Guns, mass shootings, and related.

timothy leary wrote: The T wrote: timothy leary wrote: ^ So say some libertarian authors who were not alive for the history they portray. Neither were any of today's authors really. Or historians in general, with some exceptions. If you want to know what a gold rush town was like then read some Mark Twain who actually was there firsthand.

He also wrote about an engineer from Connecticut who hung out with King Arthur. 

Guldbamsen wrote: Equality 7-2521 wrote: Guldbamsen wrote: The native American's. Oh yeah because tribes didn't go to war over hunting grounds and water sources. I am not saying that the Europeans invented war here. Of course native Americans went to war with each other before the arrival of the freakin Mayflower. They just didn't have guns, and yes I know it's possible to kill without them - but it's much easier and they bring a certain convenience into the picture - yet that isn't my point. I don't think they would have snuffed off the entire population of natives had they been left alone by the settlers, but that is just guessing.

 
So basically you're just speculating. As I said, all land ownership if you trace it back far enough came by force. We just happen to be a young country.

You know, first hand accounts are often inaccurate and kind of lie filled. 

Why does everyone think that a ban on guns would be effective? 

Equality 7-2521 wrote: Why does everyone think that a ban on guns would be effective?

 

Dean wrote: Give it a try and found out?   Break the circle.

Well before you ban a desirable good, in addition to having a good reason, you should be relatively sure that the ban will be effective and that the benefits will outweigh the cost of enforcing the ban.

Equality 7-2521 wrote: Dean wrote: Give it a try and found out?   Break the circle. Well before you ban a desirable good, in addition to having a good reason, you should be relatively sure that the ban will be effective and that the benefits will outweigh the cost of enforcing the ban.

You don't need to ban something to stop using it, and as many have pointed out, enforced prohibition never works, that's not to say regulations and controls cannot be effective. As I have said before during these debates, I doubt the population of the USA will ever change their attitude to guns and I do think it's more than just cultural, yet based on the reaction to this latest massacre I'm more than a little puzzled over how bad it has to get before you want to change.

Killing

Exactly how many crimes are committed using stolen firearms?

No. I wouldn't. Nor would I consider banning a drug or anything really until a very cogent argument is made for doing so.

CPicard wrote: So, this new massacre is supposed to be big news in the USA? I thought the American were used to this kind of things now.

Very sadly, we are indeed used to this. There are several every year. This one does seem to have a little extra resonance, maybe due to how young the victims were. Even the NRA, which usually only pauses for a day or two, fell completely silent for a few days. Like "oh hell, even we better just lay low for a bit after this one"

Needless to say, extremely tragic, every time it happens.


Guns? Oh boy oh boy, an amazingly sticky wicket here in the states.
This is all I can say:
Personally never owned a gun, fired a gun, I don't see the appeal (and I mean the fun, not protection aspect) I don't think anyone needs more than 2...a handgun and rifle (I guess I can see 4 or 5 if you want different styles, or own a small business and want to have one in multiple areas). I think people who "vote solely on guns" are loony, I hate rednecks who cry 2nd amendment but probably don't really care, just wanna make love to the barrel.

All that being said, I've never seen much need for gun control.
Sensible gun laws are fine and there does need to be more stringent psychological checks in place, but the huge majority of crimes are committed with illegal guns. So just, well gun laws can't really impact that.
As the Prez said, most people are sane, responsible people...they are not the target of gun laws. It's about trying to stop crime, but they will just use illegal guns. So barring some dystopian nightmare, I think sadly gun laws can't do a whole lot about crime. 
Which is another point. Ideal as it may be the whole "I want a country with no guns" or "ban all guns" is just that...ideal. It physically can't be done unless some drastic moves are made. And in that case is it worth it?

It's all about environment anyway. More affluent = less crime. More people in an area = more crime. Statistically. So crime will naturally cluster in cities and poorer areas, and will be lesser in spacious/affluent areas.




End


Edited by JJLehto - December 19 2012 at 18:44