing of value will be lost...
TeddyR
(2,493 posts)Children do that, and Republicans, but honest discussion (and disagreement) is what this country is founded on.
virginia mountainman
(5,046 posts)To acknowledge it, would mean that they must face the possibility that they are wrong... So it is better to block all desent.
oneshooter
(8,614 posts)Now which is it? Be careful with your numbers.
Shamash
(597 posts)Maybe he keeps separate lists for the full and partial ignores. Another 224,590 ignorers to go before he'll finally have a group of DU users he agrees with.
virginia mountainman
(5,046 posts)In your title, you managed to fit six sentences, some with only one word. You used two completely made up terms, what is a "Dixie Swastika" and the "NRA Swastika" ? Are you confusing them with the US Army's 45th infantry unit's symbol? You know the one they wore before they switched to the "thunderbird" in the late 1930's? This one:
?itok=2-g3iLLs
And what is "Irrefutable"? 320 Million guns?? Swastikas?? Where is the logic which you speak of???
And you call me asking if you "had a rough night" a personal attack??
ROFLMAO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
You say you ignored me, but judging from you many posts, your credibility is rather low with me.
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)So, step one, you have to repeal the 2nd amendment. Then parts of 48 of 50 state constitutions.
Then you can attempt what Australia did.
Fred Sanders
(23,946 posts)In fact even possessing one is a mandatory federal prison term, to get such a WMD requires thousands of dollars and a very dangerous buyer connection....not just a trip to Walmart near the dairy aisle.
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)EXTREMELY common, really. The AK/SKS, and AR platforms make up probably 90% of the 'assault' type weapons in the US civilian inventory.
benEzra
(12,148 posts)and straight-pull bolt-actions. Australian gun restrictions are ridiculous even by the UK's standards, which in turn are ridiculous by European standards. John Kerry's shotgun would get him tossed into prison in Australia, even though it'd be perfectly legal in the UK.
And calling a non-automatic civilian rifle a "WMD" (especially a relatively low-powered one) is to stretch that term beyond all recognition. If an intermediate-caliber Title 1 civilian carbine is a "WMD", what term do you use for nukes?
procon
(15,805 posts)We should do the same. Observe and learn what works, then adapt and modify the best bits and pieces that are producing good results in other countries to solve our own problems in the most efficacious way possible. Our American independence has never made for good copy cats, but that hasn't stopped us from being smart enough to recognize a good idea and call it our own.
benEzra
(12,148 posts)Automatic weapons and over-.50's are tightly controlled, as are sound suppressed weapons, disguised firearms, and explosive projectiles. Non-automatic civilian small arms under .51 caliber are considered suitable for civilian ownership here, as are most over-.50 shotguns and some over-.50 rifles, and always have been. The mentally incompetent, felons, and those convicted of misdemeanor domestic violence are prohibited from ownership, most states require a license to carry concealed, and there are a large body of restrictions on when and where guns may be fired.
I'll also point out that the guns the gun control lobby wants to ban here are the *least* misused of all weapons in this country, accounting for 2% or less of U.S. homicides, despite being the most popular civilian rifles in U.S. homes. Fighting to ban them is nonsensical, and arguing that the USA should embrace gun laws that even the United Kingdom has rejected (never mind the rest of Europe) is pretty far out there.
procon
(15,805 posts)We already have an established national precedent of banning assault weapons when President George H.W. Bush signed the Federal Assault Weapons Ban (1994–2004) that banned semiautomatic assault weapons and large capacity clips. Congress lacked the will to extend the law. The Supreme Court has already limited the public from acquiring certain types of weapons without infringing on any Constitutional Rights, so it seems that reinstating such laws would fall under the normal legislative process.
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)Didn't do anything to the sale of existing weapons.
As written, that ban would be unconstitutional. There are millions and millions of 'AW's' in common use. Banning all new ones wouldn't fly.
procon
(15,805 posts)Whatever it is, we must not be too afraid, too weak, or too jaded, not to take that first step.
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)I have no idea why anyone would do it, but sure.
procon
(15,805 posts)In Los Angeles there are anonymous gun buyback days in different locations around the country wide area. They work, folks turn in their guns and get a gift card. These programs usually run in partnership with local TV/radio stations, grocery chains, retail stores and service groups.
Hundreds Take Part In LA’s Latest Gun Buyback Program
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)This gets mostly garbage guns off the street. Every once in a while someone will turn in something they don't know what it is, inherited. Usually people outside the buyback offering more for it.
benEzra
(12,148 posts)All it did was to require that civilian AR's and AK's could not be marketed under any of 19 banned names, and had to have a smooth muzzle or a pinned on muzzle brake instead of a threaded brake or flash suppressor. The AR-15 became the most popular civilian rifle in the United States during the Feinstein non-ban, and ironically the nonsensical law probably made the AR's dominance of the civilian market occur a decade earlier than it would have otherwise. 20, 30, and 40+ round magazines for AR's, AK's, and whatnot could be freely imported, possessed, and sold during the non-ban, and were.
The only real effect of the law was to help drive the handgun market toward smaller, more concealable pistols, and toward larger calibers in full-sized pistols, by making traditional 15+ round 9mm magazines more expensive. But it did not ban them, and they could be freely bought and sold. The civilian AK that I shot for a while in USPSA competition was a 2002 model, FWIW. I bought it in 2003, along with several 30-round magazines and a rare 40-round RPK magazine. The 30's were $10 or $15, as I recall.
procon
(15,805 posts)come up with an idea that might work better. Start something, even a seemingly small change can grown into a larger success. Looking at our history, we should not accept the gun industries POV that they can control our society and we are a dispirited people incapable of change. If there is nothing else we're good it, it's our innate capacity to come up with innovative solutions to solve very complex problems.
Fred Sanders
(23,946 posts)discntnt_irny_srcsm
(18,476 posts)We innovatively removed the evil bayonet lugs from America's favorite rifle so we could feel safer and politically correct...or something. 
Shamash
(597 posts)Of course, there weren't any mass bayonetings beforehand, either. But hey, it's "control" and it has to do with "guns", so it has to be effective, right?
procon
(15,805 posts)to achieve even more substantial results, yeah?
Eleanors38
(18,318 posts)than was anticipated; i.e., most of the guns are still out there. Further, there is a thriving black market trade in guns, both in terms of imported guns, and in terms of domestically-manufactured firearms (the latter for re-stocking the gangs to full firepower capacity).
Prohibition is an end in itself, with little relationship to whether it accomplishes it own self-professed goals or resolves societal problems, or is beset by huge expenses and corruption.. It is in reality both a cosmic moral statement and a scheme to punish others perceived to be a part of the culture of the prohibited thing, status or behavior. That reality is good enough for the prohibitionist.
procon
(15,805 posts)There's a graph from the article I linked that reports:
"In the years after the Port Arthur massacre, the risk of dying by gunshot in Australia fell by more than 50% -- and stayed there. A 2012 study by Andrew Leigh of Australian National University and Christine Neill of Wilfrid Laurier University also found the buyback led to a drop in firearm suicide rates of almost 80% in the following decade."
That's significant. To be clear, this isn't a matter of prohibiting all guns and I've not hear that was even suggested. So, even though some people resist gun safety and control, there has been a dynamic shift in public attitudes toward guns in Australia. Their society has changed and will continue to do so by exerting the stigma of public disapproval of these very powerful guns that are capable of mass carnage. That constraint will eventually percolate down to the holdouts... or their heirs.
Eleanors38
(18,318 posts)...including ours. And we know how the laws have changed here, and we know how many guns (roughly) are in civilian hands.
There is always some kind of faith in changing people's attitudes viz a viz legislation; it's an extension of the legislating morality debate. Actually, we don't always know how some action will play out in the future, esp. when "stigma" is employed, and "these very powerful guns" is left to the imagination.
procon
(15,805 posts)If we could ban "these very powerful guns" once, we can do it again. I don't disagree that might be a morality component to gun control, but the larger issue is safe and responsible gun ownership and that is probably more relevant to the change in public opinion.
If society can place a number of restrictions on who can operate a motor vehicle to make a reasonable effort to ensure public safety, we should likewise be able to view operating a weapon with the same standard.
Eleanors38
(18,318 posts)In the U.S., driving a car on the public ways is a "privilege" delegated by the individual states, and restricted as they see fit. The RKBA is an individual right recognized by the federal constitution and I believe all the state constitutions. The 14th Amendment defines a U.S. citizen, and prohibits the states from denying the privileges and immunities of a citizen of the U.S. The 14th (1868) formed the core of the many legal challenges to state restrictions on 1st Amendment, 4th, 5th, 6th, 7th Amendments during the Civil Rights era. It is the core element to the McDonald decision, and put paid to the argument that the various states could restrict the individual RKBA recognized in the 2nd Amendment.
On that note, a state can prevent, imo, a person from either carrying Openly, or carrying Concealed. But it cannot prevent both. It can extend the right in its individual constitution to include both.
benEzra
(12,148 posts)Rifle bans in particular are not aimed at violence reduction whatsoever, since all rifles combined account for fewer than 3% of U.S. homicides, less than half as many as shoes and bare hands.
Rifle bans are aimed at "othering" gun enthusiasts, not fighting violence.
gejohnston
(17,502 posts)It didn't affect anything. In spite to claims by the Howard government and CNN, there is no evidence it did anything. Murder rate continued to drop at the same rate it was already dropping. The Port Authur shooter was a one time event who got his guns illegally (no license. His low IQ and history of violence would prevent him from getting one. Every state had at least a licensing system. Some states had registration), one was even stolen from a police evidence room. Those same cops took six hours to respond, which is how the killer was able to drive around kill that many people. To say that stopped mass shootings is absurd, because that was one time event. None before, and not likely to be one after. The articles forgets to mention the many mass murders by arson since then. It also forgets to mention the gang war between biker gangs, who have everything including machine guns. Many of them made in basements. It is easy to smuggle guns just like it is easy to smuggle drugs there. Of course, some that were confiscated from licensed owners that committed no crime, and was denied a voice in the "debate" were sold on the black market by cops and contractors.
Those gun laws don't affect the unknown, to Australian Federal Police, number of illegal guns.
The federal Senate didn't vote on it. Basically the PM and members of his cabinet sent copies of the National Firearms Agreement to each state and said "pass this or lose your healthcare funding". Kind of like the feds did here with highway funds for the drinking age.
http://content.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1736501,00.html
Meanwhile, New Zealand also had a few mass shootings in the same time frame, did nothing, and hasn't had the problem since. Their gun laws are much more liberal than Australia's, or New Jersey's for that matter.
lostnfound
(16,162 posts)And the right to wear it everywhere, even on the beach. Six year olds in first grade, people going to movie theaters, and kids on college campuses. Piece of cake, problem solved.
It seems fair to me. We are given the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, and the first of these occasionally conflicts with Right to bear arms. So...Free body armor! Balance the rights of gun advocates and the rest of us, it's the only way.
(It's quite handy that we don't have vital organs on our arms and hands, so we will retain our right to bare arms -- just not bare hearts or bare heads.)
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)Bearing arms doesn't grant you the right to take someone else's life unlawfully.
lostnfound
(16,162 posts)Just wish there was more desire to distinguish between the two, a little more successfully than we have been.
Because otherwise, the rest of us are being forced to participate in a game of Russian roulette. Not Just for ourselves, either, but for our kids, our grandkids, our spouses, our siblings. Admittedly the odds are better for any one person than in the standard game of Russian roulette... But some of us kind of care about, well, you know, everybody.
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)To me, that would be people willing to instigate violence against others, unjustifiably. For that, a gun is just a damage amplifier, not the main problem. You're playing Russian roulette with them all the time anyway, but I will certainly agree that a gun in their hand magnifies the danger from that person.
I definitely don't want 'insane' people to have firearms, sure.
But not all mental illness means 'insane' or even 'dangerous'. In fact, people with mental health problems are more likely to be victims of violence, than perpetrators.
That's why I ask.
lostnfound
(16,162 posts)Since they don't like the solutions that gun control advocates suggest, they should get together and develop a solution of their own that amounts to more than a shrug of the shoulders and an "oh well, it happens".
pablo_marmol
(2,375 posts)So by virtue of the fact that I don't drink, I'm off the hook for joining in public discourse in trying to reduce drunk driving fatalities?
Nonsense.
Those who are well-educated on the gun violence issue understand that it most certainly is not gun owners who are responsible for our current logjam. Constant lies and misguided legislation from Controllers is primarily responsible.
lostnfound
(16,162 posts)It's an inherently dangerous combination - drinking and driving. And you have to have a license to drive.
Bartenders who serve too many drinks to someone who then gets on the road and drives drunk can be held liable in some states.
Being crazy and possessing a gun is an inherently dangerous combination.
Gun shops who sell guns to crazy people are...? Are not...? held liable....? How can they even tell, realistically? No way to know if the person you're selling to is going to go the shopping mall and conduct a massacre.
I think science helped the government set the limits on blood alcohol limits while driving. Can science set limits on mental health conditions that preclude safe gun possession? I don't know.can we have a side of the road test for mental illness, like we do for drinking? I suspect that mandatory mental health screening would be severely protested. So.. We just...die. We just continue playing Russian roulette.
I don't really want to become an expert on these matters. I'd be just as happy to go live in a different country that doesn't even have guns. I wouldn't miss them a bit, and I might just do that later in life. But if the people who don't like controls on gun ownership don't like the proposals from the gun control types, then come up with your own solution.
gejohnston
(17,502 posts)lostnfound
(16,162 posts)gejohnston
(17,502 posts)While I like Japanese art and history, it is also very racist. Don't get in trouble with the cops since while they don't have a second amendment, they don't have a 4th, 5th, 6th, or 8th amendments either. Or if they do, they exist only in theory. It is also kind of authoritarian with a democratic face.
When I was there, there was the court martial of the century. Long story short, some special forces types from Torii Station was being investigated by Japanese police for gun smuggling. They were buying high pistols made by back yard, and illegal, gunsmiths in Cebu for $30 and flipping them for 30 times that to the Yakusa. Japanese police may or may not have mentioned it to army officials, the crew put a contract out on their commander. The Yakusa in turn took their money and turned them over to CID.
gejohnston
(17,502 posts)I don't recommend Norway, Finland, or Iceland if you want to be in someplace where nobody owns guns, since all of them have higher private gun ownership rates than some states.
If you do go to Norway, you wouldn't like Svalbard. Yes, the government actually mandates you carry when venturing out in nature.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/1172170921
pablo_marmol
(2,375 posts)they'll be in a position to lecture us about our social ills.
pablo_marmol
(2,375 posts)Well, on second thought -- don't bother.
yeoman6987
(14,449 posts)Everything else is discussed but guns for the most part. I thought we might finally get a discussion going when the murders in charleston occurred but nope. Not a peep really. Everything else discussed but guns!
Nuclear Unicorn
(19,497 posts)There's certainly plenty of talking about guns on DU. It's easy enough to know when politicians talk about guns -- there's usually an attending buying spree among the people.
Eleanors38
(18,318 posts)makes the national news has been accompanied by a sunami of gun control recrimination, invective, talk show proposals, documentaries and agit-prop.
Please, don't create a false Narrative.
If you did not see the same finger-pointing blowout with Charleston, maybe it is because of one or more of the following:
1) The dialog focused (properly, imo) upon the racist characteristic of these murders, and the danger that they may be repeated, or a trend may start.
2) The recognition by some old enough to remember that lynchings ane murders are not by rope and gun alone; Birmingham was called "Bombingham" during the 50s & 60s for a reason: over 60 bombings during that era.
3) Some gun-controllers have at long last recognized that even with a pro-control MSM, their rather standardized and repeated calls for bans have only made matters worse, in terms of controller/prohibitionist goals.
DetlefK
(16,423 posts)Damn, I have to dig out that article...
He compared the US with similarly civilized countries with similar levels of gun-ownership (Switzerland, Israel Czechia...) and found that the US is outstanding in gun-violence among those.
He deduced that it's the US-culture of idolizing the individual that leads to a weakening of the social bonds that discourage people from crime in general.
If the culture says "selfishness is good", the barrier to committing selfish crimes is lower.
Don't believe me?
How come the US is the only country in the world where doing something moderately unusual catapults you to a national level of 15 minutes of fame???
Is there another country where someone as shallow and hollow as Kim Kardashian would rise to fame and riches???
Is there another country that is as obsessed with the scandals, "-gates" and slip-ups of anybody who is ever so slightly publicly known???
luvspeas
(1,883 posts)It will happen and it will include guns.
DetlefK
(16,423 posts)Everybody owning a gun means more accidental killings.
Nobody legally owning a gun would reduce intentional killings, but not to zero, because of illegal guns.
And right now the US is somewhere inbetween with the worst of both worlds.
I don't know where the US is headed.
A scene from a Robocop-movie just came to my head. A news-show on TV with two hosts.
"Emergency teams have still not been able to take control of the nuclear meltdown of the brazilian reactor. The last intact piece of jungle in the world has been destroyed by radioactivity."
"I can already hear the environmentalists complaining again."
"They complain all the time!"
The US will adapt to gun-violence. The mass-shooting of the month will become the new normal. Just like years of crime raised a venezolean generation of kids that believe that "criminal" is a normal profession.
Travis_0004
(5,417 posts)Crime in Mexico is much higher than the US, and they have very strict laws.
AlinPA
(15,071 posts)flamin lib
(14,559 posts)the exercises that people in Switzerland and Israel do to own a gun we'd be a lot safer.
Shamash
(597 posts)Nuclear Unicorn
(19,497 posts)We would have fewer wars and no military adventurism. The money spent on the MIC would either be redirected via the feds or simply never taken out of the economy. That in turn would lead to more jobs and better education, which in turn leads to less crime. Militias being community based would build community relations, i.e. lower crime.
If American culture is violent it is because the people have been left hopeless and disconnected.
Eleanors38
(18,318 posts)Not speaking to what it purports, but it would be interesting to see how the criminologist delineates between notions of Indivualism on the one hand, and Celebrity Culture on the other. I think it is quite possible that the healthy individualistic mythology I grew up with may be in decline, even as the swelling bloat of celebrity culture grows ever-more intense; in fact, the appeal and worthiness of individualism may be in a free fall, and is spurring a gas giant of celebrity. The problem with the dominance of celebrity culture is that it depends itself on mass media; its papers, radio, T.V., all in decline.
DetlefK
(16,423 posts)"Mass shooters in any nation tend to be loners with not much social support who strike out at their communities, schools and families, says Peter Squires of the University of Brighton in the United Kingdom, who has studied mass shootings in his own country, the United States and Europe.
Many other countries where gun ownership is high, such as Norway, Finland, Switzerland and Israel, however, tend to have more tight-knit societies where a strong social bond supports people through crises, and mass killings are fewer, Squires said."
...
""In a sense they're less private" than in the USA, "but privacy and individualism is where some of the causes of crime and revenge can be found," he said."
-----------------------------------------------------------
I have to agree with him at least partially. The obsession in the US with the individual is... weird.
"rugged individualism"
"libertarianism"
"I can believe whatever I want and everybody else has to accept that and live with the consequences, because me."
"If I can't force others to live by my medical and social decisions, then I'm getting oppressed."
"I can take my gun everywhere I want and everybody else has to accept that and live with the consequences, because me."
And the endless flirting with secession and the neverending myth that you are better off alone, all by yourself.
And the sensationalism and hunger with which moderately extraordinary people are declared celebrities, then exploited and then spit out again.
The other extreme is China. China has a culture that emphasizes unity, harmony and community and it has this culture since 200 BC !!!!!
The cultures of Europe and the Middle-East are dominated by tribalism: Geographic tribalism in Europe and ethnic/religious tribalism in the Middle-East.
Eleanors38
(18,318 posts)I think the mythology of individualism has had any number of labels grafted onto it to where it is difficult to grasp any essence in it. No doubt the gaudy exploits of super heroes with super weapons has been conflated with individualism by Hollywood and other visual cues. These are tedious confections, but are cheap and fast go-tos for many folks who here the term "individualistic," but have as much chance finding it as a big-winlotto ticket. Celebrity is becoming too common place to evoke more than a nattering distraction to me, and increasingly I believe, to others.
As limiting and coarse as the old MSM was, it conferred some kind of legitimacy, shared values and even courses of action for a big complex society. That means of legitimacy is collapsing.
Thanks for posting the link.
procon
(15,805 posts)"Gun control? We need bullet control! I think every bullet should cost 5,000 dollars. Because if a bullet cost five thousand dollar, we wouldn't have any innocent bystanders."
[link:
Nuclear Unicorn
(19,497 posts)Controller: "We need to do something about GUNZ!"
Citizen: "Okay but there are legal, technical and cultural issues that need to be addressed."
Controller: "Here's a cartoon!"
And many times it's literally just that trite.
Response to Nuclear Unicorn (Reply #20)
Post removed
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)On Fri Jul 17, 2015, 11:21 AM you sent an alert on the following post:
excuse me but are you against gun control?
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1172&pid=171672
REASON FOR ALERT
This post is disruptive, hurtful, rude, insensitive, over-the-top, or otherwise inappropriate.
YOUR COMMENTS
"moronic superhero type name"
Personal attack, and a cheap one at that.
JURY RESULTS
A randomly-selected Jury of DU members completed their review of this alert at Fri Jul 17, 2015, 11:29 AM, and voted 5-2 to HIDE IT.
Juror #1 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #2 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #3 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: Rude and over-the-top attack on the other poster's screen name. Glass houses, and all that sort of thing. Hide.
Juror #4 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: Attacking avatars and monikers, though tempting, should be avoided. This poster takes it a step further by calling a DUer "moronic." Not cool.
Juror #5 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #6 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #7 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Thank you.
Eleanors38
(18,318 posts)
sarisataka
(18,498 posts)3. now what him go bawling to the thought police...
wahhhh! She made fun of me and my big stupid penis gun!
but calling someone a douche is hunky-dory
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10026983025#post2
2. what's worse
is that someone gets away with calling an entire group of people "the controller" meaning any and all people who care even a little about gun control as one big lump of shit. he's a douche. or she, don't know.
Someone else already alerted on this post before you alerted on it, and only the first alert was sent to a Jury. A randomly-selected Jury of DU members completed their review of the post on Fri Jul 17, 2015, 12:05 PM, and voted 2-5 to keep IT. Please note that even though your alert was not sent to a Jury, it has been forwarded to the Administrators who review all alerts.
Nuclear Unicorn
(19,497 posts)Nuclear Unicorn
(19,497 posts)Ironically, it was my husband who gave me this moniker on the night we first met.
luvspeas
(1,883 posts)of our own making.
We should have been reasonable a long long time ago and realized that a machine designed to kill fleshy objects from a long distance would need some standard of restraint. This is only the beginning folks. Of this I am certain. There will be more days like yesterday in Chattanooga, more evenings like the one in Colorado, more destruction like Newtown. And worse. And it's not some foreign terrorist group. It's all about us. We have only ourselves to blame. And I am quite convinced that there is no way to fix it without more innocent bloodshed because there are too many guns and too many people who don't give a shit about human life.
Sure, we may wake up one morning to the age of aquarius, or find a way to make it harder for criminals to get guns. but it seems to me that lots of these shooters are getting these guns from their parents. and if there's an armed wackjob out there that wants to start a war what's to stop him from giving away guns to whomever he thinks is crazy enough to use it.
There will be blood. more blood. and i see no way to stop it.
friendly_iconoclast
(15,333 posts)AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)and predicting 'lots and lots more'?
Are you suggesting an increase is inevitable, or just lamenting those that will occur even as things trend down?
krispos42
(49,445 posts)and the effect is largely random.
The murder rate is half of what it was twenty years ago, and we survived.
Society will soldier on until climate changes makes it collapse.
lewebley3
(3,412 posts)Agreed: We have a long wait a head of us
Fred Sanders
(23,946 posts)Australia bought back the guns at prices no gun lover could refuse and made playground equipment out of the metal.
Too many guns are the problem, less guns is the solution, voluntary buyback is the mechanism.
300 million guns at an average of, say, a very generous $200 a gun, no questions asked, equals an F-35 program, so very affordable and America can sell them to the Saudis.
With the bonus of giving a boost to the economy by gun-lover's new-found cash to be spent on...... not guns! Bet tens of millions would love to get 200 bucks for that hunk of rusting metal in the basement never used...and tens of millions would do so out of a sense of civil pride and also just have to hope other gun owning folks have logic hit them in the head like it did with the Confederate Flag folk.
Debate over folks, let's get to getting rid of those mountains of weapons, and all while the precious 2nd is given it's due respect.
Australia has the answer, there can be no logical denial of that.
discntnt_irny_srcsm
(18,476 posts)friendly_iconoclast
(15,333 posts)And a fine job you're doing of it!
DonP
(6,185 posts)For a solid week now he's been desperately trying to stretch the confederate flag thing to include the NRA somehow and nobody is acknowledging his stupid efforts. Probably because it doesn't make any sense and smacks of pointless desperation.
I guess he's just the latest version of "the tide is turning" and can't acknowledge that violent crime is still dropping.
friendly_iconoclast
(15,333 posts)It's not just the gun prohibtionists, racists and homphobes are the same way-
they have Their Message That Must Be Put Forth, and they are going to put it
out there, by Gawd!
They never seem to notice that what they spew forth makes anyone not already in agreement
with them to recoil, laugh, or flat-out think the speaker has a problem in the wetware...
Shamash
(597 posts)Travis_0004
(5,417 posts)I've had people before with rusted guns and they wanted to get rid of them.
I took an acetylene torch to it. Threw half away this week, and half away next week. Good safe way to get rid of it.
Then I got smart and started going to gun buybacks. I can take a rusted gun that hasn't worked since the 80's and get 150 bucks for it. I traded 3 crap guns one time, and used the money for a new glock 17.
So my vote is more gun buybacks.
Fred Sanders
(23,946 posts)Nuclear Unicorn
(19,497 posts)I'm starting to think this is a prank.
Lizzie Poppet
(10,164 posts)We're talking a cost in well into "three comma" territory to disarm almost exclusively people whose arms pose little threat to anyone. I mean, a buyback at anything resembling actual value might get a few guns from career criminals...but not many. These are the tools of their trade.
friendly_iconoclast
(15,333 posts)...and realize that inanimate objects don't do things on their own.
virginia mountainman
(5,046 posts)It has gotten so petty, and moronic with the recent gun control laws being proposed and passed in a few states, that we are at the point that the vast majority of gun owners are simply refusing to comply, and are completely ignoring, and MOCKING the law.
They are sending a clear message to the "powers that be", but are they listening? I think not.
Fred Sanders
(23,946 posts)virginia mountainman
(5,046 posts)Otherwise the people that you wish to influence will continue to ignore you, much to your chagrin.
friendly_iconoclast
(15,333 posts)I think what gets to the prohibitionists most these days is the fact that they've
been largely reduced to futile jeering from the sidelines- and everyone knows it...
virginia mountainman
(5,046 posts)They did not even let them get ripe.. Now they have a bad tummy ache.
They can jeer, we can continue winning.
discntnt_irny_srcsm
(18,476 posts)It's just unproductive.
Both sides need an education in what will make a difference.
Control needs to understand guns better just to support the dialog.
Maybe the RKBA side needs to not just dismiss out of hand EVERYTHING from the control side.
Respect is a 2 way street. Those pro-control folks that care enough to RESPECT gun owners and RKBA proponents should and often are listened to. Such as it's probably worth some work to look at limiting availability of certain things that won't change much but that actual collectors, protectors and sport shooters care about. Maybe 100 drum mags. I just don't know.
I can't help that having someone, who knows nothing about a firearm, typical means of assault, criminology or mortality statistics, demand that pistol grips and bayonet lugs (and anything they're attached to) be confiscated, by force if necessary, and melted into cufflinks, leaves me feeling insulted.
I don't know what the pro-control folks feel like, but as I agreed up-thread, respect is in short supply.
Fred Sanders
(23,946 posts)Like I said, debate over, voluntary cash-on-surrender to start with, program to be administered by an experienced Australian gun control expert.
100 barrel drums, $300, no questions asked. 100 Bullets must be included with surrender. 100 bullets from the one bullet holder attached to the one gun.
oneshooter
(8,614 posts)Need a lot more than $200 to get that.
virginia mountainman
(5,046 posts)Very kewl!
oneshooter
(8,614 posts)friendly_iconoclast
(15,333 posts)FiveGoodMen
(20,018 posts)virginia mountainman
(5,046 posts)The well is so poisoned against stronger gun control. The gun control advocates continual lying, exaggeration, and provable stupidity has firmly set into stone the guaranteed defiance of most gun owners in the USA, to practically ANY legislation to strengthen gun control. The way they ram thru unworkable, and silly laws like the SAFE act in New York, Colorado gun control, and the way they lied to the people in Washington state, to pass another unenforceable law. Most Sheriffs in Colorado AND New York have been suing the state over the BS laws, what does that tell you about "how they intend to enforce" the new laws?
If you have ONLY 5% compliance in New York State to forced gun registration, what would that number be like in say, Pennsylvania, Virginia? Or anywhere else?
Lets see them enforce the laws they passed in those states. The passed them, now they get to enforce them.
Wonder who they will get too do it, seeing that MOST of the people called upon to enforce it want nothing to do with it.
That is the 100,000 Gorilla in the room.. They passed it, the 95% of the one's with the guns. local law enforcement, and most State Troopers stuck their middle fingers up to the state house, now what?? Will the governor PERSONALLY go door to door?
sarisataka
(18,498 posts)imagine what the world world look like
history tells us no one ever had any worries
ever
liberal N proud
(60,332 posts)sarisataka
(18,498 posts)yes.
liberal N proud
(60,332 posts) sarisataka
(18,498 posts)Rank Range: GySgt to LCpl
Job Description: The scout sniper is a marine skilled in field craft and marksmanship who delivers long range, precision fire on selected targets from concealed positions in support of combat operations. They have a secondary mission of gathering information for intelligence purposes. They participate in activities designed to deny the enemy freedom of movement by targeting enemy leaders, crew- served weapons operators, radiomen, observers, messengers, and other key personnel with precision fire.
Scout snipers engage vital material targets such as command and control equipment, light armored vehicles, air defense radar, and missile launchers that require precision rifle fire to neutralize. Scout snipers also conduct close reconnaissance and surveillance operations for the infantry battalion in support of the intelligence section.
A sniper is a description. It is not a limitation. Snipers use more weapons than rifles.
discntnt_irny_srcsm
(18,476 posts)...one can only use the tools one has 
procon
(15,805 posts)C'mon, fantasy video wargames aside, it's not even remotely similar to compare a knife to any of the horrible mass killings we've seen because of gun violence.
friendly_iconoclast
(15,333 posts)procon
(15,805 posts)friendly_iconoclast
(15,333 posts)sarisataka
(18,498 posts)Or is it an absolute issue? You must support all GC proposals unconditionally or you are against every form of GC?
TeddyR
(2,493 posts)On the metro was not shot, but stabbed, in full view of 10 or so (likely unarmed) bystanders.
NCjack
(10,279 posts)get some relief in terms of gun controls. But, not until then.
discntnt_irny_srcsm
(18,476 posts)Don't hold your breath.
Fred Sanders
(23,946 posts)discntnt_irny_srcsm
(18,476 posts)1%ers are simply the powerful and usually rich folks that have enough money and/or power to hire their own body guards, bank off-shore, have multiple tax shelters, live on estates or compounds and generally not resemble middle income folks at all.
DonP
(6,185 posts)Last edited Fri Jul 17, 2015, 11:33 PM - Edit history (1)
"Was it over when the Vile NRA bombed Pearl Harbor?"
Fred has a one track mind on these things and has proven utterly incapable of dealing with facts. That's why he has put 46 of us on ignore, so he doesn't have to see any opinion that doesn't agree with his.
But he's a real tiger and he's personally driven the NRA membership down to a mere 5 million gun owners now and is tracking down any Democrats that belong to have them publicly flogged.
friendly_iconoclast
(15,333 posts)pablo_marmol
(2,375 posts)
TeddyR
(2,493 posts)That doesn't infringe on Second Amendment rights and is politically viable? All I see if confiscation/ban, which plainly violates the Second Amendment.
TeddyR
(2,493 posts)And yet to receive a response, so have to reply to my own post. Sad that no controller can identify any proposal that doesn't violate the Second Amendment. I suppose the reason is that their only position is ban/confiscate.
YOHABLO
(7,358 posts)TeddyR
(2,493 posts)Hyperbole. Source of what "problem"? I think capitalism is a good thing and wouldn't want any other economic model. Steroids and greed not so much.
