Tuesday, 3 October 2017

Guns

I'm angry.

I'm sad.

I'm thoroughly upset.

If you don't know what I'm talking about, go google "Las Vegas" right now and you'll be instantly updated.  If you're reading this after October 2017, well, just click here I guess.

A man whom I will not name went on a shooting rampage from an elevated vantage point in Las Vegas, killing 59 people (so far, not including himself) and injuring about 500.  I will repeat: HE KILLED 59 INNOCENT PEOPLE AND INJURED OVER 500 MORE.  In an hour.  With an arsenal of guns.

All of which were obtained legally.

In addition to the 23 guns found in his hotel room, police found 19 more firearms in his home along with several thousand rounds of ammunition.  A terrorist, right?  A maniac with a long history of mental illness, right?  A career criminal who got all the guns illegally, right?

NO.  He was a wealthy gambler who purchased these guns legally.  All of them.  He had no criminal background.  He passed an FBI background check.  And he was able to amass an arsenal and then kill several dozen people with it.

And predictably, infuriatingly, people are defending his right to do so.

As someone who deals with gun violence on a daily basis, I am sick to fucking death of people (looking at you, 'Muricans) shouting about their second amendment rights.  Their right to defend themselves.  Their right to own a gun.

Yes, you have the right to bear arms, just like others have the first amendment right to say "FUCK YOU" for it.  But for those of you about to comment to that effect, that amendment you seem to idolise was written in 1791 when guns were fucking muskets and took 5 minutes to reload.  Do you think your founding fathers would have been ok with semi-automatic rifles being converted into automatic rifles with legally purchased parts?  Do you think they would have passed that law knowing what we have now, knowing that a rifle can be purchased online in less time than it takes to reload a musket?

And above all, do you really think that law can't be changed?

IT'S CALLED A FUCKING 'AMENDMENT'!  OF COURSE IT CAN BE CHANGED!

And as for your right to protect yourself, give me a fucking break.  Look at the actual statistics.  For every "protection" gun death in the US, there are 34 gun-related homicides and 78 gun-related suicides.  You don't even have to look it up, because I've done the work for you.  Just click anywhere in this paragraph  Those are FBI statistics.  Read them.  Understand them.  Yes, guns protect people, but at a very high cost.

The second amendment was written so that the people could protect themselves against a tyrannical government.  When was the last time the second amendment protected the people of the United States against the government?  When?  Any gun advocates care to answer that one?

FUCKING NEVER.  (No, the Whiskey Rebellion doesn't fucking count.  Not a single shot was fired, and the people were protesting a tax on alcohol that they didn't like.  And even if it did count, that was also way back in 1791.  Muskets, remember?  And neither does the American Civil War, because the South was trying to fucking defend slavery.  And they rightfully fucking lost.  And if you'd like to bring up Cliven Bundy, just don't.  He was wrong, and he also lost.)

I'm not even going to expound on gun violence in Australia, where over 650,000 guns were bought back by the government after the Port Arthur massacre in 1996, and there have been a total of ZERO mass shootings since then.  In contrast, in the US I can think of at least a dozen mass shootings in the past year alone (SO FAR), and a dozen more last year.  Is the US the same as Australia?  No.  Do I think the same policy adopted in Australia would work in the US?  YES I DO.  And do I have evidence to back up this belief?

YES I FUCKING DO.
Now do I think banning all guns is the answer?  Of fucking course not.  First off, anyone who thinks that it is even remotely feasible to go out and round up even 1% of the 350 million guns in the US is a certified lunatic.  Let's be honest, just changing the law would be difficult enough, and rounding up any guns would be nigh-on impossible.  But the state of affairs as it stands now is absolutely untenable, and I categorically refuse to believe that tougher restrictions wouldn't lead to less access to guns, and that less access to guns wouldn't lead to fewer gun deaths.

One final thing.  I am sick to fucking death of everyone's "thoughts and prayers" for the victims.  I'm tired of hearing about vigils.  I've had it with moments of silence.  I've never seen a thought or a prayer stop a mass murderer.  Vigils don't mean jack shit.  I've never heard of silence changing a law.  It is WAY PAST TIME for American politicians be silent.  It is time for them to stop the thoughts, ignore the prayers, give up the goddamned moments of silence, and GET UP AND DO SOMETHING.

Note: I realise that I will rile approximately 50% of the population with this, and I am absolutely 100% fine with that.  I hate guns.  Gun owners and fanatics are free to leave whatever comment you like.  I understand that you can be rabid in your defence of guns and gun ownership.  But understand that I will delete any comment I deem inappropriate.

266 comments:

  1. I'm with you doc, always have been.. That law was to give people the right to form a militia to protect their property and rights, and it was back before police or military.. The weapons back then weren't what we have now, shit there is YouTube videos on how to convert your weapons..
    This lonewolf is way out of the parameters of what the lonewolf profile is typical of.. I studied lonewolf forensic profiles and this one is so drastically different..

    2nd amendment...
    A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

    It gave the people with out military to form a militia to protect their providences.. It's not about guns strictly..

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. and no, "well regulated" has NEVER meant armed to the teeth.

      Delete
    2. 👏👏👏👏👏👏👏👏

      Delete
    3. I have always said, we have to carry a license, registration, insurance to operate a vehicle- why can't we have the same for guns.. That way guns carriers can be looked up and sellers can say oh you have 23 or 42 weapons, and 10k rounds, and that way you can be flagged.. Serial numbers need to be put in a national registry, and that way if a gun owner sells his gun he can submit a change of owner once a background check is done.. We do it with DMV and vehicles..

      Most guns obtained by the bad guy are through the black market which is created by legal gun owners selling their guns on Craig's list or to private buyers that they don't do background checks on. Those legally bought and illegally sold guns are the problem, so the good guys done with their guns put them in bad guys hands!!

      Delete
    4. I agrew with you Cali up til the last part. To a degree yes. But illegal machine guns for example dont get on the market from said sellers at lets say a gun show.

      Thankfully every gun show ive been to with my father when you walk in they ask if you intend to buy or sell and check your gun license/if your leaving with one they check it. So do the sellers when you want to buy one so at least theres some regulation at those ones.

      Delete
    5. Connor. I'm not knocking all gun owners, I'm knocking those that contribute to the problem and cry out when someone wants things done in a different legal way to protect their loved ones.
      No one needs a machine gun to protect their home, that's an invitation to kill the neighbors because their own shadow frightened them in the middle of the night.

      I respect your arguments, I have read them all, i understand someone has to play devil's advocate and look at the opposing argument points, any good argumentative essay has points from both sides..


      One more food for thought, breast implants have serial numbers and are "registered" to the doctor/clinic they are sold to and then the client/patient's name is attached to the registration/serial number.. Murder victims with no other way of being identified have been identified though their breast implants serial number..
      Why do breast implants have stricter guidelines?

      Why do breast implants have registration/serial numbers and databases in place, but guns don't??

      Delete
    6. and why do we not require basic safety training to own and operate a firearm? I had to have a safety training course to operate a powder actuated nailer.

      Delete
    7. CDL with restrictions for airbrakes, hazmat, and doubles/triples.. Heister certification.. Plumbers/electrician licenses certs and training.. My teens have to have drivers education with limits on their licenses, and I pay higher insurance prices because of their ages, on my own car even though they don't drive it, just because they live in my home. We have to get permits for having parties in the park.. fishing/crabbing/clamming licenses with limitations and they only last a year.
      Food handlers card that you have to get every three years.. ASE certs for mechanics along with licenses and insurances/bonding and company registrations..
      Bet the doc has to get shit tons of certs and training and high insurance and he is there to save lives..
      I have to have yearly background checks and finger printing from every state I lived in to just be able to get police numbers to take a police call to generate a tow truck call from it, and that's in a couple of our surrounding counties, I have to get a photo ID from one of those counties to prove I passed the background check- once we pass them we have to take classes from the counties to better understand our police numbers..

      I don't get it, why is it that in some of these situations where we are there to save lives, yet we have a more stringent regulations than gun owners??

      Delete
    8. The major problem with the second amendment is the original purpose has been circumvented. In order for the populace to be capable of standing up to an oppressive government, they need to have a force capable of defeating a standing army. When the only difference between a hunting rifle and a military one was who was carrying it, a civilian militia was a functional thing. Unfortunately, the modern US military completely outstrips the capabilities of ANY civilian unit.

      I'm not saying the general population should have access to explosive, fully-automatic or guided weapons. But unless that is the case, the second amendment is effectively neutered.

      Delete
    9. I keep my certs in a binder.

      Delete
    10. Ken wanna know something fucked up..
      I am a registered Native American, let that sink in... .. . My blood is registered with the federal government, my family is in a database, my mother and grandparents are all registered. I have a registration number that is registered in the federal archives that follow me, and I'm getting it tattooed inside my tribal tattoo eventually.
      My blood stays in my body except once a month, get what I mean *wink wink*.. No binder for that.. lol

      So if the government can give me a registration number for my blood quantum and keep track of my family through the government enrollment, why the hell can't gun owners and their guns be registered in a federal database?

      Delete
    11. Ken and Connor and Doc..

      The woman lawyered up and refuses to talk without her lawyer. There is a video showing his ammunition, the camera on the cart and the gun he used with the scope.. Interesting news article and video.. Sorry Doc don't mean to distract, just a bit more information oozing out. I told my coworker that he doesn't fit profiles, he said his introvert fits the Unabomber, however I said I think there is an organic breakdown, like a brain tumor or something along those lines that can drastically change a persons personality..
      And now the news is reporting he lost weight and had some other changes going on with his physical appearance..

      http://abcnews.go.com/amp/US/portrait-emerging-las-vegas-shooter-man-descending-madness/story?id=50275427

      Delete
    12. As I said elsewhere here I have almost no doubt theres a brain tumor or something. That fits the bill of another shooter I know of from some decades ago in Texas. Was a sniper and was one of the deadliest shootings in the US.

      Delete
    13. Had a double post.
      And yeah one of the changes that Should be made is a full safety course. They at least half try with requiring a quiz before getting a gun license/renewing it (you can only miss 2 out of I think 25?) Thats still not enough.

      Delete
  2. thank you so much for expressing my every thought on this sickening subject.

    ReplyDelete
  3. I'm a Murican and I'm appalled and heartsick about the gun situation. People that I love with all my heart believe that they need to carry a gun on them in order to protect themselves should they end up in an active shooter situation. They can't believe I don't. My belief is that that I refuse to live in fear. If I get shot while I'm dancing at a concert, or while sitting at a cafe in Paris, well, so be it. I won't stay home, and I won't carry a fucking Glock on my belt. I'm embarrassed for my country, now more than ever.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. active shooters have a term for a "good guy with a gun"

      it's "first victim"

      Delete
    2. Also, if cops who are supposedly trained for critical situations can freak out and shoot a driver reaching for his license during a traffic stop, is it reasonable to expect every "good guy with a gun" to keep his head in an active shooter situation, and only shoot at the bad guy with a gun? Some will. Some have. Many won't, and they'll accidentally shoot bystanders, or get shot themselves when the actual cops show up. If, of course, the bad guy doesn't get them first.

      Delete
    3. to be fair, the driver kept reaching even after the officer repeatedly told him to stop reaching and keep his hands where the officer could see them.

      Delete
  4. One of the cities with the strictest gun laws in the US is Chicago.

    Mexico also has such extreme gun laws its almost impossible for the average person to own a gun.

    Both are locations with massive gun violence.

    France has strict gun laws. 2015 terrorist attack was committed with guns

    I think the reason why Australia stands out as being able to go without gun violence is 2 factors: lower population and population density, bur also its geographic isolation. If someone wants to smuggle guns into Mexico or the US its Very easy to sneak it through the cracks. I could fill up my car with guns, throw slme luggage and a tarp over it and drive across the border and theyd just wave me through because all they see is LUGGAGE. "Do you have anything to declare?" "6 machine guns" "wait what?" "I mean this banana".

    Going to another country via airports or by boat like what you have to do to get to Australia makes it Much harder due to having much more security. (I remember going on a cruise in Europe and every port had more security than an airport) versus i can drive across the borders between the US Mexico and Canada as long as I have my passport with ease without havign to worry about being searched. Thats why even if it was feasible to collect all the legal guns it wont work.

    I often tell people "if someone is intent on committing a crime there is absolutely Nothing you can do to stop them. Only slow them down"

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Saying Chicago has a strict gun law is like saying an amusement park with no fence has a strict admission policy. Yes, France has strict gun laws, and yes the Charlie Hebdo attack was perpetrated with guns. Can you name another? France also has a 2.8/100,000 per capita gun death rate, while the US is 10.5. Australia is less than 1. Even Mexico, where citizens, like those in the US, have a constitutional right to bear arms, the rate is 7.6.

      The fact the guns are easy to smuggle is only a argument to further gun control.

      Delete
    2. Chicago is legitimately Known for how strict its gun laws are.

      France also has an overall lower population density and suprisingly has quite a bit of domestic terrorism. (Vineyard owners who blow up groccery stores who arent happy with how low the price of wine is)

      Im not some nutjob who thinks no gun control at all is the way to go- Nevada for instance has some of the loosest gun laws in the country you do NOT need a gun license in Nevada and thats fucked up.
      But those who advocate to get rid of all guns also dont understand how the situation would so quickly change for the worse.
      There are parts of LA for instance that you do not go into unless you Want to get shot. My father works in a bad area and he always keeps a small pistol in the back of his car. A .22 thats basically as small as they get. Why? Because there have been times his car has broken down. Sometimes at night.AAA typically takes at least 30 minutes to arrive. At minimum.
      Cops take at least 7 if you are lucky. During an active crime scene (ie people are currently BREAKING INTO YOUR HOME) Some areas the cops will tell you and Have told him when they did see him broken down by chance ghey tell him if they leave hell be dead in 3 minutes (this was prior to keeping the .22 in the car)

      He gets out of the car, gets the .22 out of the lockbox loads it and shoves it in his pocket then asses the damage and/or calls AAA.

      Delete
    3. Carry a gun in this situation helped no one, how many of those people at that convert do you imagine were carrying guns?

      Delete
    4. A city with gun control laws in a country with poor gun control laws is a joke. Chicago is a poor example.

      Delete
    5. None.
      Because at concerts they have security checkpoints. Like an airport.
      The classic "good guy with a gun" argument isnt a fix all argument as some would use it and Im not using it. More armed security might have helped as they may have made it into the hotel fast enough versus having to waif for the police (I think it was said it took 20 minutes?)
      We could talk about the Rodney King riots. The rioters used molotovs and bricks. Those defending their homes from destruction and those trying to stop the rioters from BEATING PEOPLE TO DEATH used guns.

      And the police were not helping during those riots.

      Or in situations where your in the wrong place or the wrong time or see some guy robbing the store with a knife suddenly a crime Can be stopped. It doesnt even always take firing as a warning shot. Ive heard enough stories of someone breaking into a house turning tail and running for their lives at the sound of a pump action shotgun being cocked. Pumped. Whatever the official term is.
      I count myself lucky ive never found myself in those situations and hope I never will. I do not personally own a gun at this time but I sure as hell know how to use one.

      People are acting like gun control is a simple clear cut issue and it is not it never has been nor will it ever be.

      Delete
    6. https://twitter.com/i/moments/914957441913065474
      If you read this statement made by a guitarist at the concert in Vegas he says some of his friends HAD legal guns on them and they were useless. They didn't use them for fear of the police thinking they were part of the shooting. Having legally obtained firearms helped them exactly 0%

      Delete
    7. As I already stated I dont exactly follow the "good guy with a gun"philosophy. Especially in a case like this with a sniper. But imagine this scenario- the person in the hotel room next to him has a gun, or at least notifies front desk theres a gunman next door. And the hotel has many armed security guards. What was 9 minutes of terror suddenly could have become 2 or 3.

      In my opinion the good guy with a gun thing only works if your being nugged or at a store thats being robbed. This...is a different beast entirely.

      Delete
    8. Except if you've got a gun in the next room, you have to be able to use it. You have to have the training to be able to get in there without getting shot, which considering this guy had cameras set up so he could see anyone coming, is unlikely. Let's say that by some miracle you manage to locate the shooter, and you find appropriate cover. Can you aim that gun efficiently enough in a split second to hit your target? Are you capable of actually killing a person? What about the other people on the floor who might get hit from the spray?

      That's even if you realise that noise isn't fireworks but gunshots.

      Remember this only came to an end because he shot himself l, most likely to avoid being taken alive once the police found him. One person likely wouldn't have posed enough of a threat for him to choose to shoot himself. It's nice to think that it could have ended so quickly. It just wouldn't have

      Delete
    9. I didnt know about the cameras actually. And I should have just taken that part out of the comment I forgot to take that part out as I just decided no thats stupid security guards is the better option.

      Delete
    10. Connor, the police on the ground had guns, the whole situation lasted over an hour, the reason why none of the officers shot towards his tower- they didn't want to kill an innocent in rooms next to his.. There was good guys with guns, they just couldn't use their guns and so the piece of shit just kept firing down on more people.. No one could locate his room but the switchboards, because other rooms were calling in gun fire and fire works, they had it narrowed down to the floors between 28-34.. The security guard that went near his door was shot at by him and hit with shrapnel.. He had cameras watching to see when anyone was approaching and he was firing on them as well.. They had guns and were in just as much danger because they couldn't make out their target and they were getting conflicting reports of two if not three shooters..

      Delete
    11. I never said shooting upwards at the tower. Because that is assinine. As not only at that distamce could they not tell what room it came from precisely without a sniper rifle itd be impossible to hit it with any accuracy.
      Did not know about cameras until after my initial post. As youll see above.

      Delete
    12. I watched tmz online, they showed the camera cart and guns on the bipods with scopes, I knew about the camera in the peephole probably about 12-14 hours ago, I'm following closely because I want to see what the profilers say about him.. I have watched the YouTube videos of the first gunfire and the police body cams, and his brother is coming off slightly unhinged.

      I knew before you but I didn't know if what they were showing was accurate because, well, it's tmz. Plus I was curious about his accuracy at 1000 feet shooting down in the dark.. I have been to those casinos, I stayed at the Excalibur a few years back, my cousin and I explored Luxor and 1000 feet seems to be a conservative distance from the two points in my opinion..

      Delete
    13. I never said shooting upwards at the tower. Because that is assinine. As not only at that distamce could they not tell what room it came from precisely without a sniper rifle itd be impossible to hit it with any accuracy.
      Did not know about cameras until after my initial post. As youll see above.

      Delete
    14. Connor, leave my country out of your gun fantasies. During the mass shootings we French recently endured, the guns were acquired illegally.
      You will say that proves your point? No.

      Because, on October 2, while an American killed 50+ people with legally-acquired automatic weapons, a refugee in Marseilles killed two ladies, with a butcher knife.
      It has been a trend in the last months - we had plenty of religious nuts trying to make the news, but they can't seem able to get their hands on military-grade weapons. They use trucks, or knifes, or in one case assaulted a military patrol, trying to wrestle a Famas from one of the soldiers.
      At the exception of the truck attack, the fatalities stayed in single-digits.
      Having more guns around the French citizenry would mean more guns on the street. We really don't need that.

      And you really think that comparing the US to Mexico is doing you a favor? A country with a long history of drug-related gang violence, and a gun culture at least as big as the US?
      Next you are going to tell us it's worse in Somalia.

      So keep your guns on your side of the Atlantic. Thanks.

      Delete
    15. Gun fantasies? Im far from a blind fanatic despite what you may believe.
      I was using it merely as an example of how just because its illegal doesnt mean it prevents guns from entering said country. In a civil discussion, no country is off limits from being used as references Id hope youd respect that.
      Perhaps I should have instead used the example of 1920s united states prohibition and how well that worked out.
      Oh wait.
      It didnt.

      Delete
    16. Actually, it did work. Quite well, in fact. Consumption of alcohol dropped by about 50% during prohibition, and it took about 10 years after prohibition was repealed for alcohol consumption to rebound back to pre-prohibition levels.

      Delete
    17. And organized crime skyrocketed, as did violent crime.

      Delete
    18. And it also did little to prevent alcohol from still be made or sold. At the time mobsters bought up all the equipment they could before it became illegal that was neccessary to produce alcohol. Or we could mention the extreme measures the US government took to prevent making or consumption of alcohol. Like lacing products with poison that could cause permanent blindness or even death.
      The same would happen with guns- still be made, still be sold, but now with no regulation to slow any of it down.

      Delete
    19. No. You cannot make a gun in a backyard still.

      Delete
    20. No but you sure can on a 3d printer!
      Theres also such a thing as outsourcing and smuggling them in as well. Or setting up illegal factories in remote locations (unlikely but still possible)

      Delete
    21. @ Connor

      "but now with no regulation to slow any of it down."

      To point the obvious, current US regulations don't slow any of it much.

      By your logic, we poor unarmed Europeans should be swamped by armed gangsters, invading our homes day and night. That's not the case.

      That being said, I have no issues (well, not too many) with private citizens having small-caliber pistols or shotguns for home defense.

      Delete
    22. The difference being in Europe outside of military for the most part the number of guns is low.

      Versus in the US there are more guns than people. Suddenly making it illegal and trying to get rid of all those guns without any of them getting through the cracks is Not possible. Australia came close (no doubt some got through the cracks) but that was well under 1 million guns but still quite a feat.

      And yeah ok it doesnt slow it down Much admittedly but something is better than nothing. Again I do advocate making changes to gun control here in the US but its hard to find the right balance that wont piss off everyone and make it a shit show.
      For example I think it should include mental health evaluations at say 2 year intervals. Other people claim no that goes against rights involved in medical practice etc etc even though it could solve a Lot of problems. I used to mnow a guy who was schizophrenic. When I knew him he was very stable all considering just heard voices at that time. When he was younger...yikes (he was a rare case in that it showed up when he was 7 vs most it doesnt reveal itself til late teens) if I had the choice would I ever let him buy a firearm? HELL NO.
      Or the Virginia Tech Shooting about 6 years ago I believe. Committed by someone with a long history of mental health issues and stalking and other red flag behaviors. But since he was never arrested, it did not hinder his legal purchase.
      Or this guy with Vegas imagine if it just so happened he was up for mental health evaluation before the shooting. Now granted the odds that hed gone crazy in between the hypothetical tests but the fact that it could have been caught via this method to me more than warrants this being put into action

      Delete
    23. I've forgotten which mass shooter it was who was mentally unstable, and got his handgun by stealing it from his mother before shooting her with it...

      Delete
    24. Sandy hook. Though I can also thknk of a few murders that fit the bill.

      There is no fix all solution but it would likely cause a big impact by having mental health evaluations.

      Delete
    25. I thought the one I was thinking of was more recent.

      but the point is he would have failed every mental health evaluation, and yet his mother persisted in not only providing guns for him to shoot, but in keeping unsecured guns in the house.

      yes I am victim shaming her. maybe others will learn.

      Delete
    26. Not to shame the dead as well but she was a poor parent.
      As Ive said here before, my father keeps all the guns in the safe. A safe only He has the combination to. The fact she didnt have any precautions with a mentally unstable child was total mismanagement.

      Delete
  5. Any obstacle to committing a crime makes it more likely that it won’t be committed. Just saying “it won’t have as much of an effect as you think it will” is such a flaccid argument. I’m under 21 and any time I want to drink alcohol, no matter how determined I am to find a plug I still end up getting it about 1/4 the time. If gun violence could be culled even a little bit by the introduction of better controls, if it would’ve meant 400 people getting injured instead of 500 this weekend, then I think having some regulation (It’s fucking stupid that recycling is more regulated than gun sales) would a A-O-Fucking-Kay.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. You must not be tryjng very hard to find alcohol. Im not much of a drinker but I never found it hard to get a drink anywhere I went.

      Gun control is a tough issue and does need to have changes (for one advocate mental health evaluations) but it wont stop it all. We hear about mass shootings all the time but we dont hear of all the gang violence for instance. And amongst gangs they go out of their way to get illegal unmarked weapons as well.

      Delete
  6. My wife asked me right after the news broke about Las Vegas what I thought you would say Doc, and first and foremost, I said you would probably wish you were there to help, and secondly, from you perspective of dealing with this all the time, you know what gun violence is like and what pain and suffering it inflicts on families, parents, kids, wives and husbands, and you are the one after you spend all night trying to save someone that is shot that has to tell all that family that you are sorry, they won't be here anymore, no more Xmas, no more Thanksgiving, no more kids graduations, they are just gone forever, and I am sorry as hell you have to do that all the time.....

    ReplyDelete
  7. Another American here who agrees with you 100%. We've made many amendments to our constitution and this one is long overdue. I hold little hope for rational change when our "president" and congress people say "now is not the time to discuss gun control". WHY THE F@#$ NOT?! Newtown CT wasn't enough for them? 59 dead in Las Vegas not enough? More dead and wounded than ever before by a single shooter? I cannot imagine what it will take to make the time "right" to discuss gun control. It is way overdue for those of us who have seen enough.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. the right time for the GOP will come when the NRA donations dry up.

      Delete
  8. I totally agree with you Doc B. I read the shooting was over in 9 minutes. So shooting almost 600 people in 9 minutes. Still people here say it's their right to have these types of weapons!!!! Makes me sick every time this happens and it will happen again.
    Also I too am sick of hearing " thoughts and prayers" .

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. 10:17pm to 11:25pm.. 10-15 minutes total of shots fired over the course of 68 minutes.. 50-100 rounds in 30 seconds from the online live clips I have seen of the concert recording made when the gunshot first started.. We watched two.minutes, 30 seconds of the gun fire, 25-30 seconds of the him resetting himself to do the next round.. 10 minutes of active shooting is insane if you see the 2 minute online clip..

      http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/frantic-switchboard-calls-geometry-of-fire-led-police-to-killer-on-mandalay-bay’s-32nd-floor/ar-AAsS8kC

      Delete
  9. yes, yes ,yes perfect I live in Australia and I petitioned many moons ago to help with tighter gun laws and was pleased to see we finally did it. Not only did it lessen the crimes like random shootings or robberies women were finding it easier to leave their husbands because a lot of them owned weapons and would shoot their wives for leaving ( yes it still happens like all crimes) but it's less. I get so sad when I hear these killing happening in America and think how can they keep justifying their rights to bear arms? it DID NOT SAVE THE 59 PEOPLE and a lot of them may have had guns albeit not there but that's it are you always carrying it? are you the first western cowboy that unhooked it first? no

    ReplyDelete
  10. the thoughts and prayers meme is particularly annoying knowing that for a lot of people that is as close as they come to actually thinking and praying.
    what can I do to help them - pretty much nothing - but I will continue doing what I can in my own community.

    ReplyDelete
  11. I live in Northern Alaska.
    Taking away my guns would result in me and/or my kids being eaten by any one of the alpha predators roaming around. Polar bears in the winter, Brownies in the summer. Wolves year round.
    Walrus ain't no fuckin joke either (but they're slow) A pissed off bearded seal could easily kill one of my kids. Even a damn wolverine dangerous enough to kill you if you're not paying attention.

    Do I ever feel the need for a gun for my own protection?
    All the time.

    Against human beings?
    Never.

    Do I need a gun?
    Yes.

    Are we an edge case? Yes. I fully admit we're *way* outside the norm. I also fully admit I have no solution. But taking away my guns isn't the solution.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I have a friend who lives up in the mountains where there are wolves bears mountain lions coyotes- you know, the works.
      As a kid, if the kids were outside playing, their dad sat on the porch with the shotgun.

      Delete
    2. there is no one size fits all solution.

      Delete
    3. Ken - no one wants to or is able to take away your gun, and no one is advocating that.

      Delete
    4. beside the point - I was just pointing out there is no one size fits all solution. I agree that Americans have way too many guns that are way easier to get than is good for us.

      Delete
    5. edit: or was that to the other Ken?

      Delete
    6. So many Kens, so little time.

      Delete
    7. Doc: Agreed--nobody wants to take them away from me, but there's gotta be a solution/change/something.

      Take Vegas Whackjob: He did everything by the book, and still killed 58 people.
      So, we make it harder to get guns?
      More restrictions? Sure.
      Longer waiting periods? Sure.
      More interviews? Sure.
      But then what? All it takes is *one* fucking whackjob to kill 100 people.

      Hypothetically, though, let's pretend the US bans all guns, and all the Good Citizens turn them all in. Then what? Now Mr. Whackjob has ANFO and ANNM bumping around in the back of a truck al la McVeigh, and kills several hundred at a time.

      Where does it end?
      Guns aren't the problem. Whackjob motherfuckers that want to kill people are the problem.

      Delete
    8. That has to be one of the worst arguments I've heard in this whole discussion, and I've heard it repeatedly. Yes, bad guys are the problem. Good guys aren't shooting people. But your solution to that is to throw your hands up and say, "Well, nothing we can do! May as well just let them have guns so they don't use bombs!"

      BULL. SHIT.

      Delete

    9. I so admire you, Doc, and all others who *do* firmly believe there is something we can do; and I envy you your ability to feel a deep, emotional, powerful emotive response that makes you cry “BULL SHIT” (in all caps, too) in the midst of this debate. ;)

      I've become, myself, a sick mess of cynical idealism.

      When I sort of squint my eyes and stare as objectively as possible at this ‘gun control’ issue, I no longer feel much beyond a nauseated sort of resignation.

      I mean, I’m less inclined to throw my hands up and declare ‘There’s nothing much we can do’ then I am to wipe away some silent tears and shrug while thinking, “Well … even if more restrictive gun laws aren’t ever passed [or if those that *are* passed actually prevent more violence], at least future generations of mankind [or advanced alien civilizations studying our civilization from far away in spacetime] will see that we recognized our mistake in developing these weapons.”

      In truth, I suppose I might scrounge up some dregs of optimism over the possibility that more restrictive gun laws will actually come to represent a synchronistic change in society’s views about guns (that it will become less acceptable to regard them as ‘fun’ or worthy of such strong debate; that more and more people will have come to hate them and what they represent about us).

      Maybe that will happen, right? BULL YES! <-- ... just trying that out; trying to stir some true excitement in myself as I consider this. (Damn, but I do envy you).

      Delete
    10. So.....What's your solution? It's easy to say "BULL SHIT".

      Harder to come with a workable solution.

      Delete
    11. Doc I can actually think of several instances when they did turn to bombs instead/inaddition to. The Columbine high school massacre as I have mentioned elsewhere on this post. Terrorists in general as well. And as weve seen before-when the guns arent good enough and the bombs dont work, a plane will do it better.

      Delete
    12. I agree with Ken W. that a workable solution is ... elusive. But I still admire those of you who believe we will find someday find one.

      Just as a would-be philosophical, fable-like pondering for you or Doc or any, here, who care to participate (thank you in advance; based on Doc's posts and all the intelligent comments I've read here, I truly am intrigued by your responses to this general topic).

      Okay so imagine a mated pair of crows in a field. (I was going to suggest two monkeys in a tree, but corvids are so much more interesting and admirable so … crows it is). Now imagine that one day, when an eagle swooped down to attack them, the male crow was nearly killed defending himself and his mate so the female picked up a sharp pebble in her beak and threw it violently at the eagle, using her instinctual superior understanding of projectiles, keen eyesight, and skillful aim to protect her injured mate-for-life. (I just <3 that crows mate for life).

      The startled eagle quickly flew away and thought about what had just happened, eventually ascertaining that he, too, could pick up sharp pebbles and fling them with even greater force/speed from greater heights/distances/etc. at potential prey. He soon used this newfound knowledge to become an increasingly effective predator and also taught his siblings, mate, offspring, etc. to throw pebbles with enhanced deadliness. The crow, alarmed by this turn of events and desperate to redress the situation, swiftly developed her pebble-throwing ability and similarly taught her mate and all the other crows this same defensive/offensive technique.

      An observant and lazy elephant, meanwhile, realized that its constituents could amass all the pebbles in a massive pile that the crows and eagles would have to trade peanuts to access. In the elephant's efforts to ensure that endless generations of crows and eagles would continue to utilize these pebbles, it told all its constituents that the gods bestowed upon the crows and eagles the right to bear pebbles but that the corrupt, crazy donkey and its bleedin' heart followers were developing a plan to steal all the hard-earned/peanut-traded, fun-to-throw, powerful pebbles away and use them to build a tottering monument to 'peace' that the donkey could proclaim as its own. This incited such fury in the eagles and crows that they sometimes spent more time hording pebbles than really contemplating why they first started throwing them at one another in the first place.

      Eventually the crows and eagles were spending more time contemplating and protecting their gods-given right to trade peanuts for pebbles and engage in their violent and endless pebble-throwing war than they spent flying or otherwise savoring their short, fragile existences.

      One of the crows, Itimkpu-- who was interested in more than just pebble-throwing and found more enjoyment in trying to communicate with other animals, and sing songs to the stars-- realized that rather than throwing pebbles or any other projectile, he could emit so shrill a cawing sound that any and all projectile-throwing eagles (or other potential predators) in the vicinity were instantly paralyzed. This paralysis was temporary but effective enough for Itimkpu to sweep over, disarm the pebble-bearing eagle(s), and then fly to safety.

      Now in the form of a 'choose your own adventure' story, which conclusion do you find most satisfactory? ...
      -----------------------

      Delete

    13. Ending #1:

      Itimkpu sought to teach the other crows this technique but they felt that throwing pebbles was quite a fun challenge and they knew that those who could acquire the best pebbles from the elephant's stash and throw them the farthest and hardest tended to have his/her choice of life-mates. Also, a large murder of crows had become convinced that the elephant was right: that those who didn't want to throw pebbles were obviously bleedin' heart cry-baby cowards under the mind-controlling influence of the crazy, corrupt donkey. So the pebble-throwing crow/eagle war went on for a thousand more years. And the elephant ate many peanuts.


      Ending #2:

      Itimkpu taught all the crows his cawing-paralysis technique and they realized it was more effective and less destructive, time-consuming, and expensive than throwing pebbles. The eagles, too, recognized the effectiveness of the paralyzing shrieks as a form of defense and so sought to develop this skill themselves (with the intent, however, of adapting the shrieks to become a form of *offense:* paralyzing their prey so they could then swoop in and peck them to death). Eventually the crows were forced to keep the eagles paralyzed indefinitely while seeking to teach them not to rely on killing others for their survival but rather to survive on carrion ... and all the peanuts they previously traded for pebbles.


      Ending #3:

      The crows mastered Itimkpu's paralysis technique but some still preferred throwing pebbles at the deeply despised eagles (and sometimes at each other and at other animals); and the eagles were beginning to realize that as bigger birds, they could throw much bigger rocks. The elephant, realizing that it was receiving fewer and fewer peanuts in exchange for its pile of pebbles as the crows concentrated on developing their paralyzing shrieks and the eagles went off in search of bigger rocks, became alarmed. It also secretly feared the crows and eagles would soon attack the elephant itself. It ran away ... and the crazy donkey laughed and proclaimed itself lord of the pebble-pile it called 'peace.'


      Ending #?: [insert your own]

      Delete
    14. I don't want your gun, I don't want my neighbor in my apartment complex to have a semi or automatic weapon because they fear the homeless person that walked down our street a month ago..

      Delete
    15. Ken - I would start with a two-pronged approach:
      1) Voluntary buyback
      2) Tighter restriction to access

      Delete
    16. Polar bears don't roam around in packs of twenty, real life is not Red Dead Redemption.

      You want a shotgun? Fine.
      You want a bolt-action rifle, or a semi-auto, with a magazine of 8-12 bullets? Fine.
      You want to buy a 9-mm SMG, or a M16 lookalike? Stop sh!tting us, you don't need that for bears. Those are weapons for hunting humans.

      Delete
    17. Nobody here is advocating buying actual machine guns.
      And look alike...yes because that definately changes how the internals work....
      Many politicians in the US have been trying to get certain gun stocks recertified as "assault rifles" if its black plastic vs wood. (assault rifle means its capable of being set to automatic or semi it has NOTHING to do with the stock)

      Delete
    18. "Nobody here is advocating buying actual machine guns."

      Then why, in the name of all that's holy, do you keep saying "gun control" is not possible? Start by removing the Ma Deuce from the table.
      Nobody "here" here, maybe, but being able to buy machine guns lookalike is certainly part of the defenders of the 2nd amend'.

      "(assault rifle means its capable of being set to automatic or semi it has NOTHING to do with the stock)"
      I don't get that. My own definition of assault rifles is very simple: it's shooting riffle rounds (historically, calibers are well-defined between rifles and pistols), and it's capable of full auto.
      There are hundreds, if not thousands of video games and RPG books which have no trouble categorizing guns in function of their caliber and firerate. What the f*** does the gun stock has anything to do in the matter?

      Delete
    19. Removal of all guns is impossible. Which isnt the same as gun control.

      So ok let me explain about the assault rifles thing.
      My father has 2 1918 bolt action rifles. If he converted one to have a black plastic exterior (more modern military style) according to some politicians it is automatically an assault rifle. Even though it still remains the same gun as the other unmodified gun. Both still bolt action.
      Or his AR-15 if he changed it slightly despite still being a civilian grade semi auto version, a lot of politicans still want it relisted as an assault rifle.

      The issue is most of said politicians know next to NOTHJNG about guns.
      I still remember a conference by an addmittedly minor politician who brought out a military grade ar 15. He called it a "gat gun" and claimed it could fire a hundred rounds per Second. Which is literally impossible. And that was just the start of his stupidity. (the video was from 6-7 years ago I think so it might be hard to find)

      Delete
    20. Oh also forgot to mention they make a huge deal about pistol grips on rifles and consider it part of their criteria for assault rifles.

      Delete
    21. "The issue is most of said politicians know next to NOTHING about guns."

      I have just realized myself that defining an assault rifle may indeed be more complicated than I thought.

      OTOH, I cannot help thinking that politicians (well, those who know a bit about weapons, anyway) and gun manufacturers are engaged in a "play dumb" contest.
      I mean, whatever convoluted definition politicians will settle on for "assault rifle" or any other weapon of war, gun manufacturers will just change the offensive parts - the stock, the pistol grip, a re-chambering to a smaller caliber - and sell the new gun, which, for all intent and purpose, will still be one custom mod away from an assault rifle.

      Delete
    22. Politicians are so hung up on how the gun Looks dangerous than whether or not is actually more dangerous than its wood stock brothers. Thats the problem. Note I mentioned that many of them want to label one of my dads bolt actions as an assault rifle when all he did was switch from wood to a sturdy plastic. Its still a 100 year old bolt action rifle.

      Delete
    23. an assault rifle is:
      a smaller frame for easy portability

      a smaller caliber and lighter projectile, for carrying more ammunition with less weight.

      capability of a high rate of fire, but not necessarily fully automatic.

      which means the original Winchester repeating rifle classified as an assault rifle - then.

      Delete
  12. Thank you for this.

    I'm a member of that common USAian demographic who grew up in a household wherein one's parent(s) kept multiple loaded guns in the house and whose entire family is comprised of those who have always (and, inevitably, *will* always) strongly champion the NRA and 2nd Amendment ... in that order.

    I learned how to shoot before I learned how to drive and at one point, in high school, I used to smugly claim myself one of the only girls who, at the local shooting range, could rapid-fire hit 5 out of 5 targets with a mag; and I took stupid delight in any 'high fives' and looks of admiration that this boast garnered me.

    It seriously wasn't until I reached my 20's, while I was a victim of ongoing harassment by a stalker and my father indicated he would be purchasing my own gun, before I abruptly realized ... I didn't want one. (And when I felt personally compelled to carefully/politely reject the proposed gift, I think it actually represented to both of us the moment when I rejected my family's system of ideals and became another "bleedin' heart lib" in their shared eyes).

    It's incredibly odd, now, to think back on the enjoyment my teenaged-self used to find in guns and shooting. Hitting a target in a shooting range seemed, to me, quite comparable (albeit more "excitingly dangerous") to any of the ... what 10,000+ shooting games out there? ... But when I thought of actually becoming another gun owner, I realized all at once that I had never really liked them and never would.

    I cannot say whether this related to my changing political beliefs at that time (all those "bleedin' heart liberal professors" and books I was being exposed to in college) or whether it was an effect of moving beyond that stage of life when I didn't really consider life and death or humanity as a whole; only *myself* and my simple entertainments.

    But for whatever reason, that was when I quite abruptly began to sense the truth: I actually *hate* guns. Your post, here, says it all. They're intrinsically hideous and I'm personally ashamed of what their invention/development/ownership indicate about our species in general and USAians in particular.

    That decade-ago decision that I didn't want to be a gun owner was arrived to after introspecting carefully on the matter. That was when I accepted the unlikelihood of my ever actually shooting a bullet into another living being's flesh, even if I logically knew that doing so might ensure the continued survival of myself/my loved ones. And it baffled and annoyed me that this was considered the most logical solution for the purpose of protecting myself (from that stalker situation) ... that I ought to own a firearm and obtain a permit to carry it with me at all times ...

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. And today, in the aftermath of this worst mass-shooting (yet) in the USA, I have tried introspecting again on the subject and still cannot fully fathom the fact that at some point in the past 100 years, inventors didn't widely develop something better than a taser or the sort of dart-guns used in zoological research. Surely if they wanted to-- or, rather, if *society* wanted them to, and if it was anywhere near as lucrative-- scientists/specialists affiliated with the gun manufacturers would have sought long ago to develop some more effective means to temporarily disable another from some distance (you know, rather than this seemingly logical and oh-so-human solution of slamming a projectile through their vital organs so as to terminate their existence).

      Are the physics and engineering necessary to develop an immobilizing weapon alike to the phaser or whatever-you-call-it in Star Trek seriously still so far beyond our reach? ... or this just something that doesn't interest us to reach for? (... because too many USAians are alike to my own stupid teenaged self, finding it 'fun' and something to be proud of that one can aim a gun, pull the trigger, and shoot a bullet at a target ... or a living being [and maybe earn some congratulatory or admiring glances for one's "skill"]?

      Seriously, my heart does feel as if it's bleeding right now as I'm thinking about all this. I, too, really ... hate ... guns.

      Delete
    2. it's a sad fact that there really isn't a quick safe reliable way to incapacitate a hostile person, with our current knowledge.

      problem is humans weren't really made to be temporarily shut down.

      Delete
    3. Does make me wonder why tranquilizers arent used. Maybe one could make the argument that to high a dose is dangerous depending on the person but so is a tazer if the person has a heart condition and surely a low dose tranquilizer should still be enough for most people.

      Delete
    4. Good points, Ken B. and Connor; but I truly do sometimes fear that it's far less due to concerns for either the potential effectiveness *or* ineffectiveness of other methods of incapacitating a hostile person from a distance that comparatively few examples of such defensive weaponry have been developed but simply because too many people find guns to be *fun* (or, worse, because it appeals to that animalistic/visceral, power-hungry, mate-winning urge to hold the bigger stick that so many of we totally bizarre homo sapiens retain).

      Seriously, apart from my own idiotic pubescent delight in winning admiration from my peers, family, etc. at the shooting range, I can recall so much laughter, raillery, and comradery amongst all there; and I still see a startling degree of bonding between members of my family (and my family's circle of friends) over their shared love of guns ... perhaps because guns have come to represent such a political/social icon here in the USA.

      Members of my family have so often proudly defended their right to bear arms through all the arguments mentioned here; arguments we've seen a million times (e.g. tighter gun control laws would potentially result in more guns only being retained by criminals or by those with the most aggressive/hostile tendencies) in response to questions and concerns we’ve tossed at them a million times (e.g. tighter gun control laws would potentially result in far fewer gun-related injuries/deaths). And there is obviously enough logic on both sides to ensure it may well always remain a subject of political/sociological/philosophical debate.

      And their responses to my questions as to why increasingly destructive firearms-- or, indeed, all other weapons-- have continued to be developed in place of tranquilizing sorts that might be used to temporarily disable an opponent, their arguments inevitably swivel around to the importance of people-- or a country or *allied countries*-- developing the most effective means to defend themselves from hostile enemies. (E.g., we must have the strongest military forces else be eradicated or overtaken, and our God-given, higher ideals supplanted by those of the infidel).

      Briefly setting aside all this, though, and other practical considerations (e.g. the economic implications of mass bankruptcies in the billion dollar gun industry, etc.) while focusing on the gun control debate: the few times I used to try to ask my gun-toting family members and friends “But what if there *was* a way to ensure that even the criminals (or terrorists or enemy military forces) were disarmed? Just as a philosophical question: what if something were invented that would instantly disable *all* firearm: do you think that would be a good thing?”), I might as well be asking them to imagine ‘what if everyone didn’t have hands?’ (e.g. “Well, they/the enemy could still use their feet to kick us!”/”Well, they could still develop other weapons to use against us.”)

      The way they *look* at their guns … the way they smile together at the shooting range … the way they show off for one another … I do agree that it’s as much an emotional issue as anything. It’s just … some people *love* guns, the way the Doc and I and so many we others, here, hate them.

      Delete
    5. I do enjoy going to the gunrange. I do enjoy getting a bullseye here and there (just as i did as a child at camp learning to use a bow and arrow). I do not hunt nor do i ever plan to and I dread the idea of ever having to use any weapon against anyone or any living creature. I enjoy using them recreationally and do plan at one point however obtaining my own (Ive only ever shot guns my father or some friends owned) for self defense.

      If a person breaks into your home what is your plan? My plan is to grab my pocket knife (as a temporary weapon) make my way to the gun safe and call my father for the combination (being in college not far from home i live at home and he refuses to give me the conbination. Hes never explained why since he fully trusts me around firearms) since im closest to the garage and the gun safe i have easiest access. Id arm myself and call the cops. Id make sure my family was safe and hold out til they hopefully arrive in time before the robbers leave...or find us.
      I once asked my friends what their plans were. Theirs were very similar. My sister however who until recently was still very unsure on her opinion on guns had no idea what shed do.
      Cops take 7 minutes to arrive to a crime scene at a minimum. My town has no dedicated police station. Robberies happen more often than people would like to admit.
      What do you do?

      Delete
    6. I have several tasers in various locations around my place. I would so rather have a Star Trek-style phaser with which to temporarily paralyze them but ... ::sigh::

      Dang it. Where are our flying cars? ... and phasers? I grew up assuming we would be living like the Jetsons by this advanced year of 2017.

      Seriously, I regret that all who own a firearm (or who seek to own a firearm) don't seriously consider--as you obviously have (and have encouraged others to do [well done, Connor!]--the probability of it potentially being used effectively to defend themselves/others.

      When I asked myself this question a decade ago, I realized that this probability was too low. It seemed more likely that retaining a gun would, in my case, result in an accidental injury (or a self-inflicted injury by a suicidal other) or an inability to reach it in time for it to be useful.

      And it felt too much, in my personal view, as if I was picking up a big stick because the mean and scary bully was already holding one; but I didn't really want it. I didn't want to hit him with it. In fact, I felt sure I couldn't and that just seeing that stick in my hand or propped against my nightstand would make me feel sick about the world I lived in.

      Of course, if I enjoyed shooting guns recreationally-- if I found the same pleasure that you and others experience in them-- I guess it would be different.

      I guess this really is more about emotion than anything. Weird.

      Delete
    7. My dad once walked in the room and was pointing a gun at me. It was freshly purchased and was not loaded and he had just stripped and cleaned it.

      I still gave him a lecture on gun safety and how you never point your gun at something thats not down range.
      While a little miffed i didnt find his joke so funny i could tell he still appreciated that I had taken everything hed taught me to heart.

      When I suggested to my older sister she get a gun for her apartment she said no (she doesnt so much as hate guns as much as she has problems and they scare her in the sense shes afraid what she might do to herself) and then I suggested she get a taser/find the taser we got her years ago for college (left at home since not aloud on airplanes and she didnt check her bag)
      She then reminded me of all the times shed personally seen someone get tazed laughed it off and keep going unhindered. She had interned for a show Doomsday Preppers in college and part of the show had the nutjobs tase each other...and they just stood there laughing as they got tased.
      She decided on pepper spray as it seemed the only other effective method...which I still have my doubts about.
      Thats one of the reasons I stay aware of where the knives are in my hone that are easy access. hunting knife in bedside drawer-used for camping comes in handy and fjn novelty to show to friends since its so large. An exacto knife from my short stint trying out warhammer 40k on my dresser- small but so sharp a friend put his own straight through his thumb by accident. Through the bone. And finally my pocket knife on my computer desk. Only other knives are across the large house in the kitchen and a few small ones in my dads room or the garage.

      Delete
    8. I also make a point of how to view guns to people: fear and respect for them. If you fear them to much, things can quickly go wrong. If you do not fear them enough things can go wrong. If you fear but respect your firearm, you can learn to be safe with your firearm.

      Delete
    9. Connor: as for tranquilizers, what they never show on the nature channel is the crew taking an hour lunch break while they wait for the tranquilizer dart to have its effect.

      medical anaesthesia is different, as illustrated by the anesthesiologist's motto: "I'm not here to make you go to sleep. I'm here to make sure you wake up, again."

      Delete
    10. BTW:
      Thomas A Swift's Electric Rifle.

      Delete
    11. Well that explains a lot Ken. Did not lnow that as Im no expert.

      Delete
    12. "What do you do?"

      That's an interesting question, actually. (really - I'm sitting on my snark and trying to understand your arguments)

      I live in a one-bedroom. Someone breaks in, he will be on top of me before I can pull anything on him. Unless I sleep with a loaded weapon under my pillow, which is just asking for troubles.
      My parents have a small house, in a village a good 20 min away from any policeman. If such break-ins were a real risk, I guess we would consider some firearm by the nightstand. Or maybe not, as my parents are not getting any younger, and were never into weapons anyway. OTOH, they have a dog of moderate size. He is more likely to neutralize a burglar by drooling all over him rather than fighting him, but we feel it's a nice 1st-level deterrent.

      I don't think we will ever consider high-caliber rifles as anti-burglar weapons. In my flat, the bullet would punch through 3 walls or more, at my parents' place it will ricochet on the stone walls.
      If we had large wild animals to need to repeal, that would be a different issue.

      Just something I don't understand with your own measures: you need to wake up your dad, and get from him the safe combination, while intruders are maybe in the next room, listening in, and maybe readying themselves to rush you?
      And how is you dad going to know you are asking on your own volition, and not because someone has a knife to your neck?

      Delete
    13. Thats my measures at this moment. And id probably give some hint like "i want to check out the jewels in the safe" or something to hint that its not me speaking. And on the listening in part its a concrete house its hard to hear yelling at each other through our doors much less through the walls. You also underestimate the size of my familys house.
      Most of my friends their houses are the size of my living room.
      My biggest fear isnt them listening for me its me not hearing them when they get in. For that...im screwed. My plan assumes I have realized yes Someone has broken in.
      Of all the places for robbers to break into the house I can guarantee I can get to the garage (20 feet from my bedroom door) and block it on the other side before they can reach me. My dad does keep a small gun safe in his own room but only occassionally keeps a gun or 2 in there so hed be useless from where he was and would be to noticeable (very loud creaky door for his bedroom. Really need to get that fixed)
      And the solution mind you isnt to then go after the robbers its to protect myself and my family while waiting for the cops to arrive.
      Is it a perfect plan? No, but unless I live in a literal bunker I doubt anyone could find a better plan.
      Also I imagine once I do own my own pistol he will give me the combination to the safe anyhow.

      Delete
    14. And what I would grab weapon wise would be a couple pistols and the shotgun. In my family most of our guns are just there for recreational use at gunranges not intended for home defense.

      Delete
    15. "You also underestimate the size of my familys house."

      We Europeans usually do. North America's people have bigger houses than most of us. We don't have much space (or you have too much of it).

      Delete
    16. Definately to little since at least in Britain in certain areas a million pound property is equivalent to the average house in the US. Granted I can think of a few locations that a million dollar plot of land is small as Hell so it does fluctuate.

      Even in the US my house is huge. Granted its far from the largest in my town even or even the nicest.

      Delete
    17. @ Cole North

      "what if something were invented that would instantly disable *all* firearm: do you think that would be a good thing?"

      The late Arthur Clarke actually wrote a good novel based on this idea, "the Trigger".
      Spoilers - the bad guy is the NRA leader; and Clarke thought it would be potentially a nice thing to happen. Mostly. Like all new technology...

      Delete
    18. Im reminded of a quote by Albert Einstein. "I know not what weapons world war 3 and 4 will be fought with, but I know world war 5 will be fought with sticks and stones."

      The idea of a button disabling them all suddenly solving so many problems ignores things like human nature insanity or fanatacism. As I said elsewhere in the example of terrorists- if the guns arent good enough and the bombs dont work, a plane will do better.

      Humanity will wage war on itself in perpetuity whether there are guns or not.

      Delete
    19. Heliantus, @"The late Arthur Clarke actually wrote a good novel based on this idea, "the Trigger"."

      Started it last night. Thank you so much. :) I.O.U !!!

      Delete
  13. Anyone who argues that the 2nd amendment is any less valid because the commonly used weapons at the time were muskets would do well to keep in mind that the 1st amendment was written when a quill and ink were the predominant form of communication. And yet nobody has ever challenged the notion that the 1st amendment extends equally to more modern methods of communication, like the internet.

    "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

    Seems pretty unambiguous to me.

    The actions of this man were reprehensible to myself and the other 100+ million gun owners in this great country who killed nobody that day.
    But in the midst of the finger pointing and the discussions taking place, I have never received an answer to this question:

    Which law would have prevented him from carrying out this act?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Your fatal error with comparing your first and second amendment is thinking that speech and guns are somehow relatable.

      Speech, as a concept, doesn't change. Guns, as a technology, do. THAT is the fundamental difference between the first and second amendments.

      Who ever said anything about any law that would have prevented this? What would have prevented this is restricted access to firearms.

      Delete
    2. Technology does certainly change, and people back then knew that. The first machine gun was invented in 1718, almost 73 years before the 2nd amendment was put to paper.
      Just because the technology changes doesn't make the underlying principle any less valid, as we see with the freedom of speech today.

      To whom would firearms access be restricted to? This was a sane, law abiding citizen with no criminal record who passed over a dozen separate federal background checks to obtain his weapons. At the end of the day, there is no legislation past or present that would have prevented this from happening, unfortunately.

      Delete
    3. He at least Used to be sane. I bet hed formed a brain tumor or something. He wouldnt be the first shooter to have been driven nuts by that. (There was a shooting in texas on a college campus by a sniper in i think the 60s maybe 70s I cant remember and it was later found hed formed a brain tumor and wrote multiple journal entries about his mental syate about the voices he begane to hear etc)

      Delete
    4. And how many private citizens owned machine guns in 1791? I bet it's awfully close to 0.

      The amendment was about private citizens arming themselves to protect against a tyrannical government. It was not about private citizens owning machine guns, Gatling guns, etc.

      The change in technology absolutely changes the principal. And if you think for one millisecond that George Washington foresaw high-velocity rifles and hollow point bullets, then I have a bridge I'd like to sell you.

      Delete
    5. And thats why for most states its illegal to own a machine gun Doc. Its just unfortunate that its easy to figure out a way to modify certain weapons into automatics (via the internet) Oops.
      Like in 1999 the Columbine shooting. And bombing.
      2 teenagers obtained several guns illegally (they were underage soof course it was illegal)and made homemade bombs. Which they found out how to make on the internet. Thankfully from what I remember as the bombs were shoddily made most of them didnt go off.

      Delete
    6. The point is that the framers were well aware that superior weapons were already in existence, and still chose to use the all-encompassing term "arms".
      Indeed, it's well agreed that one of the purposes the 2nd amendment was written was to empower citizens to keep government in check. Which would be pretty hard to do if you weren't entitled to keep and bear the same arms that the government does. I can't imagine that George Washington foresaw a lot of things three hundred years in the future. But in the end, it's not about what he saw, but what is written in the constitution.

      Delete
    7. Me telling you to "fuck the fucking fuckity fuck off fuckstick", isn't going to kill you nearly as fast as me pulling out my automatic and unleashing a 100 rounds in to you in less time it takes me to say, "fuck the fucking fuckity fuck off fuckstick"..
      A gun is a tool it was created with on purpose, it truly has one intent. Apples to oranges fallacy if you compare it to protection from libel and slander.. You have to compare it to something of equal value that has an opposing outcome to make your argument valid..

      Delete
    8. An AR-15 in bad hands can be used to cause tragedy. In my hands, my AR-15 puts food on the table to feed my family. Just as in a farmer's hands ammonium nitrate can be used to grow crops, while in someone elses' say, Timothy Mcveigh's, it can be used to destroy a building and kill hundreds. It doesn't matter what something was created to do. A gun has never killed anyone on its own.
      The 1st amendment is not limited to libel and slander, just as the 2nd is not limited to muskets. It's well known that terror groups worldwide use the Internet to recruit and radicalize fighters, and to distribute terroristic propaganda. In much of the free world, this has been deemed a reprehensible, but protected example of speech. This is no different than modern sporting rifles and their protections under the 2nd amendment.
      I will add that automatics, or Class III, weapons are impossiblY difficult to obtain in the US, requiring a sometimes year long process of background checks and interviews. They are also prohibitively expensive, often in the tens of thousands to hundreds of thousands of dollars. Automatic weapons are a privilege of the rich, and will remain so for the forseeable future.

      Delete
    9. or in careless hands, it can be used to erase the town of West, in Texas, off the map. and that still hasn't killed as many people as unfettered access to firearms has.

      Delete
    10. Why do you hunt with a semi automatic?

      Delete
    11. I'm not sure I follow you. Is hunting with a semi automatic weapon unusual?
      Access to firearms in the US is hardly unfettered. Anyone buying a firearm online or at a gun store must pass a federal background check before taking possession of the weapon. There is of course no way to regulate private sales, any more than you can regulate the private sale of a car.

      Delete
    12. It'd be incredibly difficult to track a private transaction between two parties, much less effectively regulate it. It's illegal for a person to sell a firearm to a convicted felon, mentally ill person, or one who does not reside in the same state as the seller, and the seller can be held criminally liable for what the buyer does with it. However, as the government doesn't allow private citizens to do these checks, the best you can do is check their drivers license for residency. Some, but not all, gun stores will do it for you for $10-$50, if one is nearby. If the government provided us the tools to assure that the person buying a gun is legally allowed to own one, I would be the first in line to use it.

      Delete
    13. where I am you can't hunt with a rifle that has a magazine larger than 5 rounds. - which, with a removable magazine, means you can't carry larger magazines when hunting.

      Delete
    14. I've never found myself needing extra magazines while hunting. Pest control is a different matter of course.
      I understand some states have different views on the subject. Mine has no such restrictions.

      Delete
    15. To the why not Anon, I imagine you're a shitty shot to have to use a semi.. Now be a good little ass and let the adults talk..

      John, seriously, going to answer a question with a question.. I am asking in seriousness, why do you hunt with a semi automatic? It's an easy question to answer since you use one and that's your weapon of choice.. I am interested in reading a response, I won't attack or bite or pull out my automatic, just curious as to why you use a semi automatic weapon to go hunting? No trick question, I won't go off on a tangent.

      Delete
    16. Cali semi automatics are the norm. They arent as fast as you probably are picturing.
      Not everyone has a bolt action rifle.

      Delete
    17. I'm guessing you're wondering why a semi as opposed to a bolt rifle?
      Contrary to what some might think, no hunter takes a semi-automatic hunting so they can shoot a game animal multiple times. Again, no hunter uses a semi-automatic for game hunting so they can fire multiple shots at the animal.
      A hunter will always attempt a quick, decisive shot that will cause minimal damage to the meat and render a quick death. As the doc has illustrated in many posts on this site, bullets cause a great deal of internal damage. A badly placed bullet can ruin a large amount of meat instantly, which no hunter would want to risk.
      A semi-automatic is no different than a bolt-action, or even a break action rifle- one shot per trigger pull.
      In my case, it comes down to practicality. With an AR15 I have a lightweight, versatile platform that has the stopping power to effectively hunt big game, conduct pest control, and provide inexpensive target shooting on the weekends. This is why modern sporting rifles like the AR and AK platforms are so popular today.

      Delete
    18. Note for other readers: he means civilian grade Ar15s and ak47. Semi automatic only

      Delete
    19. Several points for John Taylor:
      Yes, your founding fathers used the word "arms". They did NOT use the word "firearms". Is that putting too fine a point on it? Perhaps. I don't know the exact vernacular of the time, so I can't say if "arms" in 1791 meant "firearms".

      I understand you use a high-velocity rifle to hunt. That's fine. Do you need 43 of them? That's how many this guy had. How many is too many?

      And don't think I didn't notice the verbiage you used regarding background checks when buying guns. You specifically said "online or at a gun store", but you conveniently left out the thousands of gun shows (between 2000 and 5000 PER YEAR, depending who you ask) where you can walk in with money and walk out with pretty much anything you want. Private sellers at these shows are not required to do a background check or even record the sale.

      Do you see this as a problem?

      Delete
    20. Doc my father has at leas 20+. Why? Is it so he can form some form of paramilitary group?
      No...its called a collection. Each gun is different and distinct and thus each one is a new experience. He doesnt own 20 ak47s hes got a couple differing revolvers differing semiauto pistols a couple rifles etc. (Note: we dont hunt we only use them at gunranges)

      And yeah as much as I like to occassionally attend a gun show (at which my father has rarely ever bought guns there...its mostly to buy ammo) they do need to find a way to regulate the sales of firearms at these shows to a much greater degree. At the very least the ones I go to security checks your license as you enter or leave with a firearm. If you do not have a gun license and have a firearm you Will be arrested and they will confiscate the weapon.

      Delete
    21. A collection, great. I get that. Then those guns in that collection should have their firing pins removed and the barrels altered so that they cannot fire. Problem solved.

      The Vegas shooter had a nice collection too, Connor.

      Delete
    22. You are entirely correct that gun show vendors are not required by law to conduct background checks, and many individual sellers are prevented from doing so by the reasons I mentioned earlier. Nobody would deny that this is a gap, but to date no proposed legislation, past or present, would have closed it. The oft-repeated mantra "universal background checks" is misleading and doesn't fix the situation. For one, proposed UBC legislation would effectively make illegal all private firearm sales not performed through a third party dealer, so instead of helping private citizens sell their weapons safely and legally, it essentially criminalizes them. This is not a solution. As I said before, when the government offers a way for citizens to verify the legality of a firearm transaction, I will be first in line to use it, as will many other firearm owners.
      Per your point on my hunting rifle, "high velocity" is a rather superfluous term, and is a function of the type of ammunition loaded, not the weapon itself.
      As for needing 43 of them? I have a fairly large collection of firearms myself, and would be hard pressed to come up with an airtight reason for needing each and every one. However, I see it as no different than someone who owns a large collection of cars. Some of my weapons I use regularly, others come out of the safe on rare occassions. Ultimately, there was never a stipulation for "need" in the phrasing of the 2nd amendment.
      Respectfully I think we're splitting hairs on your first point. The definition of "arms" can be traced back hundreds of years and even contextually one could deduce what they were referring to.

      Delete
    23. The reason he collects them is to be able to use them at gunranges. He doesnt even keep them in a glass case they are kept hidden in the garage in a safe bigger than our fridge.
      And as I have said before- most of the time, these crimes are committed with 1 Maybe 2 guns. The vegas shooter is as far as I can remember the only one that had with him such an enormous amount. Feel free to point out another Im no personal database kn mass shootings but most Ive read about involve only 1 or 2. 3 or 4 if committed by 2 people like Columbine.

      Delete
    24. Sandy Hook - a semi-automatic rifle, two handguns, and a shotgun.

      Orlando - semiautomatic rifle, handgun.

      Dunblane - 4 pistols

      San Bernadino - 2 semi-automatic rifles, 2 handguns

      Port Arthur - self-loading rifle, AR-15, shotgun

      Cumbria - rifle, shotgun

      San Ysidro - pistol, Uzi, shotgun

      Get the point? And there are plenty more. This took me just a few minutes to find.

      Delete
    25. 4,2, 4 (how many people at dunblane? I forget that one)2 per person, 3, 2, 3.
      I was asking for ones as high as vegas doc. He had 19 with him.

      Delete
    26. Are 4 guns not enough for you to consider it "excessive"? Come on, Connor.

      Delete
    27. Ty John for the answer.. I come from a family of avid hunters.. They all use bolt action rifles, my uncle's favorite was a 22 long barrel.. My grandmothers had 22s. I use to take their 22 pistol, 357, and 38 out target shooting when we would go to the woods.
      However, not a single one of them had a semi-auto, they didn't have an ounce of respect for hunters that used them, they were old school. My uncle's all did the bow and arrow hunting as well.

      Hell, my neighbors who were die hard Republicans only used bow and arrows and carried a hand gin as a side piece because if the animal went down without dying they could take it out of it's misery..

      Delete
    28. Connor, my best friend and her husband are arms dealers. I have ordered a specialty gun with and a special military spec grip for my husband, because he is a marine and wanted a pistol that reminds him of the time he served.. I have shot a semi (I know they pause between shots, unless they have been converted), I have shot a lot of different guns..
      I'm not opposed to guns, I'm opposed to stupid assholes with lots of guns because they fear the boogey man and the voices that keep telling them to get more guns because the liberals are coming for them or Armageddon is gonna get them..

      Delete
    29. Doc Bastard, it's not up to YOU to decide how many guns a person has.
      My husband has several guns, most came from his grandfather, and some he purchased for self-defense. We go to gun ranges to practice on occasion, and all of us practice proper gun safety.

      Instead of the "BAN ALL GUNS NOW" argument, maybe we need to work on WHY this happens.

      Delete
    30. Fascinating Julie, I don't recall ever stating anywhere that it was up to me to decide how many guns. Maybe you can point out where I suggested that.

      And as I've said multiple multiple times now, the people saying "BAN ALL GUNS NOW" are the gun advocates. No one is coming for your guns. Calm the fuck down.

      There's no reason to work ONLY on the WHY and ignoring the ridiculous ease of access.

      Delete
    31. Doc the point was you complain out about how many someone owns yet usually the number they have at home DOESNT MATTER.

      Delete
    32. And as Ive said before Doc believe it or not I have heard actual politicians crying out for removal of all guns...thankfully they are Minor politicians.
      And Ive met a lot of people who believe thats the way to fix the world without understanding how criminals work.

      Delete
  14. Over here in the UK it is very difficult to get a gun licence, let alone a gun. Farmers, game keepers are usually allowed as are those in shooting clubs. There are very strict controls on what type of guns are allowed, how they must be stored and who can own one, they also have to be renewed every 5 years maximum.

    https://www.gov.uk/shotgun-and-firearm-certificates

    Sadly should they bring in stricter laws regarding gun ownership, it will make no difference or very little to gun crime since all the law abiding citizens will do whatever is required even to giving up guns, meanwhile the law breaking citizens will ignore the laws and keep on shooting, killing, robbing etc safer in the knowledge that their innocent victim is likely to be unarmed and not a threat.

    In the UK Knife crime has soared even with laws prohibiting selling any knife (including cutlery, butter knives etc) to under 18's. Certain knives can be carried on a person if it relates to work, an exhibit in a museum, or for use in a reenactment, religious reasons or film/tv production.

    https://www.police.uk/crime-prevention-advice/possession-of-weapons/

    We have now also had an upsurge in acid attacks which have resulted in a ban on selling it to under 18's.
    Personally i think they will switch to alkalines which can just as dangerous and penetrate the eye more easily.
    Those that want to kill or maim will always find a weapon even if it ends up being a rock.
    We have terroristic attacks with vehicles, will they ban those?
    The good guys will always follow the law and hand in weapons etc during amnesties, the bad guys just ignore it and get on with whatever crimes they are going to do.

    Here in the UK most police are armed with just a baton, tasers are being handed out to more officers for protection with the aim of having every officer issued with one.
    We do have armed police but they are few and far between.

    Out of the total 150,000 officers in the 39 territorial police forces in England, 6,500 are trained in the use of firearms. 2,500 of them are in service with the Metropolitan Police.

    We are proud of our unarmed officers but in these trying times, both the public and more officers want officers to be routinely armed.
    A baton against armed terrorists using guns or with suicide vests is a pretty sure way of getting killed, against knives they have a better chance of making it out alive.

    If someone is intent on getting a gun they will either do it legally or they will do it illegally.

    It used to be that bank robbers and the like would never carry a gun and would inform on anyone who did as it was the death penalty but then they abolished that and guns started coming in and now gun crime is rising alongside that of knife crime.

    They include a 13% increase in gun crime to 5,864 incidents, driven by greater criminal use of handguns and shotguns.
    The police figures also show a similar 14% rise in knife crime, with improvements in police-recording practices contributing to the increase.

    It pisses me off with all the prayers, vigils and hand wringing, all of which achieve nothing.
    It is also interesting that daesh have claimed they are responsible for this.
    They do not have a history of fake claims plus the MSM seem to have gone quiet as to motive so it does make me wonder.

    This does not read as someone who is pissed off at the world, this was premeditated big time with all the weapons and ammo required.
    This was deliberate targeting of a concert, something terror groups are known to favor.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Oh please, groups like Daesh claim shit all the time. Terror groups favour concerts for the same reason this guy attacked a concert: lots of people in a small space, you barely have to aim to cause carnage.
      I'll be extremely shocked if this guy was a terrorist, because if they'd found so much as a Koran or a book on Islam at his house, they would have shouted it from the rooftops in order to make sense of this horrific attack.

      Delete
    2. If hes a gun owner the amount of ammo needed....yeah gun owners buy ammo in bulk to begin with thats not a factor. Nor the number of guns i know a lot of people with far more guns. Turning them into automatics though that takes time...a few hours after you get the parts. Hardly "months in advance" as some people i hear picturing. A week or 2 maybe at most required

      Delete
    3. I still maintain that the UK police have it handled better. I can throw a bullet much further than you can throw a rock, and if only the bad guys and police have guns, the police know anyone (not a policeman) carrying a gun is a bad guy. (not that I am suggesting either of us would do such a thing.)

      Delete
  15. The founding fathers also felt slaves were worth 3/5 of a white person for purposes of population and congressional representation, and women could not vote. They didn't get it all right. But they did plan for amendments, because they knew they didn't get it all right.

    2/3 vote in Congress, overturn it. Get on it folks.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. After an amendment is proposed, using the 2/3 vote in both houses of Congress method you mention, or, alternatively, 2/3 of the State legislatures, three-fourths of the States must still approve it.

      Delete
    2. If i remember right its part of the Bill of Rights. Now I could be wrong here I need to brush up on my constitutional law, but Im pretty sure its far harder to overturn one of the 17 Bill of Rights than it is to overturn the regular amendments.

      Delete
    3. The bill of rights is the first 10 amendments, and they are no different than any other amendment.

      Delete
    4. My bad then. Again need to brush up on my constitutional law.

      Delete
    5. Okay, I know I'm new here (only been following Doc for half a year or so and have never commented here until this post here) and this isn't really the forum for getting personal with anyone .... *however*:


      You remind me very much of one of my cousins, Connor [...and the 'love God, love guns' Texas housewife reminded me very much of several of my aunts and their circle of friends but we'll set that aside].


      *You,* Connor, are clearly not so wholly a part of that culture; you're entirely your own individual, introspective, and interested in other viewpoints even as you remain tied to and deeply loyal of your father and the ideals he has taught you. I know I haven't ever met you in person (and likely never will) but, in reading your posts, I already feel for you (or at least your e-persona, here) something of the affection I feel for the cousin you so remind me of. So please know that what I'm writing to you, now, derives from that sort of cousinly liking.


      It's worth noting that you were a bit confused about the Bill of Rights and yet, I'm sure, you would be willing to sacrifice your life to defend the ideals laid out in the Constitution and BoR. Your comments about how every citizen of the country could be armed, in an emergency, so as to defend our country from an invading enemy indicate that you feel a bone-deep love and patriotism. Apart from the possibility of the government becoming so divided as to result in something alike to another Civil War, it would, perhaps, never occur to you to question that these United Sates, as a whole, are "blessed by God," "the land of the free and the home of the brave," "the greatest country in the world," and/or "worth defending at any cost."


      You might not (yet) 100% understand the nittygritties of the articles and amendments of the Constitution, but you know that they are a symbol of our nation's great democracy.


      Would you also suggest the guns you respect (but also fear, a bit) are a symbol of our democracy? (My cousin would, as would every single member of my family, so-- again-- this is all coming from an affectionate perspective of understanding) ...

      Delete
    6. If asked to explain your deep love and loyalty for this country using iconic images, what might you show them? (e.g. a baseball, football, basketball game? ... the national parks? ... the signing of the Constitution and Bill of Rights? ... a cowboy silhouetted against a sunset, kneeling by a cross over a grave ... 4th of July bbq picnic with kids running around holding sparklers? ... a youtube video of your sister speaking out or marching in a 'pussy hat' for women's rights? ... a picture of you and your dad, smiling with your arms over one another's shoulders, holding a couple of his favorite guns at the range? ...?).

      These are some of the symbols my own cousin would point to as why he loves this country so much, and why he would be willing to sacrifice his life to defend it. And if someone showed him thousands of similar iconic images from other countries (their own favorite sports, gorgeous geology, original national documents, historic figures, religious imagery, holidays/festivals, and their own female constituents exercising their freedom to protest), he would probably shrug and say something about 'that's a bit like here, but ... the U.S. is still the best." In observing that there were very few images of other families smiling together at the gunrange, he might even suggest that this was something that made our country particularly unique and awesome.

      I actually think you love guns a little less than most members of my family. You perhaps *like* them-- you professed your enjoyment of shooting bullseyes with them at the range with your dad; you professed that you respect them-- you obviously feel strongly enough about your right (or your dad's right) to own them. And you would argue that it's right and good that, if necessary, every citizen of this country could arm himself/herself with a gun to kill dead any who sought to conquer this country.

      Yet you are willing to contemplate, with others here, whether less access to guns might not be a bad thing. You were willing to ponder why a tranquilizer-type of projectile isn't used in place of bullets, albeit the fantasy (mine ... and, as Heliantus offered, Arthur C. Clarke's :) of all guns being disabled is immediately replaced in your vision with an expectation that wars would still be waged with other weapons insomuch as humans are ... what we are.

      I understand that, too, in my cynically idealistic way. My regret is that inventing/developing/utilizing weapons that violently injure or kill others is so entirely the norm for us, as opposed to the invention/development/utilization of weaponry that might only temporarily disable others.

      And I do fear that humans (and especially USAian) are unable, as a whole, to even consider inventing/developing/utilizing a less ... homicidal weapon. As pointed out by Doc himself, they can be fun. In the USA, they're commonly regarded as an iconic symbol of democracy; they're part of a billion dollar industry; people like your father admire them as part of collection. So many people love their guns.

      Delete
    7. ...The positive, hot/warm feelings stirred in their chest when they look at their guns-- when they *fondle* them-- makes it infuriating, *unbearable* for them to hear words spoken against the object of their affections and sometimes even their carnal lust. (Admit it; you've glimpsed that gleam in the eyes [and/or erection in the pants] of more than one person at the gunrange). The avowal "you can have my gun when you pry it from my cold, dead fingers" is representative of the type of obsessive dependency that defines the most unhealthy forms of 'love.'

      Of course those who feel this sort of deep, abiding infatuation are unable to withstand criticism about (or, worse, plots *against*) their guns. It would be like saying to them, "I know you love your spouse-- that you know him/her as well as you know yourself and are 100% convinced that (s)he would never hurt anyone [who didn't deserve it] while (s)he's with you-- but we have proof that (s)he has injured and killed millions of innocent people and animals. We must take him/her away from you."

      Of course this gun-lover would respond with defensive fury, all their love and loyalty undiminished. ::sigh::

      As in my own case (and, admittedly, I never felt any love for the guns I shots; perhaps just the mildest stirrings of lust), the willingness to step back and look at the gun in one's hand and decide, "Do I really love and need you? Do I really want you in my life, now and always?" ... it has to be arrived to internally.

      I was a particularly stupidly selfish, stubborn, fun-loving teenager (and constantly forming crushes on anyone [or anything] that sparked my interest). While I was laughing at the shooting range, mildly in lust with the .357 Colt Python in my hand, no one could have convinced me of its flaws. If someone had told me it was an evil thing that ought never to have been created, I would have felt quite aggravated; in fact, I might have become even more obsessively in lust with it. "They just don't understand you the way I do, my handsome and powerful Colty."

      I was cured of that crush as I realized ... "Oh wow; you are a very handsome and powerful telescope and way freakin' hotter than Colty or any other gun. Mmm ... look at you. Inside and out, you are a heavenly thing, my brilliant refractor. I want you. I want you now." (Alas, my family always preferred my first boyfriend, Colty, and cannot understand why I dumped him for my dear Meadey).

      Seriously, Connor, you-- and my cousin-- seem more alike to myself, then: not really fully in love with guns. So I hope it's all right that I am placing all my 'gun control' hopes on you, my cousin, and others like you, who might one day glance down and think, "Damn, you hurt so many people, again. You're kinda a hot mess. I'm not sure I really like you any more or even want your around, In fact, maybe it would've been better if you were never created;" and then, when you next glance up, "Ohhh ... look at the hot, intelligent phaser over there. Now *that* is something I could fall for, hard!" Hehe.

      Delete
    8. First Im more of an agnostic so all that crap about god given rights I barely care. We gave ourselves those rights and be damned it you try to take them back
      . Second Im rusty on constitutional rights since Ive not touched on it since middle of high school. Doesnt help I have a very strange memory retaining certain things over others.
      When I think of why the country is worth defending no images pop into my head. I just know that the people who live here is something worth fighting for. Most developed countries are worth fighting for as well.
      Im not solely dependant on my fathers ideals in fact most Ive formed rather independently (only recently have my father and I become close) for instance my dads stance on drugs is to legalize...basically everything. (Yeah leaves me scratching my head too) Because he thinks its up to the individual and also itd open a huge economic market. Me? I think keep it limited to weed being legalized. i do have family members in the armed forces (well ok now Formerly in the armed forces)
      Overall my views are rather mercurial in comparison to others.
      However, while yes I believe there do need to be changes made to gun control I will stand my ground that yes its our right and priveledge to own them as we please.

      Delete
    9. Ah. Well ... hope is a phoenix; and while my own isn't as hardy and bright as some (dying with far greater frequency than others, and often being regenerated as a rather pitifully deformed, flightless, and ash-shrouded thing), your words, here, haven't destroyed it. And it's still in your keeping. (Well, yours and my cousin's and Scottie's and others who like guns but are willing to contemplate tighter gun control as a potential solution to this ongoing epidemic).

      In fact, not to threaten/forewarn you or anything but ... perhaps you are even more alike to my twenty-something self than you are alike to my cousin (or than my cousin is alike to you). Hehe.

      I ... er ... blossomed or degraded (as most would have it) out of my agnosticism and into my agnostic atheism in my twenties; and "mercurial?" ... Hell, yeah.

      [cousinly hug]

      Now ... please, please be gentle with my little phoenix. Please.

      Delete
  16. Maybe the second amendment should have been modified to avoid the potential for killing so quickly, but that in itself isn't the main issue.
    The weapons are already out; a recall of some sort would force law-abiding citizens to hand in their guns while those who don't abide by the law keep theirs, creating an even worse imbalance.
    The unfortunate part of the situation is that those who wish to commit mass-murder badly enough will ultimately find a way to do so. Restricting one's access to guns may dissuade some, but there will always be a black market for those who seek it.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. however, if we stopped the flood of them going out, then gradually the number in bad guy hands would start diminishing through attrition.

      Delete
    2. Again, the answer is NOT to simply throw your hands in the air and give up and let this continue.

      Delete
    3. Like the war on drugs, Ken? That worked really well.

      Delete
  17. You might find this an interesting read.

    https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/i-used-to-think-gun-control-was-the-answer-my-research-told-me-otherwise/2017/10/03/d33edca6-a851-11e7-92d1-58c702d2d975_story.html?nid&utm_term=.c583f144b0f5

    It's about the myth of "ban them all" vs the reality. By the way Australia doesn't come out that well. One thing the article doesn't address is that in the last 20+ years guns (in the US) have increased in number by around 52% but homicides by gun have gone down by 49%.

    Interesting that the Doc reacts to this emotionally in the same way that the believers in the Jahi McMath situation react. We all have our weaknesses. Science and statistics are good and true when they support our beliefs. Bogus when they go the other way.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. This is more than just an emotional reaction (which I fully admit it is). It is also supported by data, which you seemed to have missed.

      While the homicide rate in the US is down nearly 50% from its high, 1) it increased by 8% in 2016, and 2) you have no evidence it decreased because of an increase in the number of guns. That intimation is nothing more than an emotional response on your part, devoid of evidence.

      And again, no one is talking about "ban them all" except gun fanatics.

      Delete
    2. So still overall down by 41% from what it once was Doc.

      Delete
    3. I understand that. Now prove that's because there are more guns.

      Delete
    4. While i cant prove it for the US we can talk about switzerland.
      In switzerland everyone is required to serve in the military.
      Everyone household has government issued weapons (24 guns per 100 people. Still lower than US at 112 per 100)
      Everyone has government issued ammo that you get fined if you do not fire a certain amount of rounds every year.
      Death rate per 100k in switzerland is 3. Mostly via suicide not homicide.

      Delete
    5. I've heard the Switzerland argument several times, and it holds water as well as a rusty sieve. Everyone there is trained, and every household has a gun, you say? How does that compare to the US? Is anyone required to serve in the US military? Are you required to train in gun safety and marksmanship before getting on Walmart.com and buying a few rifles or going to a gun show and buying whatever you want? And there are 5 times as many guns in the US, and 4 times higher death rate. I'm not saying that's causative, but those are your data.

      It's a terrible comparison.

      Delete
    6. "Nobody is talking about ban them all except gun fanatics"
      And the people who write gun control bills (while having a CCW themselves) and the people who support these bills.

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ffI-tWh37UY
      If you've never heard supporters of gun control calling for the banning of all guns, you just haven't listened enough. I understand you're in the UK and aren't exposed to American politics and its lovely details, but I recommend doing more research before commenting on them.

      Delete
    7. then you don't understand at all, because Doc has NEVER said where he is.

      and he is correct that while there are a few who call for banning all guns, the OFFICIALS mentioning total bans are almost invariably right wing fearmongers; as you seem to be.

      Delete
    8. So doc everyone being trained in military tactics and being trained to kill Doesnt result in a higher death rate? So if we trained everyone in the same way by that logic everyone Should be trained in the same way to decrease the death rate.
      The number of guns per gun owner most of the time is irrelevant since Most crimes committed with a gun involve all of...1 gun per person. The incident in vegas being an outlyer

      Delete
    9. Ive also met many anti gun people who insisted getting rid of all legal guns in the US wouldnt result in ridding of all gun crime. I actuay had to slowly explain to them that criminals wont give them up.
      They still didnt get it.

      Delete
    10. Spurd - When I say "nobody is talking about banning guns", I meant politicians. I apologise if that didn't come through properly.

      However, American politics are widely followed around the world. Don't think for one second that you have to live within the US to be up to date on the lunacy going on inside the beltway (yep, I even know that term).

      Conner - Training everyone on gun safety sure sounds like a fine idea, but it wouldn't do anything about the culture of violence. Or maybe it would. Who knows, maybe if everyone were required to learn gun safety, the fascination would diminish.

      Delete
    11. @ Connor
      "In switzerland everyone is required to serve in the military."

      Um, mandatory training of people on how to handle and store guns. Could that be a factor? Nah.

      "Everyone household has government issued weapons (24 guns per 100 people. Still lower than US at 112 per 100)"

      Ooh, "still lower". Not to mention that in Switzerland, it may be more widespread around the population, whereas in the US it's something like 60% of the guns are owned by 3% of the population. Could that be a factor? Nah.

      Another difference, the Swiss citizens keep their gun from their military service, but the ammo for the guns is kept in local military armouries, not at their home.

      Delete
    12. Last I read the ammo was supposed to be kept within a certain distance of the front door. Maybe that was an older law I dont know I dont pretend to be an expert on foreign law either.
      And training in safety yes this will decrease the amounts of accidents (which yes I believe that everyone should go through a proccess like that) giving say a gang banger military grade training doesnt sound like such a good idea. "Whats that? I dont have a criminal record yet and thus can get military grade trainkng on how to kill people? Sounds fantastic!" Doesnt sound like a great idea.

      And switzerland yeah since everyone may or may not be carrying a gun (they have concealed carry law you know that right?) It means people are Less likely to be attacked since anyone may or may not have a gun on them at any time. It works on the same principle in a way as herd immunity and vaccines.

      Delete
    13. @ Connor
      "It means people are Less likely to be attacked since anyone may or may not have a gun on them at any time."

      That's a nice fantasy. Anything to back it up?

      Have you been to Geneva, recently? Most people in the streets are foreign workers, tourists and other aliens. I doubt there are many armed civilians.
      I could be wrong, of course. I don't go around patting people for concealed carry. At the same time, I never heard of any story of a Swiss shooting a wannabe pickpocket. For your assumption to be real, I would expect that, from time to time, a fool is shoot, just so others wannabe assaulters are reminded of the risks.

      Also, around 1939, we French had visitors which were armed. That didn't stop a few of us assaulting them, precisely to steal their firearms.
      I dunno. If I was a criminal and I suspect people around me to be armed, I will just go sneaky. Wait for them to sleep, by example. Or I will dash, grab a purse, and plunge into the crowd, hoping any armed vigilant won't dare to shot, for fear of hitting a bystander.

      Delete
    14. One problem i find most people have in crowds all over the world is a lack of awareness. When im in public i remain acutely aware of everything with me- every little movement every ounce of weight on my body. Everyone who comes near.
      When my sister went on a trip through Europe with people from high school, in france someone tried to steal the teachers phanny pack by hiding his hand under a newspaper and reaching for it. She was the only one to notice she yelled out loud he ran wasnt caught. The teacher was so oblivious he scolded her for it. Note said phanny pack had money, ids and PASSPORTS in it. So you know nothing important was almost stolen of course.
      He was more embarassed she made noise than he was aware she just saved all their asses.
      When I lived down in New Orleans during Mardi Gras on Bourbon Street (well and the rest of the French Quarter) i put my phone and wallet in my left pocket and didnt take my left hand out except when I went into a restaurant and sat down with my back to the wall.

      Delete
    15. And in 1939 when that happened France fell to the Nazis in what weeks? A month?

      Versus in the US if we were invaded youd be dealing with the largest militia the world has ever seen since literally the entire population of the united states is capable of being armed privately. Add in the military well thats just good business.
      And before you say yes people will die. Lots. Especially since they are untrained.
      But if thousands of people are pointing their guns in a direction theyll hit their mark.

      Course this is entirely theoretical and hopefully this hypothetical militia will never need to happen in any shape or form.

      Delete
    16. "And in 1939 when that happened France fell to the Nazis in what weeks? A month?"

      You disappoint me. A lot.


      Read on "Blitzkrieg". Fast advance of armoured divisions, far ahead of the troops and supply chains, to breach the enemy lines and capture their headquarters. Cut the head, the snake dies, sort of.
      We were hoping on the Belgians to slow down the Germans, like they did at the start of WW1, and we had armoured with bunkers and artillery the East borders (Maginot line). At the suggestion of a daring German Lieutenant, the Nazi army sent their tanks through the dense forest in-between Belgium and the Maginot line. If a tank had hit a tree and broken a thread at the right place (or the wrong one), the invasion would have stopped right there.
      OTOH, a bunch of ill-trained civilians with pistols, against tanks? Really?

      It was so fast, some French soldiers went to their barracks to report in the morning, and were send back home in the evening. My own grand-dad went from conscripted soldier to POW in about three days.

      As for untrained civilians repealing a professional army of one million well-equipped soldiers with pea-shooters and a few rifles they barely know which end to grab...

      Briefly, there is the little matter of the international laws ruling wars between civilized nations. The Geneva convention was supposed to forbade an army from targeting civilians - as long as they don't wave weapons in the direction of the army. As a civilian, point a weapon at a guy in uniform, he is justified in bombing you and your house, and too bad for you wife and children inside. To top it, an armed civilian would be considered at best a "franc-tireur" (rogue unit/"enemy fighter"), at worse a spy. But I don't have to tell an American about what happen to people not considered as regular soldiers.
      The Nazis proved quick at forgetting the Geneva convention at the smaller pretext (search "Ouradour" - ), but still, there was no point at giving them more excuses for mass slaughters.

      Now, let's talk military strategy. So here are this bunch of civilians, lightly armed (nothing like bazooka or even grenades, and certainly no artillery or AA guns), and they dare to stop my army's advance.
      Did I say artillery? Do I have one? (the Germans had)
      Do I care if the city burns to the ground? (the Nazis usually didn't).
      Do I care about being seen as ruthless? Oh yes.
      Problem solved. Your militia is under the rubble.

      Even better. The Germans had these planes, the Stukas. Fancy dive-bombers. Do you know what "aerial superiority" means? As an American, you should. That's how you won all your wars in the past 70 years.
      In 1939, the German had aerial superiority. They even tested in 1937 in Spain how to raze a small city with a bombing raid. The city was called Guernica.
      So your militia, frankly... All dead, a wonderful excuse for the invaders to put everything to the torch, and a even more wonderful example for the other cities down the line of invasion. Worked for Alexander, worked for Genghis Khan.

      Delete
    17. Addendum:
      Now, if your armed civilians hide among the unarmed true civilians, and the invaders need the civilians and the city's infrastructure to support their armies. In short, if you go full guerrilla, now that's different.
      That's how the Dutch, Belgians, French, Poles, and a few others Resistants kept a full German army busy, away from the front lines in Normandy and Russia.

      Delete
    18. I did oversimplify it by a lot. Partly for a slight joke. Should be noted before the US entered the war we still had more horses than tanks and our military was overall in a very poor state. The japanese general who said "we have awoken a sleeping giant" said so not because of our Current militaty strength but rather our massive potential (as was proven during the war we already had the infrastructure for mass weapon manufacturing and the resources and man power) had the Axis powers been able to take the same forces to invade the US (lets say nazi canada instead of nazi germany for geography) the result would likely have been very similar.

      The theoretical resulting militia would be basically supplementary to the military we already have. I know for a fact that if need be wed be able to at least double the size of our army via drafting without needing to increase the number of weapons, tanks etc by to much of a stretch as we have a huge surplus. The whole of the United States working in guerrilla warfare would also be effective. But invasion is highly unlikely anyway. Plus its not like mobilization of the military is hard the freeway system was designed explicitly in case of invasion for quick mobilization of troops (get the fuck out of traffic when that happens!) And quick destruction (collapsing overpasses and bridges) to prevent the invading forces to use it against us. Heck its even designed for planes to land on in extreme emergency situations believe it or not. But as you said also air superiority and other factors.

      Delete
    19. one point: people trained in an organization bigger than the local street gang tend to identify with the bigger organization. it's not 100% reliable, but even if it converts 10% of gang bangers into upstanding citizens, that's improvement.

      Delete
  18. You are absofuckinglutely on point here, Doc. And the thing is, MOST Americans agree with you. Unfortunately, the NRA has politicians in its pocket.

    Tyranny of the (horrible) minority. Just, SOP here in 'Murica.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Whwres the statistic for Most americans?

      Delete
    2. So glad you asked. Right here. http://news.gallup.com/poll/1645/guns.aspx

      And I'd be willing to bet the "more strict" number will go up after this event.

      Delete
  19. I personally enjoy shooting guns. If I had to give up guns forever, to save even one life, you can damn well bet I’d do it.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. @Scottie: I <3 this. Thank you for the surprised, pleased, hopeful smile your appeal brought to my lips.

      Delete
  20. Over here in Australia, if we shook our heads any more at America lately they would fall off. (Not that we are perfect at all - here we just like to glass people instead of shooting them). As you stated, the huge recall after Port Arthur did the job very well. We are a very different country, in that our borders are oceans and our cities are very spread out and our population is much smaller and we have far few people living in rural areas who *need* guns for shooting animals. Switzerland is another great example.

    I think you're right and any attempt at a recall would be very difficult. But while it might not stop everything, think of those kids that accidentally shoot themselves or others because they find granddad's gun. Think of those kids that buy guns on the internet because it's easy. A lot of those statistics would go way down. So would suicide to an extent, I think, because of the ease.

    But overall it's a lot of the culture that needs to change. And I don't really know how to do that. A president and government strong on reform would be a good start. Change to the lobbying systems too.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. you're right. the first thing we have to change is the culture.

      Delete
    2. I'd like to dispel this myth surrounding online firearms purchases if I may.
      It is true almost anyone with a credit card can purchase a firearm online. However, all firearms purchased online will only ship to a federal firearms licensed (FFL) dealer. This FFL will take possession of the weapon, conduct your background check, and make the final decision on releasing the weapon into your custody. There are no exceptions to this (save for Curio & Relic firearms which can be purchased under a less stringent license. C&R firearms must at a minimum be 50 years old and have historical value)
      In most cases, an online firearms dealer will not even process your order until your local FFL has faxed the requisite paperwork to them. No law abiding citizen in America is buying firearms online and having them shipped to their door, unless that person is also a federally-licensed dealer.

      Delete
  21. Right on Doc. We always used paperclips on pre-op X-rays to mark entrance and exit gunshot wounds. A small box of paperclips lasted months. I wonder how many paper clips were needed in Vegas. So sad beyond belief

    ReplyDelete
  22. I’m a Texan. Two things. I love God, and I love my guns. Sorry Doc, but you just lost me. I’ll see my own way out.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Sigghh--
      "Hasty generalization is an informal fallacy of faulty generalization by reaching an inductive generalization based on insufficient evidence—essentially making a rushed conclusion without considering all of the variables."

      Maybe you should roll back on the fallacy and not jump to conclusions.. Doc is saying we need better ways of handling our guns.. I'm for a national database with gun registration and ways for people's guns to be tracked.. It's funny no one has asked if I owned a gun or if I ever went hunting or if my husband is a marine with a concealed weapons permit, because of what we do for a living, or the special order gun I got for him for Father's day..

      Just assume we want to take your fire arms because we think there should be better ways to make sure psychos don't get them or people that shouldn't have them to keep ourselves safe because aren't we all paranoid of the boogey man getting us with their guns first.

      Delete
    2. Problem with a database is it shoulsnt be open to general public...which would interfere with private selling (which will Never stop) because if a criminal gained access to said database they can easily pick and choose which houses to hit. Since they dont have guns. There was huge backlash some years ago when a google earth esque website was released that did just that as it was dangerous information for Non gun owners.

      Delete
    3. Housewife - Right, Texans. I would sigh, but it would be meaningless. Though I've never owned a gun, I've shot both rifles and handguns on multiple occasions. They're an awful lot of fun, and I see why you enjoy them.

      I'm from {redacted}, and here we love {redacted}. But if someone took that thing I love and killed 5 dozen people with it, and someone else had done the same thing with that thing I love a few weeks before, and every goddamned year 10-15 people did the same thing with that same thing that I love, I would say "Fuck it, take it away. I don't love it anymore."

      Delete
    4. Also helps Doc that you see the other side of being shot at that most never will. The aftermath.

      I wonder what the statistic looks like for doctors who are pro vs anti gun? Im actually rather intrigued what it looks like.

      Delete
    5. Connor, you're young and still impressionable and willing to read and learn.. When a subject matter/sentence isn't clear or concise, ask a follow up question.. Cali- would the general public be able to look up said database? Would the layman be able to research which house doesn't or does have guns, because (and then you have a formal argument- well if the common man can look it up they would be able to break in to houses)
      And Cali would say no, it needs to be accessible for fbi, state police, because that would also help police when apprehending a person, so-and-so they are arresting today has 43 registered guns, we could possibly avoid a cop getting killed.. and it would be like fingerprints and dna, only certain agencies could look.. Let's say I sold someone a gun, it was used in a commission of a crime and a murder of a child (rev up the emotional response), gun gets dumped next to the body, they go in to the registery and see I was the last legal owner, I show them my bill of sale for the gun and who bought it.. Helps the police, helps the family of the victim, and oh no infringes on my privacy for 2 minutes and infringes on a possibly a murderers privacy..

      Delete
    6. Thing is theyd want to still sell guns privately. If it requires them to do a background check that info has to be accessible.

      Delete
  23. I totally agree with EVERY SINGLE WORD YOU SAID DOC BASTARD!!!! I HAVE ARGUED YOUR VERY SAME POINTS, IT'S SO POINTLESS IN MY OPINION, I'VE BEEN SAYING THIS SAME THING FOR YEARS NOW, NOTHING HERE WILL EVER CHANGE I DON'T BELIEVE, I DO APPRECIATE YOU SAYING WHAT YOU DO, AND I REALLY RESPECT YOU FOR IT.

    ReplyDelete
  24. Mass shootings actually inspire the Second Amendment Cult to run out and buy more guns. Republican Representative Steve Calese was shot and almost died. Did that change his mind about America's gun happy culture? Why no, it simply reinforced his belief that unrestricted access to firepower was an inalienable right

    The gun culture has a slogan: I'll give you my gun when you pry it from my cold dead fingers.

    Bill O'Reilly summed up how Americans feel about their guns. Massacres, no matter how high the body count, will never change the mindset that dismisses them as simply "the cost of freedom".

    ReplyDelete
  25. If I may give my two cents: the Constitution of these United States is like you said, an amendable and living document. The second amendment at the time it was written was to allow citizens to defend themselves against tyranny, hey we just fought a war against an empire. Are there people who buy guns like groceries? Oh yes I know some personally, but they are not to blame for this tragedy. Any way to aim the blame on the NRA, white America, hunters etc. is pointless; no good person with a gun has killed anyone. Now does that mean nothing at all should change? Again no, but it is not justified to take away rights from the good people of this country who are as shocked as anybody. And finally I leave with this, how many people in the history of mankind have been murdered by their own government and they had no way to defend themselves? People may scoff at this and shrug it off, but any country fall into the depths of totalitarianism and the right to be armed is a very unique one in history. Again, just an opinion.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. lots of good people with guns have killed people. google accidental shootings.

      Delete
    2. Theres also self defense kills. Still good people without malicious intent.
      Or soldiers defending their country. (Now for a lot of wars who is doing it for the right reasons is highly debatable but lets just throw out WWII as the major example here)

      Delete
    3. Unknown - You, like many gun advocates I have seen, are using the fallacious "DON'T TAKE MY GUNS" argument. As I have said multiple times, I do not think all guns should (or can) be confiscated.

      As for your "No good person has killed anyone" argument, that is sadly wrong. Suicide and accidents happen regularly. When was the last time you heard about a toddler accidentally shooting someone? It took me exactly 2.341 seconds to find this story from 4 days ago about a 2-year-old accidentally shooting and killing his father while he slept: http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/toddler-playing-gun-accidentally-kills-father-article-1.3522986

      and this story from 3 days ago of a toddler who shot two 3-year-olds in a day care: https://www.clickondetroit.com/news/2-young-children-shot-after-toddler-finds-gun-at-in-home-day-care-in-dearborn

      Is that not clear? When will enough be enough?

      Delete
    4. The more and more I hear these stories the more and more thankful I am that my father is a smart man.

      Delete
  26. I'll just leave this here and you can decide whether you think it's acceptable or not:

    http://www.gunviolencearchive.org/

    In the UK it's entirely possible to own a gun if you are a farmer or have another legitimate reason, so the Ken above with the polar bear problem would not have a problem. However, the rules are very strict, all guns are licensed and their ownership and storage is tightly controlled. Gun deaths are 0.23 per 100,000 people per year as opposed to 10.54 in the US. Now I'm drawing a line from two points here but I find it hard to believe that there is no correlation.

    There are many arguments why gun control is not a perfect solution and most of them are somewhere in this thread. However, there are two key points about guns, especially automatic weapons or those converted to being automatic, which many of the counter-arguments overlook:

    1) Guns are professionally made and extremely reliable.

    2) Guns, especially the automatic variety, can cause huge numbers of deaths and injuries with little skill or training (all the more so if you don't care too much who you kill).

    Guns are a miracle of engineering and have taken the combined effort of many generations of highly talented people to develop - you know me, I love the science/engineering behind this type of thing and guns are amazing. The reason that they are so popular for armed forces is because they kill people with an ease and efficiency that is unparalleled in human history. It's not coincidence that armies don't try to run each other down with trucks or throw acid at each other. Sure it's effective to a degree but it's nothing like as efficient as even a basic hand-gun.

    Bombs are the other efficient method but of course professionally made bombs are not available to the public and making them is a little like making your own gun - they will be dubiously reliable and pretty likely to injure you just as much as anyone else. They also take considerable time and skill to make which limits their usefulness in impulsive situations.

    You will never reduce crime to zero and to some extent removing guns would be compensated by greater use of improvised weapons but an impulsive "lone wolf" will struggle to be so devastating with anything but a gun and those who are prepared to spend time in preparation can always add gun attacks in to whatever other atrocity they are planning without a great deal of effort.

    We had an attack at London Bridge earlier in the summer - some guys ran down pedestrians on the bridge and then ran amok with knives. If guns were available they would surely have used those. Sure, they killed & injured people but nothing like the number they would have got with a gun and of course you can always revert to a knife once you have exhausted your ammunition.

    I accept that it's not easy to undo the current situation but you could start by making it illegal to sell and also to own/carry some of the most powerful weapons and the kits for modifying semi's into automatics. That will gradually reduce the severity of the situation. You could also have a national license and register of all guns and owners and require third-party insurance, just like cars. That reduces the chance of selling on to criminals since guns can be traced back to their owners and there is some fund to compensate victims, accidental or deliberate. It's a common issue that moves which improve a situation are rejected because the don't provide an immediate solution - few problems are created instantly and few can be solved that way. Neither of the above will change the situation overnight but it might start things improving rather than becoming more dangerous as weapon technology improves.

    Ugi

    Ugi

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thank you for saying all of that so eloquently and without the use of profanity, which I obviously am incapable of doing. I think you hit nearly every point I've been trying to make.

      Delete
    2. ^^ I said license, register and insure, with a lots of profanity.. Dmv for guns..
      At work when we sell a car, we have to email paperwork to dmv that the car has exchanged owners- vin #, year/make/model, last registered owners address and full name, new owners address and full name, date of sale, the new owners state license number..

      I knew someone that bought a gun for a few bucks off a website like Craig's list, no background check, didn't ask for ID, didn't do much besides exchange gun for money and the seller didn't care. It would also help with the reporting system to track "lost" or stolen guns, same as cars..

      Their should be legal ramifications for not reporting gun sales to my imaginary gun dmv, fines and loss of license..

      Delete
    3. Btw thank you Ugi, I have seen you around and always enjoyed reading your posts on Doc's blog, it's nice reading things you write rationally and elegantly, same as my thoughts that I have a hard time trying to put to blog irrationally and abrasively. lol 😉
      Time for work, 😖

      Delete
    4. Cali: I have loved every freakin' one of your posts here, "abrasiveness" and all! And I'm sure that must be the general consensus. :)

      Ugi: this is brilliant. Thank you.

      Delete

If you post spam or advertisements, I will hunt you down and eliminate you.

Comments may be moderated. Trolls will be deleted, and off-topic comments will not be approved.

Web-hosted images may be included thusly: [im]image url here[/im]. Maybe. I'm testing it.