Half a croissant, on a plate, with a sign in front of it saying '50c'
h a l f b a k e r y
Caution!
Contents may be not!

idea: add, search, annotate, link, view, overview, recent, by name, random

meta: news, help, about, links, report a problem

account: browse anonymously, or get an account and write.

user:
pass:
register,


                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                   

Repeal and Replace the 2nd Amendment

Gun talk ... lots of gun talk
 
(+1, -1)
  [vote for,
against]

Repealing and replacing is fashionable.

The idea is to put the 2nd amendment through the highest courts and after a lengthy process (could be 10+ years) this sucker is finally nailed down to a scope which may or may not include -

1) One individual having enough firepower to go up against the government single handed (including nukes).

.
.
.

100) A flintlock. Which at the time of press, was the notion of 'arms'.

Just from the last few incidents, can anyone justify more than one semi-automatic pistol with a maximum of one spare clip on their person or in luggage at a time whilst not in their residence ?

bigsleep, Oct 03 2017

Gun control for dummies https://i.imgjar.co...inEOgd43enUorrg.jpg
[Voice, Oct 03 2017]

Another form of gun control https://www.brainyq...chaelbad183842.html
Terrorists are cowards. If everyone carried a gun and knew how to use it safely, then (1) the bad guys would always be outnumbered, and (2) no bad guy running amok could claim more than a few victims before being taken down. [Vernon, Oct 03 2017]

The Young Turks on the subject https://m.youtube.c...share&v=_ti8HmauY5o
[RayfordSteele, Oct 03 2017]

A better idea... _22Votes_20of_20con...2_20gun_20licensing
Seems sensible. [RayfordSteele, Oct 03 2017]

No Treason no. VI. The Constitution Of No Authority http://praxeology.net/LS-NT-6.htm#no.6
[spidermother, Oct 04 2017]

Factchecking Chicago and Gun Laws http://www.npr.org/...gun-laws-don-t-work
Yeah a few holes in the Chicago gun control argument. [RayfordSteele, Oct 05 2017]

Cherry 2000 http://www.imdb.com...q=cherry+2000&s=all
Portentous [8th of 7, Oct 05 2017]

homocide rate in America over time https://i.imgjar.co...3-Emky8TI_AWPaQ.jpg
[Voice, Oct 05 2017]

Don't date robots https://vimeo.com/12915013
Futurama [Voice, Oct 05 2017]

[link]






       // can anyone justify more than one semi-automatic pistol with a maximum of one spare clip on their person or in luggage at a time whilst not in their residence ? //   

       Yes.   

       Trips to the range.   

       Trips back from the gun shop (try buying just one clip of ammunition- a box of 25 or 50 rounds is typical).   

       Going on vacation to see like-minded gun enthusiats and taking part of your collection.   

       Trips to competitions.   

       Visits to some parts of your planet where being without a personal weapon at any time - except perhaps the shower, where you make sure an armed buddy is watching your back - is stupid to the point of being suicidal. And there really are places like that, in Africa, Central Asia, and the Middle East.
8th of 7, Oct 03 2017
  

       //Visits to some parts of your planet//   

       I meant civilized parts of the planet and America.   

       The other points could be covered by organized moving of weapons and ammunition. Home delivery of ammo / guns. Purchasing extra ammo at the range etc.
bigsleep, Oct 03 2017
  

       At least it's a new idea
theircompetitor, Oct 03 2017
  

       [bigs] aren't you forgetting that guns don't kill people; people kill people? Admittedly, people with guns kill people with guns, but that's a minor point.
MaxwellBuchanan, Oct 03 2017
  

       And it's not in Other:General....   

       // The other points could be covered by organized moving of weapons and ammunition. Home delivery of ammo / guns. Purchasing extra ammo at the range etc. //   

       What about backwoods hikes/hunting trips ?   

       The nutters will always, ALWAYS find a way. Other nations with liberal firearms laws and high gun ownership don't seem to have the problem of spree killers in their society. It seems to be an American speciality ...
8th of 7, Oct 03 2017
  

       Guns don't kill people - bullets do.
Ian Tindale, Oct 03 2017
  

       Ah, is it that time of year again ?   

       //A flintlock. Which at the time of press, was the notion of 'arms'//   

       The "notion" was ship-mountable cannons, not flintlocks.   

       //nuclear//   

       The 'States has signed and ratified some rather reasonable non-proliferation agreements concerning NBCW armaments.
FlyingToaster, Oct 03 2017
  

       Hey, I'd like to have seen that guy carry a ship-mountable cannon up to his hotel room.
MaxwellBuchanan, Oct 03 2017
  

       A 4-pdr on a standard truck isn't that big or heavy. The barrel's just about a one-man lift - similar to a Size F oxygen cylinder - and the truck's on wheels.   

       You'd need a fair amount of ancillary gear - mops, rammers, powder, shot, wadding, handspikes ... maybe three trips total in the service elevator.   

       Reloading would be slow, and you'd need ropes to haul the truck back into position afterwards.   

       One man could probably get off a shot every 60 to 90 seconds. Double-loaded with canister, at short range, it would be pretty effective.   

       // non-proliferation agreements concerning NBCW //   

       Which is all very well for nuclear weapons, but the simpler chemical agents can be produced with very simple facilities- nothing more than a college chemistry lab - unless you want bulk quantities; the Tokyo SARIN attacks are an example.   

       Biologicals are ... everywhere. Most soils harbour Clostridium Botulinus, and there are animal reservoirs for plague, anthrax, and other pathogens. The equipment to breed them is also basic - the main problem is not catching them yourself in the process.   

       There's no point in treaty outlawing pointed sticks, because anyone can just walk into the nearest wood and get another. And as technology advances, making things that used to be difficult becomes easier ... simple fission weapon technology is now seventy years old. It took months to machine the explosive lenses for the Trinity shot; now, they can be 3D printed in a few hours.
8th of 7, Oct 03 2017
  

       //[bigs] aren't you forgetting that guns don't kill people; people kill people?//   

       The idea again, is that the law 'redefines' the potential for someone with (unspecified in the 2nd amendment) arms to kill other people.   

       The 2nd Amendment could be further refined to use outside private ground e.g. in public space, outside a domicile or inside a hotel.
bigsleep, Oct 03 2017
  

       You might as well scrap the Constitution and start over. Because if you actually tried something like this, a revolution is what you'd end up with anyway.   

       Personally I'd be fine with that.   

       Outside of the modified automated rifles this jackass owned, handguns are much of the problem. Much more of the problem is the gun culture that exists in the expansive western half of the country minus California, having never atoned or come to any real reckoning with their past sins in the 1800's regarding the same. There was never a hardpoint at which they stopped being the Wild West and stopped worshiping smelly old drunkard uncivilized cowhands.   

       The laws regarding acquiring guns in this country are so shot full of bullet-holes that they are not effective enough to seriously matter.
RayfordSteele, Oct 03 2017
  

       Killing doesn't kill people, death kills people.
Ian Tindale, Oct 03 2017
  

       //You might as well scrap the Constitution and start over. Because if you actually tried something like this, a revolution is what you'd end up with anyway.//   

       You could be right. But it's a bit crap that the US constitution has been hijacked by the vagaries of a small amendment.   

       Given that the 2nd covers anything from a BB gun to a nuclear weapon, isn't it time to refine that a bit ?
bigsleep, Oct 03 2017
  

       Yeah. There are a hodge-podge smattering of exceptions and restrictions on things like silencers and such, but who the hell needs a semi-automatic weapon for 'self-defense?'   

       In what realistic situation do you need a semi-automatic?   

       Guaranteed right to firearms. No guarantee to healthcare needed as a result of getting shot by some monster with a firearm.   

       What a country.
RayfordSteele, Oct 03 2017
  

       //There was never a hardpoint at which they stopped being the Wild West// Nor even a softpoint, presumably.
MaxwellBuchanan, Oct 03 2017
  

       This sounds like a hollow point to me.   

       And does this fall into the " let's all " category yet?   

       I don't know what to tell you - I live in California, where I pay the sunshine tax and the hoops I need to jump through to acquire/own firearms are already significant.   

       None of which prevents head cases from doing stunts like that.
normzone, Oct 03 2017
  

       [Ray] with respect on a day like this -- the point of the Constitution is in its rigidity in certain areas. I have zero problem if the amendment process is followed once such a majority is reached in the country. Until then, I would expect that should legislation occur, it would probalby get struck down anyway.   

       On a related note, you do accept we have Trump in part because we had Obama? What do you think would happen if we managed to meaningfully change the law in this area? You think the 50/50 divide would grow closer? Or you think finally, good riddance as meaningful secession movements start?
theircompetitor, Oct 03 2017
  

       // meaningful secession movements start? //   

       Errr, they tried that. Didn't end well.   

       Scenario: Federal government mandates gun control. Non- consenting states, chock full o' gun owners, seceed. Bloodbath.
8th of 7, Oct 03 2017
  

       I suspect that such a rigid system is going to invite either collapse or revolt some day when people expect change to become as instantaneous as txt messages.   

       I do not accept the Trump / Obama premise. In a more secure system, with some modern upgrades like a fix to gerrymandering and the electoral college, Trump wouldn't have won.   

       IMHO it's not so much the laws as the culture. Guns are still worshiped for whatever reason. We have to cut the gun culture off at the knees first.
RayfordSteele, Oct 03 2017
  

       I think it would be helpful for Americans to consider mass and individual shootings in the same way they consider road accidents or hurricanes. I.E., they happen, fairly regularly, but that's part of life.   

       If you prevent ordinary people from acquiring 48 guns including automatic rifles, there's no real evidence that it would reduce mass murders. If the guy in the hotel hadn't had automatic rifles, he'd probably have used a bow and arrow, or a knife, or his bare hands. And even if all mass shootings were miraculously prevented, it would be a negligible saving of life compared to road accidents or other phenomena that people are happy to accept as the price of their lifestyle.   

       So, the news coverage should be less hand-wringy and more "gosh, that happened again, what a pity".
MaxwellBuchanan, Oct 03 2017
  

       I think it would be helpful for British to consider the disparity of gun-related tragedy between there and here. There's your meaningful evidence of mass-murder reduction.   

       Shootings are not a natural disaster. They are symptomatic of a nation that celebrates going off half-cocked.
RayfordSteele, Oct 03 2017
  

       Sad but true, that's my take on the matter already. Sounds terrible, doesn't it ?   

       People have been doing random violence to people since there were people. Tech just makes it easier and larger. Witness the latest wave of driving autos into crowds.
normzone, Oct 03 2017
  

       Autos I can at least dodge. I've not yet achieved Neo-level for dodging bullets yet.
RayfordSteele, Oct 03 2017
  

       //I think it would be helpful for British to consider the disparity of gun-related tragedy between there and here. //   

       Yes, admittedly the rate of gun deaths in the US is 25 times higher (per 100,000 population) than in the UK, and admittedly we have had only three mass shootings (killing a total of 46 people) in the last 100 years.   

       However, the right of every American to own an automatic rifle to protect against possible malfeasance surely trumps the right of country music fans and their children to live.   

       What kind of country would the US be if it denied law-abiding accountants access to unlimited firepower? Not the kind of country I'd want to watch on the BBC News, that's for sure.
MaxwellBuchanan, Oct 03 2017
  

       I am starting to wonder whether the NRA could be called a terrorist organization, or, at the very least, a sponsor of terrorism. Terrorism is defined as the calculated use of violence or the threat of violence to attain goals that are political or ideological in nature. The ads and political monies the NRA spend deliberately attempt to convince people that the only response to mass shootings is for everyone to own weapons. At the same time, they quash any efforts to enact sensible gun control legislation, leaving the door open for anyone to amass an arsenal that can easily kill and injure hundreds. And then they circle back around to convince people that they should own weapons to protect themselves from nuts with weapons. If that isn't using the threat of violence to further a political/ideological aim, I'm not sure what is.   

       And none of this even begins to address the politics of race inherent here. If Paddock were Mexican, Muslim, Democrat, or black, (or god forbid, all four), I'm thinking the response would be different.
RayfordSteele, Oct 03 2017
  

       //places like that, in Africa, Central Asia, and the Middle East.//   

       Don't forget Chicago   

       //who the hell needs a semi-automatic weapon for 'self-defense? In what realistic situation do you need a semi-automatic?//   

       The second amendment isn't there to protect against local thugs, it's to protect from the government.
Voice, Oct 03 2017
  

       The question isn't whether gun ownership creates gun deaths, but whether it creates deaths, period. And on that topic unbiased statistics are very clear: they do not. Where guns are forbidden governments and criminals kill more than enough to make up the difference.
Voice, Oct 03 2017
  

       At this point I am compelled to induce the " minimum qualifications to have an informed opinion " clause regarding the use of the terms automatic and semi-automatic.   

       Everybody who has passed their firearms safety course take the card out of your wallet please, and wave it in the air.   

       Mr. Buchanan, only a few states in this crazy nation allow fully automatic weapons - in most places you may only own semi-automatic.   

       And Mr. Steele, you have participated in rudimentary range training and fired both revolvers and semi-automatic pistols, haven't you?
normzone, Oct 03 2017
  

       I have not. I am not interested in guns. Never have been.   

       Everybody who has passed their driver's ed course, please take your card out of your wallet and wave it in the air.   

       Now, if you've ever been in an auto accident, please put your hand and card down.   

       <Looks around, checks automobile accident statistics>   

       I'm alive, and I'm informed. Minimum qualifications achieved. Semi-automatics can be modified pretty easily.   

       //The second amendment isn't there to protect against local thugs, it's to protect from the government.//   

       No matter how many guns you have, if the government for some weird reason decides to go rogue, you're screwed. Sorry. Only paranoid people worry about such things, and those are the very people that should not have weapons caches.   

       Maybe its time we stopped trying to use 18th century laws on weapons that shot a musket ball every minute or two for 21st century weapons that can shoot a whole clip in a few seconds or less.
RayfordSteele, Oct 03 2017
  

       //Where guns are forbidden governments and criminals kill more than enough to make up the difference.//   

       I'm pretty sure that's not the case in the UK, nor the rest of Europe. In Europe as a whole, the annual murder rate is 6.2 per 100,000 population, which is half of the gun-death rate alone in the US. The US just isn't a safe place to live, period.   

       But, that said, I hope they don't enact new gun restrictions in the US. I think, in fact, that all states should allow the private ownership of automatic weapons. It makes it a much more exciting country and, as noted already, the number of deaths isn't that great compared to other causes.
MaxwellBuchanan, Oct 03 2017
  

       [RayfordSteele], I was wondering about your " who the hell needs a semi-automatic weapon for 'self-defense?' " comment.   

       The simplest answer would probably be anybody who wants a weapon appropriate for self defense, and is comfortable with something slightly more complex than a revolver. Briefly described, it's a spring-fed mechanism vs a rotary one.   

       [MaxwellBuchanan], given the cost of ammunition, there's probably a reason why soldiers get weapons with automatic fire options, and civilians don't.   

       My tax contribution to the military budget is (does maths briefly) is about seven percent of my earnings before tax, which would pay for a fair amount of ammo, but I pride myself on close quarters precision work, and do not approve of contributing stray lead to the environment.
normzone, Oct 03 2017
  

       We should also try to look on the bright side - it was a Country Music festival.
MaxwellBuchanan, Oct 03 2017
  

       I was trying not to bring that up, but you make a valid point.
normzone, Oct 03 2017
  

       //The US just isn't a safe place to live, period.//   

       Please spread the word to the rest of the world that's always clamoring to immigrate here for some reason. We're EXTREMELY dangerous!   

       Of course we don't have England's charming immigrants running around throwing acid in people's faces as is the custom in their equally charming country of origin but I'm sure we'll be culturally enriched in that department soon enough.   

       //We should also try to look on the bright side - it was a Country Music festival.//   

       Wow. Might want to think about the hit your image of a concerned humanitarian took with that one. Or of a human being for that matter.
doctorremulac3, Oct 03 2017
  

       Actually, it's his reputation as a stand up comic that's in danger. But, like [8th] said, if you have to explain it it's not funny.
normzone, Oct 03 2017
  

       //Might want to think about the hit your image of a concerned humanitarian took with that one.//   

       Listen, [doc], what happened in Vegas was dreadful beyond words. The circumstances that allowed it to happen are even more dreadful, because they will continue - business as usual. Women, children and men will continue to be smudged out because a bunch of rednecks believe that they are entitled to arm themselves "against the government" with weapons better than many militias. The NRA will continue to spend orders of magnitude more on lobbying for relaxation of gun laws than anyone else spends on lobbying for them being tightened. So, the situation will continue.   

       There will be a mass shooting next month, and the month after that, and the month after that. And the public statements will always be the same, and the response of government and the NRA will always be the same.   

       Now, is there any point in my saying all that? No - none whatsoever. There is no point my expressing my opinion, nor you yours, because it won't make a difference. So, what option is left? Irony is sometimes as good an option as any.
MaxwellBuchanan, Oct 03 2017
  

       What does that have to do with people who may be from a different culture than yours being fodder for jokes when they die horrible deaths?   

       Sorry Max, you're better than that.
doctorremulac3, Oct 03 2017
  

       My contribution towards military expenditures probably compares to yours. Might I inquire as to the delivery date of the grenades and MRE's I paid for?   

       And doc, check your acid culture comment above.   

       Personally I refuse complacency as an answer. We've solved other issues.
RayfordSteele, Oct 03 2017
  

       Probably about the same time I get to choose how my money gets spent - I'd put it all into bridge maintenance if it was up to me.   

       And as for disparaging our unfortunate redneck population, what the killer did could just as well been achieved with a garden variety British military surplus .303 and a suitcase full of magazines. Available cheap all around the world.   

       There's a lot of hardware fetishists out there with too much money to spend, but all they accomplish is supporting the gun porn industry and get the hoplophobes excited.
normzone, Oct 03 2017
  

       //Available cheap all around the world.// Yes, but not easily obtained by an accountant in the UK.   

       Over here, when accountants turn bad they generally just overclaim VAT rebates.   

       And [Vernon], re. your link - wide gun ownership has not (and wider gun ownership would not have) prevented 9/11, nor the London bombings, nor many others.   

       I suppose what puzzles people over here is that you have a hundred-year-old piece of paper saying you can have whatever weapons you like; it sits alongside other equally old pieces of paper saying you can own slaves, or drive cattle through town centres on a Saturday, or whatever else. Yet this particular piece of paper is held as being sacrosanct. It appears to be an amendment to your constitution, yet you say that it can't be amended.
MaxwellBuchanan, Oct 03 2017
  

       As a guy who has obtained his firearms legally, and made a deliberate choice to only acquire ones uninteresting in the eyes of the state of California, I must point out that you do your drinking in the company of gentlemen.   

       A trip to the other side of town would no doubt yield access to forbidden items - our respective countries have been littering the world with them over the last hundred years. You'd have to dress down a bit.   

       As for the amendment part, I don't know where my policy falls on the spectrum - I'm probably a conservative experimental - I'll play by any rules you write, including training and insurance, if you'll give me a license to carry.   

       I wonder how Israel makes it work. Discounting the hostile terrorists, you don't hear about locals running amuck with the automatic weapons they carry.
normzone, Oct 03 2017
  

       We don't want to lose our right to arm ourselves and obviously we're willing to pay the price that comes with such a freedom. Freedom is not without its price OR its drawbacks.
doctorremulac3, Oct 03 2017
  

       //we're willing to pay the price that comes with such a freedom//   

       Well, that's a perfectly reasonable position to take. Yesterday's price was 59 corpses, surely a bargain.
MaxwellBuchanan, Oct 03 2017
  

       Lot more than that. We lost a quarter of a million back in the 40s driving back you insane Europeans who were, surprise, bent on world domination.   

       Speaking of which, you might want to spend a little more time worrying about your ailing culture and country and a little less time criticizing ours. Your Sharia law courts aren't going to allow dissent forever you know.
doctorremulac3, Oct 03 2017
  

       // We lost a quarter of a million back in the 40s driving back you insane Europeans who were, surprise, bent on world domination.//   

       Well, that 's foreigners for you.Look on the bright side, it would have been a lot more if you hadn't waited until it was half-over before showing up, after selling all those weapons for top dollar.   

       Remind us again, was it just the 2500 Americans that died at Pearl Harbour that convinced you the threat was real, or was there something else ... ?   

       // Speaking of which, you might want to spend a little more time worrying about your ailing culture and country and a little less time criticizing ours. Your Sharia law courts aren't going to allow dissent forever you know. //   

       Obviously not. After all, it's kind of hard to administer any sort of codified judicial system when you've been nailed upside down to a tree and strangled with your own tea-towel.   

       // I wonder how Israel makes it work. //   

       All Israeli citizens who pass the medical receive military training.   

       They are also subject to an immediate clear and present threat.   

       This fosters an entirely different mindset and attitude to weapons. Soccer Moms lug an Uzi around to protect themselves, their children, their friend's children, and by extension any other citizen under threat or actual attack. It's not a status symbol;they know how to use them, and it's as sensible and practical as an umbrella or a pack of wet-wipes.   

       The next person to walk through the door might be wearing a suicide vest. The fact that every other person in the room is openly carrying a personal weapon is actually quite reassuring in such circumstances, when there is a powerful sense of community and shared values.   

       IWRC, in Samurai Japan, a guest on entering a house would place his katana on a rack, but keep his wakizashi. This signified his willingness while there to defend his host's home and person, with his life if necessary. Under such circumstances, a breach of the honour code - even between sworn mortal enemies - was unthinkable.   

       In WW2 in the UK there was a significant drop both in both crime and suicide . Part of the reduction in crime can be accounted for by the majority of 17 - 30 year old males being temporarily removed from society by the armed forces, but Mass Observation indicated that people simply had other things on their minds.Likewise, when there is a clear external threat, the impulse to suicide is reduced - survival instincts predominate.
8th of 7, Oct 03 2017
  

       Feeling sensitive today [doc]?   

       I have a question. Since we are currently unsuccessful at enforcing the current set of laws on those who would do evil, how are we going to put the genie back in the bottle?   

       There's more guns in the country than there are cows and cars. If they were all made illegal today how would we enforce that?   

       Even your grandmother has a gun - she's never told you about it, but when she passes you'll find it in her nightstand.
normzone, Oct 03 2017
  

       //Semi-automatics can be modified pretty easily.//   

       True, unless you mean "into reasonably functional full-auto weapons". Souped up hot rods don't make useful daily drivers, and I'll assume by "easily" you mean "has access to a gunsmith's machine shop". You can do it, but usually the result is a trashed rifle which has a neat party trick until it breaks.
FlyingToaster, Oct 03 2017
  

       //Feeling sensitive today [doc]?//   

       When people insult my country I defend it. It's called not being a pussy.   

       But I'm happy to see we're making great progress here with the subject of gun control. Next let's move onto religion and get that solved once and for all.   

       Max, love ya but I'm not giving up my gun. I may end up curled up in the fetal position sobbing softly to myself after receiving a clever intellectual drubbing... but I'm not giving up my gun. If it's outlawed I'll keep it anyway. Sorry, that's just the way it is. Rest assured, I'll only use it on people who are trying to hurt me or my family.
doctorremulac3, Oct 03 2017
  

       // how are we going to put the genie back in the bottle? //   

       Presumably you just need a cork, a funnel, and the right magic spell. Next question ?   

       // the result is a trashed rifle //   

       You certainly don't need a machine shop; what you need is the skill, and the right starting material. Go visit the Pakistani and Afghani gunsmiths, who make AK47's by hand that are part - interchangeable with Russian and Chinese mass-manufactured ones. Their facilities are primitive in the extreme, which is probably a good thing, because if they had decent tools they'd probably be turning out T-72's and MiG-25's.   

         

       // we're making great progress here with the subject of gun control. Next let's move onto religion and get that solved once and for all. //   

       You know, re-reading that, it sounds remarkably like irony ... are you absolutely sure you're American ?
8th of 7, Oct 03 2017
  

       It’s not gun control that America needs, it’s more guns. Everyone in America needs at least a hundred guns to protect themselves from every other American who already has a hundred guns. Over time this number could become a thousand guns..... since most Americans can’t count over the number 38, Mexicans will have to be brought in to count their guns for them. A whole new industry begins. Eventually Americans will evolve into a new kind of species that have two inches thick bony platted chest and back areas to protect them from bullet impacts. Their brains will also shrink even further to that of an egg sized bundle of basic function neurones contained inside an almost solid boned skull.
xenzag, Oct 03 2017
  

       That process could be expedited by interbreeding with the french.
8th of 7, Oct 03 2017
  

       No, then you get Canadians. They're like Americans, but without weapons, religion, or testosterone.   

       As far as converting a semi to an automatic, I can think of at least 10 different ways to do that. Most involve some basic gearing or fourbar adaptations. Not hard.   

       Regarding Vernon's link, what you end up with is a circular firing squad. Just ask the police.
RayfordSteele, Oct 03 2017
  

       " When people insult my country I defend it. It's called not being a pussy. "   

       Wow, [doc], whole new level of insight into your software there. Good luck with that.
normzone, Oct 03 2017
  

       // without weapons, religion, or testosterone. //   

       ... but with those huge eyebrow-ridges that can be used as protection from heavy snowfall - extremely useful !
8th of 7, Oct 03 2017
  

       Here's why I have a weapon in my home. The story is a little embarrassing although for the life of me I don't know why I should be embarrassed. I'm just a little reticent to discuss it but it has bearing on this discussion so...   

       I've had three people stalk me on separate occasions. Two were just obnoxious obsessed people but one turned out to be dangerous. This person got my phone number somehow and had left a series of threatening messages on my voicemail. I called the police who came and at first, I feel like they thought I was the nut job until they heard the messages. They were a series of rambling soliloquies accusing me of working with the CIA to read his mind, speaking to him through the TV and internet via secret messages or something and most importantly, threatening violence against me and my family. The officers returned with his mugshot and basically told me he was dangerous and that I should take this very seriously. I mounted cameras around my house that could be monitored remotely, showed my family a picture of this person with instructions on what to do if they saw him and, of course, got a pistol and showed my wife how to use it.   

       I would never accept anybody telling me I shouldn't protect myself in a situation like this and would never deny anybody in a similar position this right.   

       Incidently, the police made it clear there's nothing they can do to keep a motivated person from hurting somebody they really want to hurt so there really wan't any other option.   

       Anyway, that's my story. Ok, back to the clever insults.
doctorremulac3, Oct 03 2017
  

       Which brings us to the sad state of mental health care in this country...
RayfordSteele, Oct 03 2017
  

       Amen. [doc], in these parts that and a clean record will get you a concealed carry permit.
normzone, Oct 03 2017
  

       // the sad state of mental health care in this country... //   

       Many nations, of all degrees of development, struggle with mental health care.   

       It's probably better if you concentrate on the simple stuff first, like gun control, religion, gender issues, and stuffing warm butter up a porcupine's arse with a red-hot needle. Once that's sorted, you can have a go at mental health ....
8th of 7, Oct 03 2017
  

       //Where guns are forbidden governments and criminals kill more than enough to make up the difference.//   

       Unless you consider that most of these places are next door to other places where guns can easily be obtained. Chicago has Indiana, D.C. has Virginia, etc. And once you account for the urban concentration effect, i.e. the "trapped rats in a cage effect," I rather suspect the statistic is quite misleading.
RayfordSteele, Oct 03 2017
  

       //Many nations, of all degrees of development, struggle with mental health care. //   

       Aha! the root of the cause.
Eliminate mental illness and the furniture can be made from automatic weapons without anyone getting shot.
  

       The whole "standing up for my country" shtick is on it's way out.
We are all one species living on the back of a very small fish in a very big pond.
Other species living on bigger fish got this divide-and-conquer thing down to a science and will be more than happy to let us continue to beat the living shit out of ourselves and our little fish.
We kind of need to come to terms with that.
  

       As for gun control; I'm all for home and personal defense given proper training.
I was given a 22 at fourteen, shown how to use it and told to go play with it.
  

       I guess for me it comes down to this; no man has the right to tell me I can not defend myself while alone in the bush without a slip of paper saying so.   

       We'll be keeping our non-existent weapons and our non-existent testosterone here in Canada.
We'll also keep all of the non-existent religions here too.
  

       Peacefully.   

       ...as well as the Ogopogo, Sasquatch, Unicorns, and whatever other discarded items of lore the rest of the planet wishes to toss our frost-bitten but co-existent way.   

       Thanks in advance eh.   

       I'm willing to compromise and say nuclear bombs are okay, but we can draw the line at thermonuclear. Everyone happy?
DIYMatt, Oct 03 2017
  

       //The whole "standing up for my country" shtick is on it's way out.//   

       I would say the whole "standing up for the glorious new world order devoid of borders" shtick is on its way out.   

       Other than that I agree with most of the rest of your post but what's the fun in that?   

       So as this thread fades into the sunset, here's the final tally:   

       Pro Gun People = Knuckle dragging blood thirsty morons   

       Anti Gun People = Fairytale dwelling low testosterone sheep   

       I'll miss these debates, but the facts are in and we'll all have to accept them and move on.   

       Up next: "My God can kick your god's ass.".
doctorremulac3, Oct 04 2017
  

       Yeah, well our philosopher can prove your god don't exist. And you don't exist either. So there.   

       <checks notes >   

       Ah. Oh dear. Apparently we don't exist either. Everything is a figment of the philosopher's imagination. He is the only real object, and if we don't keep up the payments he'll stop believing in us.   

       // Knuckle dragging blood thirsty morons //   

       HEY ! We'll have you know that our knuckles definitely don't drag - when we stand on our legs, anyway.   

         

       // whatever other discarded items of lore the rest of the planet wishes to toss our frost-bitten but co-existent way //   

       "Come to Canada ! We've got trees... lots of trees. And not much else."   

       Helluva sales pitch, [2fries].   

       // we can draw the line at thermonuclear. Everyone happy? //   

       No, absolutely not. Matter-antimatter weapons are the minimum.
8th of 7, Oct 04 2017
  

       //"Come to Canada ! We've got trees... lots of trees. And not much else."   

       Helluva sales pitch, [2fries].//   

       No no, trees are our just part of our "existent" things package deal, like our clean water and our inukshuks .
The non-existent things are a later part of the up-sell that I get to make non-existent commission on.
  

       It's really starting to add up and I should be able to retire soon.   

       Here's a sideways thought.   

       On the one hand, I have no ambition to own a gun, and I'm glad I've always lived in parts of the world where they've seemed unnecessary.   

       On the other hand, there's this: the argument against guns goes back to the early modern period, when personal fire-arms first existed. That argument was made by fictional characters in Shakespeare and Cervantes, and also by one or two non-fictional characters reported in Burkhardt's classic account of the Italian renaissance. And the particular argument made by all those people was the same; they weren't against guns because guns were deadly, but because guns were democratic. A gun allowed a nobody to kill a somebody. It allowed the uncool to kill the cool and, more generally, to acquire agency, to become actors in history.   

       I was reminded of this when thinking of the popular-culture role of the Kennedy assassination. Now, don't get me wrong; I claim no insight into what actually happened there, but I'm interested in how people reacted. It seems to me that the reaction was a phenomenon of the Age of Celebrity, where celebrity is really a revival of aristocracy. People needed a conspiracy theory, because it was unthinkable that a nobody could kill a somebody, and it was unthinkable that someone so glamorous, who saw himself in aristocratic terms, should be vulnerable to the vulgar, dorky laws of physics (as opposed to, say, laws of narrative development).   

       And I'm reminded again, in relation to high-school shootings. In the mid 20th century, a much referenced film was made - so much referenced, that it was made twice, once in French as "Zero de Conduite", and once in English as "If". In this film, schoolboys take up arms against The System. But maybe the lesson of real life school shootings is that the oppression that drives people to murder-suicide doesn't come from The System. Relatively speaking, The System is not that bad. The real oppression comes from the cool. The System is at fault only in so far as it enables this, and then blames the victims as "inadequate".   

       The valorisation of cool from the mid twentieth century onwards had economic aspects, intellectual aspects and some quite sinister political aspects. Maybe we need guns after all, to protect ourselves from the cool. If formalised, that could get quite Golden Bough.
pertinax, Oct 04 2017
  

       Good point.   

       The Levellers during the English Civil War had a similar view, and since a peasant with a musket could kill an aristocrat on a horse, they had plentiful evidence that the Duke's blood was in reality exactly the same red colour as everyone else's.   

       In fact, the longbow at Agincourt was the same sort of "equalizer"   

       // it was unthinkable that someone so glamorous ... should be vulnerable to the ... laws of physics //   

       Ditto John Lennon.
8th of 7, Oct 04 2017
  

       The laws of physics need to be changed. Call your Congressman!
RayfordSteele, Oct 04 2017
  

       Interesting to witness the welding of two narrative arcs.
Ian Tindale, Oct 04 2017
  

       It is, isn't it ? Of course, they have to be welded; they can't be brazed or soldered, because you can't get the flux anymore.   

       // The laws of physics need to be changed. //   

       You're a Democrat, aren't you, [Ray] ? Little things give it away ....   

       Don't worry; the cull will be quick and painless.
8th of 7, Oct 04 2017
  

       Given the prevalence of gun ownership in the US, and the size of the population, it turns out that if you want less than one mass shooting per year, you have to have the probability of any one person going psychopathically insane, in any one year, as something less than 1 in 100,000,000.   

       I don't know about the rest of you, but I cannot guarantee that I won't go psychopathically insane over the coming year, with more than 99.999999% confidence; and I consider myself to be fairly even-tempered.
MaxwellBuchanan, Oct 04 2017
  

       We are aware of that, m'lord, but your collection of gold filigree elephant rifles will do limited damage.
normzone, Oct 04 2017
  

       Try telling that to the last surviving gold filigree elephant.   

       My point was that, even if you only sell weapons to people who - at the time of purchase - are sane, well-adjusted, non-violent souls, there is simply no way whatsoever that you can avoid having at least one mass shooting per year in the US.
MaxwellBuchanan, Oct 04 2017
  

       Solid point that I'm not disagreeing with.   

       You can't screen for this sort of thing. This guy was self made, worth a couple of million bucks, was an accountant, traveled, recreated, owned several houses, had a girlfriend then BAM! went psycho and murdered dozens of people. His dad was a bank robber but I don't think parental history would fly as a screening variable.   

       I'm fine with outlawing the bumpstock he used to turn these weapons into automatic rapid fire killing machines. I understand that anybody with a little work can convert a regular semi auto to a full auto but I'd like to make it a little harder than just buying something off the shelf.   

       I'm also fine with my idea of having smart weapons that are monitored at all times by the police but I don't think anything other than total abolition or total hands off of firearms is on the table.   

       Which is silly. I think we can solve our problems and there isn't only one solution.   

       Here's a problem with prohibition. If you allow guys like me who have a genuine need to have a simple revolver for self protection, you've just allowed the firearm that kills almost everybody who gets killed by firearms, a handgun, to be out on the streets. You can outlaw automatic weapons which are outlawed in most states, which would, assuming people obeyed the laws, reduce gun deaths by about... zero, since almost no gun deaths are due to automatic weapons. I've always wondered why the politicians here want to outlaw the gun that kills almost nobody, the "assault weapon" while leaving the gun that's attributable for 90% of gun deaths, the handgun, legal.   

       That kind of bad logic is not selling the idea of stricter gun laws.
doctorremulac3, Oct 04 2017
  

       Because there's no legitimate use for an automatic or a bump-stop type device.   

       And for the record, I'm an independent. I voted for McCain as my last Republican Presidential vote.   

       These days I'm raging mad at Republicans for their gross incompetence, neglect, and even dangerous behavior in our Congress. They will not win me back over soon. Hell hath no fury like a moderate Republican spurned. They actively courted the tea party morons and I hit the door about then. Not to mention that their policy pursuits would've killed my wife.   

       I tend to take that personally. Bernie would have been my revenge on them.
RayfordSteele, Oct 04 2017
  

       legitimate use or not the question at hand isn't whether they should exist but whether there should be a law about them.
Voice, Oct 04 2017
  

       Yea, true. And when drafting a law it might be a good idea to consider if it will actually do something.   

       Unfortunately laws come from politicians that are trying to build their brand and look like effective leaders. It doesn't really matter if what they do is effective as long as it looks effective.   

       Bump stocks will probably be outlawed, which I don't have a problem with though it will do absolutely nothing. Hand guns will remain legal which I support, despite being the things doing all the killing. Every month the same amount of people that died at this massacre get shot to death in Chicago.   

       I know they have strict gun regulation and registration in Brazil, the gun murder capital of the world. Sometimes you can't legislate your way out of a broken society but of course the politicians that make a living selling laws will tell you otherwise.
doctorremulac3, Oct 04 2017
  

       We can only wish that McCain was elected president, even better in 2000 than 8
theircompetitor, Oct 04 2017
  

       "The Constitution has no inherent authority or obligation. It has no authority or obligation at all, unless as a contract between man and man. And it does not so much as even purport to be a contract between persons now existing. It purports, at most, to be only a contract between persons living eighty years ago." - Lysander Spooner.   

       If you are suffering under the delusion that those four pieces of parchment, or any other written instrument purporting to be connected to them, creates any obligations on you to act or refrain from acting in any way, then I would encourage you to examine what led you to that position. Not because I say so, or because Lysander Spooner said so, but because it's foolish to think that a 200 year old written instrument no-one bothered to sign (except "in witness thereof") applies to anyone.   

       If you think that said documents give individuals claiming to be "government" any justification for imposing their will on you, then you are even more hopelessly lost, because even the official propaganda doesn't make that claim (c.f. "The constitution is a charter of negative liberties. It tells the State to let the people alone").
spidermother, Oct 04 2017
  

       ^ amen   

       Do americans, by extension of their belief that if their government has a weapon then they should also be allowed to own the same sort of weapon, believe they should be allowed to own their own bombs? Including nuclear weapons?
Ian Tindale, Oct 04 2017
  

       <Pokes around under Ian's hood. Points to -> // their government //> Tsk, tsk. There's your problem. 'Fraid that's gonna cost you.
spidermother, Oct 04 2017
  

       //Americans//
mylodon, Oct 05 2017
  

       //spidermother// the point is not any such obligation. The point is -- and it's honestly hard to believe that it needs explaining -- is that it is a framework from which it is deliberately hard to deviate. If there is no such framework, if any law is possible, then all laws are possible, and ultimately tyranny is much more likely. That humans are fallible is obvious, and politics always intervenes --ff the Constitution was properly applied, we could have never had the Dred Scott decision.   

       But the defense of the Constitution, of the Bill of Rights in its entirety, the filibuster, and other mechanisms that prevent the tyranny of the majority is absolutely necessary for the defense of the United States.   

       Can you guess at the effects of the Miranda ruling since the 60s? What real rationale "for the benefit of society" is there in telling a guy you just chased down from an armed robbery you witnessed yourself that he doesn't have to confess? How many people that got off for lack of evidence damage others, or kill -- without a blink of an eye, most Americans would repeat that better that a hundred guilty go free...   

       So that's it. It's very simple. Better to be free than to be "safe" -- at least until there's a sufficient majority on the other side to go through the constitutionally specified process to repeal it. And then by all means, take away even matches, see if that stops fires.
theircompetitor, Oct 05 2017
  

       Spidermother, so let me get this straight, all laws are foolish? The concept of law itself is dumb because it might be written on parchment or by people who are now dead? So if we believe in the 13th ammendment to abolish slavery we're fools because Lysander Spooner, a pamphlet writer, says so?   

       The constitution is a body of law that we choose follow because we can follow anything we want. We can pray to a pile of mud and sticks if we so choose and we've chosen to base our laws around this old, probably smelly document that's written by guys who were probably not up to your stringent standards of awesomeness like Lysander Spooner, a writer of pamphlets.   

       So the bill of rights, out with it eh? Do we replace it with one of Lysander Spooner's pamphlets? What if it's written on parchment too?
doctorremulac3, Oct 05 2017
  

       //And then by all means, take away even matches, see if that stops fires.//   

       It's this kind of leap to a requirement of absolution that is 75% of the stalemate problem we have. Absolute safety is well-known as a myth. But between absolute safety and Somalia there exists a broad spectrum.   

       If for some reason you could buy anthrax readily in the store, don't you think we'd have a large problem with crazy guys releasing it upon the public? Outside of an envelope or two, why don't we have that problem? Regardless of whatever a biological weapon enthusiast may want to experiment with, we say no, sorry, you cannot. You do not have a right to play with this out of concern for the safety of the public. There's a line drawn there. All we are asking to do is to move the line to a rational point that is in line with technological progress and the changing landscape of the realities of urbanization.   

       Granted that guns are lower tech, but frankly choking off the supply a bit might eventually result in the tub not overflowing. The current flood of weapons is ridiculous.
RayfordSteele, Oct 05 2017
  

       This is only really a problem in lunnie land America. The rest of the world gets on fine without everyone owning about a hundred guns each. With America in terminal decline, especially under the Trumpf moron, and China now the global leader, it’s inevitable that mass shootings will increase in number and frequency. The NRA hillbillies have taken over! It’s a good time to invest in the weapons, funeral, and medical industries, then watch from the safety of somewhere like Malaga (I love Malaga) as the body count mounts, and the cash rolls in.
xenzag, Oct 05 2017
  

       //This is only really a problem in lunnie land America.//   

       It's spelled "loony".   

       On the list of the 219 countries ranked by murder rate, the US is 94 with 4.88 intentional homicides per 100,000 people. El Salvador tops the list at 108.64 intentional homicides per 100,000 people so there are 93 other countries with much higher rates than the US. Murder is NOT only a problem in America, not that you're particularly interested in facts.   

       You seem to be repeating the comforting concept that "hillbillies" are responsible for these murders, but our highest murder rate is in Chicago. Not a lot of hillbillies there. At one point my home town of East Palo Alto, California was the murder capital of the world and I was the last hillbilly out of there a long time ago.   

       Our most "hillbilly" state by far is West Virginia. Of our 50 states, West Virginia with their toothless hillbillies is ranked 3rd from the bottom in terms of homicides.
doctorremulac3, Oct 05 2017
  

       // Do americans, by extension of their belief that if their government has a weapon then they should also be allowed to own the same sort of weapon, believe they should be allowed to own their own bombs? Including nuclear weapons? //   

       Of course.   

       How else do you interpret "Government of the people, by the people, for the people" ?   

       By that description, the government and the people are one and the same. Thus anything the government has, the people have. Any attempt by "government" to consider itself in some way separate and apart from the people contravenes both the spirit and the letter of the constitution.   

       Delegation of authority by the people en masse to a chosen subset of themselves is merely a pragmatic recognition of the limits of practical day to day decision making. It does not bestow upon that subset the right to exercise any authority not explicitly bestowed by the population as a whole.   

       At a minimum:   

       Two inhabitants of a desert island work together and make a spear. They agree that one of them will use the spear to hunt for food, which will be shared equally. The next day, the one with the spear kills three fish. He then says, "I am keeping two of the fish; you may have one. If you try to take any more, I will spear you. And don't try to make your own spear, or I'll spear you for that, too".   

       So if a collection of individuals calling itself a nation creates laws and delegates their enforcement, those so delegated must bear in mind that their authority derives solely from the will of the people, who may choose at any time to revoke or remove that authority. Thus, the means to carry out such an act must at all times reside with the people, and any attempt by those in authority to restrict such rights should be considered treasonous.   

       Good old Ben Franklin ...   

       Hence the second amendment. Should a government become despotic, the people must have the means to overthrow it; indeed, it is their moral duty to do so. This was explicitly recognized by the "founding fathers".   

       For that very reason, the constitution of the Confederate States was nearly identical to that of the USA.   

       What [doc] says about hillbillies is entirely correct. Rural environments have lots of firearms, most of them long arms. Their owners are very familiar with weapons - and the rate of gun crime is very low.   

       As was pointed out previously, most gun deaths happen in cities, with handguns.   

       In rural Austria, it is not unknown to see a customer in in a local bank standing peaceably in the queue to be served with a high-power rifle slung over his shoulder ...   

       In a rural environment, a gun is tool, like a drill or a pickaxe. It's in urban locations that the problems start.   

       Rural guns don't kill people. Rural guns kill deer, pigeons, rabbits, turkeys and squirrels. And maybe the odd person, now and again, often by accident. Looking at firearms incidents in rural areas, more people are killed accidentaly - either by mishandling their own weapon, or by other hunters - than by malicious acts.
8th of 7, Oct 05 2017
  

       //Hence the second amendment. Should a government become despotic, the people must have the means to overthrow it; indeed, it is their moral duty to do so. This was explicitly recognized by the "founding fathers".//   

       Yes but that's silly. Name one instance where a government did something bad that justified being overthrown by its people...   

       ...ok, except for Hitler and the Nazis...   

       or Stalin and the communists,   

       or Mao and the other communists,   

       or Pol Pot and the other other communists,   

       or Kim Ilsung and the other other other communists,   

       or Mengistu Mariam and... more communists,   

       or Yakubu Gowon, or Jean Kambanda, or Saddam Hussein, Josip Tito, Sukarno, Mullah Omar, Idi Amin, Yahya Khan, Benito Mussolini, Mobutu Seko, Charles Taylor, Foday Sankoh, Ho Chi Minh, Michel Micombero, Hassan Alturabi, Jean Bokassa, Efrain Montt, Francois Duvalier, Ramael Trujillo, Hissene Habre, Francisco Franco, Fidel Castro, Bashar Alassad, Ayatollah Khomeini, Robert Mugabe, Jorge Videla and Augusto Pinochet?   

       Ok, so other than Hitler, Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, Kim Ilsung, Mengistu Mariam, Yakubu Gowon, or Jean Kambanda, or Saddam Hussein, Josip Tito, Sukarno, Mullah Omar, Idi Amin, Yahya Khan, Benito Mussolini, Mobutu Seko, Charles Taylor, Foday Sankoh, Ho Chi Minh, Michel Micombero, Hassan Alturabi, Jean Bokassa, Efrain Montt, Francois Duvalier, Ramael Trujillo, Hissene Habre, Francisco Franco, Fidel Castro, Bashar Alassad, Ayatollah Khomeini, Robert Mugabe, Jorge Videla and Augusto Pinochet,   

       ... name one government that did anything bad that needed to be overthrown by its people.
doctorremulac3, Oct 05 2017
  

       The Romanian government of Nikolai Ceaucescu ?   

       // where a government did something bad //   

       Specifically, said government needs to be elected by popular democracy. Monarchies don't count. A monarchy makes no pretence to the consent of the governed - "Do as I say, or I'll have you killed" is their justification, and what else is needed ? Curiously, however, constitutional monarchies seem to work quite well ...
8th of 7, Oct 05 2017
  

       Yea, ok, ok, but other than Hitler, Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, Kim Ilsung, Mengistu Mariam, Yakubu Gowon, or Jean Kambanda, or Saddam Hussein, Josip Tito, Sukarno, Mullah Omar, Idi Amin, Yahya Khan, Benito Mussolini, Mobutu Seko, Charles Taylor, Foday Sankoh, Ho Chi Minh, Michel Micombero, Hassan Alturabi, Jean Bokassa, Efrain Montt, Francois Duvalier, Ramael Trujillo, Hissene Habre, Francisco Franco, Fidel Castro, Bashar Alassad, Ayatollah Khomeini, Robert Mugabe, Jorge Videla and Augusto Pinochet...   

       ...and Nikolai Ceaucescu...   

       ... name one government that did anything bad that needed to be overthrown by its people.
doctorremulac3, Oct 05 2017
  

       //Murder is NOT only a problem in America//There are murders in other countries but only Americans insist on owning hundreds of guns, then moaning about how awful it is when they wipe each other out. Stop being such cry babies. You want everyone to have a machine gun? Who cares? Not me for one. I actual find it quite funny. I lived for my entire adult life with the type of paramilitary violence that makes America seem like a children’s playground by the way. Get over yourselves! There's custard powered helicopters to be invented. Ideas about there being too many guns in America is sooooo boring. zzzzzzzzzz
xenzag, Oct 05 2017
  

       <strain>   

       <STRAIN>   

       <SSTTTRRRRAAAAAIIINNNN OOOOOOHHHHHHH> ....   

       What [xen] said.   

       Ohhhh, that HURT ....
8th of 7, Oct 05 2017
  

       //There are murders in other countries but only Americans insist on owning hundreds of guns//   

       Brazil is number 14 on the murder hit parade compared to America's 94th on the list. Brazil "insist" on owning around 17 million firearms, 9 million of which are unregistered. Finland is 7th on the list of gun ownership per capita list and 169th on the homicide list.   

       If gun availability is what causes these murders, how come Switzerland is 200th on the list of 219 total countries in terms of murders and 19th on the list of gun ownership?   

       Do numbers or facts mean anything to you? Apparently not.   

       I'm fine with effective gun control legislation, but it's got to actually do something useful.
doctorremulac3, Oct 05 2017
  

       Do you know what else Finland doesn't have?   

       Cities with populations larger than 620,000, terminally poor descendants of slaves, Texans and crazy people in general, or much of any other ethnic group for that matter.   

       I suspect the city crowding and blight effect is a large factor here.   

       What do they have in Finland? Great health care and high taxes.
RayfordSteele, Oct 05 2017
  

       No. To explain ...   

       // Finland is 7th on the list of gun ownership per capita list and 169th on the homicide list. //   

       Finland is a very big country with a population of four. Even if they all spend all day firing machine guns at random, the chances of hitting anything other than a tree, a rock or a lake are near zero.   

       Likewise, the Vatican City has an average of 1.3 Popes per square mile; there is one Pope, but the city has an area of 0.7 square miles.   

       Perhaps the question should be, "What works ?"   

       Look carefully at the states and nations with high gun ownership and low gun crime. Then do what they do*.   

       It's a million to one chance, but it might just work ...   

       *However, if the answer is "Don't build huge cities populated by impoverished and underpriveleged people with limited education, liw aspirations and no prospect of improvement" then there may be a problem.
8th of 7, Oct 05 2017
  

       The murder and gun ownership ranking is "per capita".   

       And in rare agreement with Ray, yea. It's not the guns per capita, it's the other stuff, some of which is uncomfortable to discuss. Like who's doing the majority of the killing and being killed by gun violence in the US. It's almost all in the inner cities. It's fine to zero in on gun violence to try to remedy the problem but if you're starting off with "outlaw machine guns" that are used in about zero shootings statistically, you've done nothing. That being said, fine, outlaw machine guns just don't think you've accomplished anything.
doctorremulac3, Oct 05 2017
  

       [Ray] I'm addressing the idea by title, not regulating machine guns. I stand by my assertion that this wedge issue, painful as it is now, will be an even bigger problem if one side truly accomplishes its goal.   

       For the record I don't have a problem with gun control that is legal under the 2nd Amendment.
theircompetitor, Oct 05 2017
  

       Agreed.
doctorremulac3, Oct 05 2017
  

       And I stand by mine that the current situation is untenable.   

       'Per capita' rankings aren't going to capture the density factor properly.   

       Finland has a low density factor over the whole area, but like Canada, regionally, almost everybody lives in the southern tips.
RayfordSteele, Oct 05 2017
  

       I don't think population density is a factor in low crime areas like Tokyo.   

       I do agree we need to do something though.
doctorremulac3, Oct 05 2017
  

       Tokyo ... hmmmm..   

       Japan already has a very low birth rate.   

       Now, think Cherry 2000. If the population are supplied free of charge with humanoid androids who expertly fulfill personal needs, then presumably the birth rate will fall even further.   

       In a few decades, your planet will become so sparsely populated that there won't be enough humans left to be targets for spree killers ....
8th of 7, Oct 05 2017
  

       That's why we have the Republica... er I mean replicants.
RayfordSteele, Oct 05 2017
  

       I don't know what a "Cherry 2000" is but I think I will not do a Google search.   

       I'm afraid there will be no lack of humans, they'll just be r strategy breeders (lots of kids that don't have much parental care) vs K strategy breeders (few children carefully raised, nurtured and educated.)   

       Big governments consider the populations they rule over to be a commodity. Big numbers of stupid, easily manipulated people are worth more than small numbers of people who think for themselves and ask questions like "Why are we going to war with that shithole over there?" "Why am I paying taxes to build this brave new world that has lower life expectancy and lower health level than my parents generation?" and other difficult questions. Dumb people just say "Yea! When the revolution comes we'll all have looooots of money because Polly Politician promised us everything we wanted!". Politics is people farming. No farmer needs a smart ass milk cow that demands its rights.   

       I wouldn't be surprised if we eventually de-evolved into walking on all fours again.
doctorremulac3, Oct 05 2017
  

       // I will not do a Google search. //   

       No need. <link>   

       It's just an innocuous movie.
8th of 7, Oct 05 2017
  

       LOL, Ok, thought it was one of those sexbots you hear about. Didn't want to have popup adds for the next month saying "Still thinking of buying a robot sex doll?".
doctorremulac3, Oct 05 2017
  

       // it was one of those sexbots you hear about. //   

       That's exactly what it's about; but the movie addresses the moral and personal issues raised by the technology.
8th of 7, Oct 05 2017
  

       Understood, but I thought it was an actual sexbot you purchase for those lonely nights, not a movie. Batteries not included kind of thing.
doctorremulac3, Oct 05 2017
  

       // I thought it was an actual sexbot you purchase for those lonely nights //   

       Be assured that somewhere in an anonymous industrial unit in a back street in Shenzen, a team of Chinese engineers and entrepreneurs are tinkering with a bunch of servos and valves and a disassembled shop-window mannequin.   

       Coming to an internet shopping site near you, soon.
8th of 7, Oct 05 2017
  

       I would like to propose that humans don't have sex with robots. I'm sure it's too late but I'd just like to go on record here.
doctorremulac3, Oct 05 2017
  

       Hey, don't knock it until you've tried it ...
8th of 7, Oct 05 2017
  

       Objection! Borg are not robots.
Voice, Oct 05 2017
  

       Maybe I already have and just didn't know it. Come to think of it, I never actually asked a woman if she was a robot before having sex with her.   

       Ok, this is getting crude.
doctorremulac3, Oct 05 2017
  

       From some stand-up routine, I can't remember whose;   

       "First time I had sex I was scared. I was real scared.
It was dark...
and I was all alone..."
  

       ? I thought borg were robots, but just unable to think for themself.
mylodon, Oct 05 2017
  

       //Spidermother, so let me get this straight, all laws are foolish?// Not quite ...   

       //The concept of law itself is dumb because it might be written on parchment or by people who are now dead?//   

       No, to me, the concept of law has nothing to do with what is written down. Or more precisely, writings may help clarify (or obfuscate) concepts, but they don't, in themselves, change what is real, or moral, of ethical, or just. There is a very important difference between the concept of law, on the one hand, and legislation, on the other. I think that, for example, self defense is a basic concept of law. It is - dare I say it - self evident that one is morally justified in protecting oneself or others against an unprovoked attack. The morality of self defense is not dependent on what someone writes down. If a new statute were printed explicitly forbidding all forms of self defense, it might make it more dangerous to defend oneself, but it wouldn't make it wrong - and (here's the tricky part) it wouldn't make it "law", except perhaps in the minds of some.   

       //So if we believe in the 13th ammendment to abolish slavery we're fools because Lysander Spooner, a pamphlet writer, says so?// No, I don't see that the rightness or wrongness of slavery depends either on what the 13th amendment says or on what Lysander Spooner says. (I also don't see the format as very important. Pamphlets have contained monstrous lies and pearls of wisdom.)   

       //The constitution is a body of law that we choose follow because we can follow anything we want. We can pray to a pile of mud and sticks if we so choose and we've chosen to base our laws around this old, probably smelly document that's written by guys who were probably not up to your stringent standards of awesomeness like Lysander Spooner, a writer of pamphlets.// Again with the pamphlets :) I hear what you're saying about being able to follow anything we want, and I agree with you, although "we" is a bit of a sticking point. You seem to be saying that *we* can follow anything *we* want, but *we* choose to follow the constitution. I don't see how *we* can all choose to do the same thing. That seems like something other than choice to me. If *I* choose to ignore the constitution, but leave you alone and live a peaceful life, will you leave me alone in return? Because if your answer to that is "yes", then we are in agreement - I appreciate diversity, and am happy to follow Smeagol's law, "We be nice to them, if they be nice to us".   

       //So the bill of rights, out with it eh? Do we replace it with one of Lysander Spooner's pamphlets? What if it's written on parchment too?// Well OBVIOUSLY then. Duh! Any fule kno that parchment pamphlets trump bills. Until someone prints a vellum flyer, of course we'll all follow the parchment pamphlet. — doctorremulac3, Oct 05 2017
spidermother, Oct 12 2017
  

       I always thought that the right to bare arms was about wearing T shirts.
xenzag, Oct 12 2017
  

       Yes, but not the left arm.   

       // Any fule kno //   

       You are Nigel Molesworth or one of his relatives, and we claim our quarter of dolly mixtures.   

       Law in the sense of legislation is nothing more than an ephemeral social consensus; morals aren't much more permanent either. Lots of things are "immoral" and humans do them anyway, and fairly frequently. The point is that all societies make this stuff up as they go along - indeed they have to - sometimes referring back to previous systems, and sometimes discarding them when they become obsolete, unpopular, or merely unfashionable.   

       There are fundamental "laws" that are independent of morality and ethics; but they are largely physical. King or pauper, Conservation of Momentum applies to YOU. The Law of Diminishing Returns, the Law of Unintended Consequences and the Law of Supply and Demand are social, but observational; Action A tends to produce Outcome B, the extent depending on individual circumstances.   

       You built your societies, homo sapiens. OK, it wasn't designed, but it's all your own doing. Quit whining.
8th of 7, Oct 12 2017
  

       [spidermother] - it doesn't matter what law you follow on your own, or what morality you have. if two or more other people disagree with you based off a pamphet they have been passing around, they can physically throw you in jail or hang you or anything else. The only real laws are forces of nature. I think is why most countries, internally, have laws they enforce so they can function as a society, but externally, act like children on an island with nothing but conches and nuclear weapons. Well, there is the geneva convention and all those papers but ... who is going to back that up with natural law? So it's just parchment or paper.   

       Once we elect a computer to run the world with an army of invincible robot police to back up computer laws (i.e. everyone needs to queue sorted by height) then maybe things will be more clear, since the laws will become external to humanity, similar to natural laws.
mylodon, Oct 12 2017
  

       There are human made laws that work. Those units of a course of action that have known, defined and predictable consequences. Those can be identified and named, as units, and adhered to. Those smaller people I see and hear and feel outside of my own senses will usually exhibit this kind of network behavioural response, so it is worth paying attention to because of the consequences to the rest of the playout of whatever nonsense life wants to churn up.
Ian Tindale, Oct 12 2017
  
      
[annotate]
  


 

back: main index

business  computer  culture  fashion  food  halfbakery  home  other  product  public  science  sport  vehicle