BS: Anyone defend US gun law?

Subject: RE: BS: Anyone defend US gun law?
From: Big Al Whittle
Date: 30 Aug 14 - 09:06 AM

I suppose the main problem to sensible gun reform would be that US sceriptwriters would have to write a proper plot for their cop dramas.
they do get away with a lot of boring shit - people ahooting at each other for unfeasibly long periods of time.

Generally speaking in a police situation - the situation does seem to resolve itself rather quickly when the guns come out.

Subject: RE: BS: Anyone defend US gun law?
From: Lighter
Date: 30 Aug 14 - 08:20 AM

> I studied deduction & induction in several classes.

Heh. I *taught* induction and deduction for many years. (I *love* moments like this.) And I stand by my use of "induction." The premisses reasonably suggest a conclusion but do not prove it.

> Guns are an **addiction**.

Well, they certainly can be, though hardly in every case. Many (perhaps most?) people who have purchased handguns for defense are too lazy to practice with them. They figger you jest point 'n' shoot, like on TV.

But collecting *anything* can be an addiction, and even when it is, it's not necessarily harmful - so long as it's only collecting and you can afford to buy what you want.

Tougher gun laws, by all means! But gun crime won't disappear, although incidence per capita may well decline (a worthy goal). The occasional maddened spouse will still shoot, and, with tens of millions of gun owners and millions of illegal guns still on the street, every year or so some undiagnosed loon will go off his rocker and shoot a bunch of innocent victims.

Such tragedies are the chief impetus for these discussions. But do you see a cure for multivictim hate crimes and "suicide by cop"?

Subject: RE: BS: Anyone defend US gun law?
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 30 Aug 14 - 02:57 AM

Or is it a case of they are, but it's not reported so we don't see it over here?

Subject: RE: BS: Anyone defend US gun law?
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 30 Aug 14 - 02:53 AM

Bill, if you have a political system that, if not 'set in stone', has been constructed in a way that prevents modernisation and carefully-debated adjustment to that system, then it is seriously flawed.

We understand that there are a great many Americans, you included, who want no part of the madness that is your firearms industry. I read recently that there are approximately the same number of guns in the US as there are people, but that those guns are in the hands of just 25% of the population. Yet the sane 75% allow the minority-gun-nutters to control the situation!

That is what we find so hard to understand - why do the huge majority allow their lives to be threatened by a comparatively small minority? I can only guess it's because of apathy on the part of non-gun-owners, and an acceptance that guns are somehow 'normal' in your society.

So I have to ask, why aren't the 75% getting themselves organised to fight for the reduction of firearms in US society? If your government announced they were going to quadruple gasoline prices (which would bring them up to UK levels, and many of us believe that would be a good thing for the planet!) there would be uproar, citizens would be out in their hundreds of thousands, protesting, marching on the Capitol etc., etc. Yet 12,000 of your countrymen, women and children are slaughtered by firearms every year, and the 75% do virtually nothing. A few moans, a few crocodile tears, but no real action.

Why are they not organising themselves? Why are the vast majority who want nothing to do with guns not getting together to take on the crackpots who think owning a gun is their 'right'? That's what we (certainly I) don't understand.

Subject: RE: BS: Anyone defend US gun law?
From: olddude
Date: 30 Aug 14 - 01:12 AM

And ye shall know the truth and the truth will set you free

Subject: RE: BS: Anyone defend US gun law?
From: olddude
Date: 29 Aug 14 - 11:34 PM

I got a campaign going on to search and destroy all jello via laws. None of the political guys have the balls to sponsor the bill. We are all going to get the big swirley if it continues to be given to kids and hospital patients and thanksgiving dinners

Subject: RE: BS: Anyone defend US gun law?
From: olddude
Date: 29 Aug 14 - 11:22 PM

Remember one thing a gun is a tool no different than many other things made for a purpose most consider it a tool for hunting or sport shooting. Hell the Olympics has it. It can be used to save lives or take lives. Having laws that make real sense is the issue. Janie said it best

Subject: RE: BS: Anyone defend US gun law?
From: olddude
Date: 29 Aug 14 - 11:11 PM

Fear JELLO it will eat ya up ever see the movie blob well that's what it is. Outer space shit invading our homes and dinner plates
Ya can't even shoot it. It still moves after impact

Subject: RE: BS: Anyone defend US gun law?
From: olddude
Date: 29 Aug 14 - 10:56 PM

Don't fear guns.. Fear JELLO now that's the scariest shit I ever faced. Not even bring blown up once is as bad

Subject: RE: BS: Anyone defend US gun law?
From: olddude
Date: 29 Aug 14 - 10:47 PM

Bill if you live there do you want to use one of my handguns. I got lots

Subject: RE: BS: Anyone defend US gun law?
From: Bill D
Date: 29 Aug 14 - 09:59 PM

Troubadour
"That Constitutional Law is based upon an undeniable misinterpretation of the Constitution ...etc"

Undeniable? Why there are many denying it every day! (He said with tongue in cheek)

As a matter of fact, I basically agree and have said so in lengthy posts here on several occasions. It is even more than undeniable, it is outdated even if it WERE true, because the weapons referred to were single shot guns belonging to the individual...etc.

".. the understanding of the Constitution has been corrupted..."
It was NOT done by a vote.. but it must undone by a vote, and in a very complex way, it is very difficult to get anything resembling a vote on the issue thru even the 1st step.


Lighter

"won't" is a natural induction from everything you and I and others have already said.

Umm... not exactly... because 'induction' is not itself exact. (I studied deduction & induction in several classes.) Induction is valued for determining probability and possible reasonable choices.

"Don't" might be closer, but that doesn't have the force that "won't" conveys.

"Remember that virtually all of the most notorious mass shooters used weapons that they or their family owned legally."

Quite true... even more to the point, most of those people, even the ones some 'worried about', were legally competent and not convicted felons, and thus would not show up in a database of those not allowed to own guns.
In these days, there is no shortage of the mentally ill and of those who are taught to hate and fear. As population rises, so will the total numbers of dangerous people and the odds of reading about a horrendous crime by one of them... or of being NEAR a crime.
Even if the percentage of crazy vs. sane does not change, one crazy can still affect many people and many crazies can cause consternation out of proportion to their numbers.

Closing the gun show loopholes and serious penalties for illegal gun trade and use are at least a step in the right direction, and might 'possibly' (by induction) serve to change a few minds.


I live in a major metropolitan area and gun crime is never far away, though I have never in 35 years seen any or even heard a local gunshot...but I can read.. and I know it's there.
I also know a 'few' who own guns, but far more who would not allow one in the house. Guns are an **addiction**. Holding one changes a person, and owning one changes one even more.
(Yes, I have seen this in person. In order to justify owning one at all, practice & training is required, and the very process of shooting in practice changes the mindset about the value of guns.)

So... I know the problems, and I know about pragmatism and induction and demographics and political will when influenced by money... and the more I know, the more I argue for care in describing the problem and the causal factors and the possible solutions.

Subject: RE: BS: Anyone defend US gun law?
From: Big Al Whittle
Date: 29 Aug 14 - 09:52 PM

I suppose my Wyatt Earp song is a sort of defence of US gun law....

http://youtu.be/3QvH4EAjSts

Subject: RE: BS: Anyone defend US gun law?
From: GUEST,Troubadour
Date: 29 Aug 14 - 08:17 PM

I sincerely hope you are right Janie, because if you aren't, the USA is going to descend into the Hollywood idea of the Wild West sooner rather than later.

Looked at from outside, it is more than halfway there.

Subject: RE: BS: Anyone defend US gun law?
From: Janie
Date: 29 Aug 14 - 07:51 PM

There is no consensus regarding gun rights/control. Our political system has become so dysfunctional that there is also little will to compromise on the part of the strong and well-financed lobby that opposes any efforts to regulate gun ownership.

Keep in mind that consensus and compromise are not synonyms. I don't hope for consensus. I do think compromise is remotely possible.

Subject: RE: BS: Anyone defend US gun law?
From: Lighter
Date: 29 Aug 14 - 07:44 PM

Well, Bill, "won't" is a natural induction from everything you and I and others have already said.

I hope I'm wrong.

Perhaps we can learn from the Australian example, but one thing we know already is that Australians now register their firearms by serial number with the government. I cannot imagine such a measure passing both houses of Congress in the world as we know it.

Because the other thing we know about Australia is that it has no Second Amendment "guarantee." Americans do not want the government restricting any Constitutional guarantees. In Australia, this seems not to have been an issue, because (I assume) relatively few Australians assume that "liberals" and "socialists" and "radical liberals" in government are always to subvert the Constitution. Americans who hate and fear Washington are a fringe minority, but if you try to take their away guns away they will shoot you.

When I was in public elementary school in the 1950s, we were taught that because of the Second Amendment, armed citizens could some day protect us from a berserk government; or, better yet, make the government think twice before going berserk. Many gun owners are convinced that is true, and they will surrender their firearms to the state only over their dead bodies. (I don't know how often Adolf Hitler was seriously invoked in Ozzie as the world's most typical gun-control advocate, but it's still happening here.)

Some day, perhaps, the gun-show loophole will be closed.

But how many lives that would save is not at all clear. Remember that virtually all of the most notorious mass shooters used weapons that they or their family owned legally.

I don't mean to be negative, only realistic. Which at least 50% of the time means "pessimistic."

Subject: RE: BS: Anyone defend US gun law?
From: GUEST,Troubadour
Date: 29 Aug 14 - 07:29 PM

"But the consensus amongst your countryfolk is that guns are good and the odd massacre and accidental death is a price worth paying for your 'freedom'."

" -snip- And all those awkward legal situations are set in Constitutional law which can only be changed by a tedious process involving voting---by whom? -snip- "    Bill D.

I apologise for taking your comment out of context Bill, but this particular sentence is germane to the validity of the first comment here.

That Constitutional Law is based upon an undeniable misinterpretation of the Constitution (which refers to the right to bear arms in a well regulated militia, against a tyrannical government), and it is therefore unconstitutional to apply it to the shooting of other citizens by individuals, as a right. Somewhere along the line, the understanding of the Constitution has been corrupted by applying an interpretation not endorsed by those who formulated it.

That, I fear, wasn't as a result of a popular vote, or indeed any kind of vote.

Subject: RE: BS: Anyone defend US gun law?
From: GUEST,Rahere
Date: 29 Aug 14 - 06:58 PM

We can see your problem, but consider that as electors it is your responsibility, each and every man jack of you as individuals, to call time on the tendency of The System to silence you. We have held our tongues too long after past massacres, snd now feel that matters have to change: we asked you a while back who would apologise to the parents of the next generation of dead schoolkids, explaining why thye did nothing, and now we can show you tht no explanation is rational: you have no choice now, you must ban those weapons or be equally guilty as the murderer the next time something happens.
Change.org is working in this direction both here in the UK and in the US. The problem with a two-party system is that it makes targetting your representatives an easy technique, if you have the funds: the petition system in the UK is adding a vox populi dynamic, with both parties trying to recruit them, unsuccessfully.

Subject: RE: BS: Anyone defend US gun law?
From: Bill D
Date: 29 Aug 14 - 06:16 PM

Lighter: referring to Backwoodsman'post?

If so, I am disappointed .. you are usually a beacon of sense on these topics, but I simply cannot fathom this idea that seems to be so easy to toss around that 'won't' can apply to ANY country as a whole.... especially in light of my brilliant, insightful *cough* explication of the situation.

Subject: RE: BS: Anyone defend US gun law?
From: Lighter
Date: 29 Aug 14 - 04:01 PM

Not "can't": "won't."

Do you see the difference?

Subject: RE: BS: Anyone defend US gun law?
From: Bill D
Date: 29 Aug 14 - 03:31 PM

"...bullying police attitude - the feel they can demand anything, whether within their legal rights or not, ..."

SOME do... we need to get rid of those-- just as we need to educate some UK lawyers that not every issue is simple not this or that-- guilty or not guilty--- black or white--- right or wrong. And not every member of every class or group is stamped out like cookies/biscuits.

Hiring and training police is not easy. We need them to be intelligent and competent enough and brave enough to do the job, yet sane and calm enough to not overreact when someone doesn't do things to their liking. Same with soldiers we send into battle.. or even with school teachers in some cases.

Subject: RE: BS: Anyone defend US gun law?
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 29 Aug 14 - 03:14 PM

This is not just about police brutality to blacks. This is about a bullying police attitude - the feel they can demand anything, whether within their legal rights or not, and use unbounded force if met with reasoned and legally correct response. To protect and serve - my arse. http://www.dailykos.com/story/2014/08/28/1325341/-Living-While-Black-Police-attack-men-for-sitting-not-resisting-not-walking-pockets?detail=email

What do you think about American civilisation? I think it would be a good idea.

Subject: RE: BS: Anyone defend US gun law?
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 29 Aug 14 - 02:37 PM

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2014/08/28/1325414/-After-9-year-old-shoots-instructor-NRA-pipes-up-with-worst-possible-response?detail=email

Subject: RE: BS: Anyone defend US gun law?
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 29 Aug 14 - 01:40 PM

So did Australia.
But apparently, the world's greatest nation, the former 'Can-Do' country, can't-do any more.

Subject: RE: BS: Anyone defend US gun law?
From: Lighter
Date: 29 Aug 14 - 01:13 PM

Inescapable fact: with 300,000,000 or so guns in existence, *no* imaginable gun laws can reduce the incidence of shootings - whether by gangsters, enraged spouses, psychotics, nine-year-old girls, or the nearly nonexistent krazed kops - to anything like zero.

Is this so hard to understand?

The best we can do is to do as much as practicable to restrict gun sales to sane and responsible people who want a reasonable number of guns to protect themselves and their families. What's a reasonable number? I'd say in a four-person household, two or three would be about the limit - one for each parent (I know, it's hard to imagine the necessity) and one for the household.

But of course, no such limit will ever be imposed because the Founders, who had no concept of either semi-automatic weapons, armored vehicles, vast criminal networks, or instantaneous communication among nut groups, said (or seemed to say) that no Federal law would ever infringe the right to bear arms.

A "God-given right" some insist (though not the Founders, please note).

Getting back to the general Yank-bashing for a moment, I recall a moment a very smug British or Canadian individual ridiculed America's Constitutional Founding Fathers as a bunch of "backwoods lawyers."

A neat example of the proud ignorance and childish sarcasm of so many of his or her ilk.

Subject: RE: BS: Anyone defend US gun law?
From: Bill D
Date: 29 Aug 14 - 11:44 AM

Stu... very few are really good at it. We depend on voice, body language, eyes (facial expression)...etc. You at least read and respond to what you read instead of just making a quick remark. It ain't necessary to agree on everything to further education & comprehension

So... I will have a go at this:

"At the end of the day, if people in the US thought there should be no guns then that consensus would (ideally, if it happens anywhere these days) be listened to. But the consensus amongst your countryfolk is that guns are good and the odd massacre and accidental death is a price worth paying for your 'freedom'. "

Sadly it doesn't really work like that. Polls have shown that a majority of the total population actually does favor some serious revision gun laws...(not total ban, as there are still areas of wilderness where guns actually make some sense). But that majority is distributed in awkward ways in different states and cultural areas... and unless you live here, it's hard to comprehend the concept of "states rights".
   Imagine if Sussex & Lancashire and Wessex and Kent & Norfolk all were allowed to allow or ban firearms depending on changing voting habits... and if each had different rules... and if cities in each could modify the basic rules to suit local opinion. ... and if Kent allowed guns and London didn't, Londoners could just pop over to Maidstone and buy whatever they wanted.
That's what we have...even more complex... and imagine if every 10 years the voting districts in all the areas were redrawn by whatever party was in power to group voters they approved of together to maximize their representation in Parliament. That's what we have. And all those awkward legal situations are set in Constitutional law which can only be changed by a tedious process involving voting---by whom? By states which have just been redistricted by the ruling party.... who also 'may' get to appoint judges to settle complaints ABOUT the voting & redistricting system and...oh yes, on the legality of various gun laws.
Much of all this made sense in 1789 when we decided to forego being ruled by mean old King George. *grin*

So... the "consensus" among us may not be what is enacted into law in any particular place. Every 4 years we get to elect a president who has certain abilities to control stupid laws passed, but even he is not elected by pure national majority, because we have the "electoral college" where more populous states get more votes. This has twice resulted in the election of a man who got less than a majority. Guess what it would take to revise the electoral college system?

There are multi-millions of us who do NOT like gun laws, abortion laws, labor laws, etc...but the system is awkward to change... and all too many have given up trying to vote as a losing battle, because much of each voting round is influenced by huge amounts of money. We need to change the "campaign finance laws".... guess how that would be done?

ALL THAT is why I plead with Brits to at least show they SEE our problem, even if it seems crazy.... sweeping generalizations just don't cover the situation. Some of us are trying.. and we have 'some' media which are doing a pretty good job of waving the problem in the face of everyone who will listen.... (did I mention we have about umpty-eight competing media outlets?)

Our one hope right now is that the newly emerging 'minorities' will register and change the voting patterns... if they are not totally redistricted into patterns which make them irrelevant.

But.. I live here. I have to try.

Subject: RE: BS: Anyone defend US gun law?
From: Stu
Date: 29 Aug 14 - 09:25 AM

I think I'm really shit at communicating via the internet.

Subject: RE: BS: Anyone defend US gun law?
From: Stu
Date: 29 Aug 14 - 07:53 AM

"**a society as a whole**"

I understand that Bill, and I agree about sweeping generalisations as being English I'm subject to them all the time. A good example of this is the Scottish independence debate; I'm a socialist and supporter if the yes vote, but as my country is run by a public school elite I get tarred wight he same brush. So of course individuals have their own opinions, but they are also part of the society they live in and with that comes a degree of responsibility.

At the end of the day, if people in the US thought there should be no guns then that consensus would (ideally, if it happens anywhere these days) be listened to. But the consensus amongst your countryfolk is that guns are good and the odd massacre and accidental death is a price worth paying for your 'freedom'. Here in the UK the consensus is firmly against guns except for people that use them for a living or under very strict control; the peelers (although thankfully most of our force is unarmed), farmers, sorts shooters, toffs that enjoy killing and the occasional conservationist hunter.

One of your countrymen was on the radio yesterday on a phone-in discussing the Uzi-wielding 9 year old. He made is very clear that he loves the UK because he feels safer as everyone isn't armed and can walk the streets without fear.

There's a cultural difference here too, but let's not discuss that. It's obvious if you look.

Subject: RE: BS: Anyone defend US gun law?
From: Musket
Date: 29 Aug 14 - 07:53 AM

To be fair to Michael and with respect to his irrational fear of his newsagent, I should have said

אחות! הוא יוצא מהמיטה שוב!

Subject: RE: BS: Anyone defend US gun law?
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 29 Aug 14 - 06:58 AM

Don't encourage him Michael.

Subject: RE: BS: Anyone defend US gun law?
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 29 Aug 14 - 06:04 AM

? ‎מיכאל       למה זה

Subject: RE: BS: Anyone defend US gun law?
From: Ebbie
Date: 29 Aug 14 - 12:22 AM

Too much powder does that to you.

Subject: RE: BS: Anyone defend US gun law?
From: olddude
Date: 28 Aug 14 - 11:33 PM

старой доброй дней

Subject: RE: BS: Anyone defend US gun law?
From: olddude
Date: 28 Aug 14 - 11:26 PM

Τόσο αληθινό

Subject: RE: BS: Anyone defend US gun law?
From: Rapparee
Date: 28 Aug 14 - 11:00 PM

Μόνο κάποιος που έχει γνωρίσει η δουλεία μπορεί να εκτιμούν την ελευθερία.

Subject: RE: BS: Anyone defend US gun law?
From: Bill D
Date: 28 Aug 14 - 10:41 PM

бомбы, пули и пьянка

Subject: RE: BS: Anyone defend US gun law?
From: GUEST,olddude
Date: 28 Aug 14 - 09:49 PM

Согласны мой брат

Subject: RE: BS: Anyone defend US gun law?
From: olddude
Date: 28 Aug 14 - 09:39 PM

Всегда добросовестное

Subject: RE: BS: Anyone defend US gun law?
From: olddude
Date: 28 Aug 14 - 09:37 PM

rap

Они не имеют каких-либо идея моего брата

Subject: RE: BS: Anyone defend US gun law?
From: olddude
Date: 28 Aug 14 - 09:29 PM

Тайные дней

Subject: RE: BS: Anyone defend US gun law?
From: olddude
Date: 28 Aug 14 - 09:27 PM

Я не так хорошо, как в до

Subject: RE: BS: Anyone defend US gun law?
From: olddude
Date: 28 Aug 14 - 09:24 PM

rap

Правильность моего брата

Subject: RE: BS: Anyone defend US gun law?
From: Rapparee
Date: 28 Aug 14 - 09:14 PM

Те, кто сохранит их.

Subject: RE: BS: Anyone defend US gun law?
From: olddude
Date: 28 Aug 14 - 08:14 PM

Никогда не оставляйте

Subject: RE: BS: Anyone defend US gun law?
From: olddude
Date: 28 Aug 14 - 08:07 PM

Истины свободы

Subject: RE: BS: Anyone defend US gun law?
From: olddude
Date: 28 Aug 14 - 07:01 PM

Rap did you see pawn stars with the guy who had a Gatlin five barrel cannon from 1898.it fired a one pound explosive each crank holy crap. It was rare he wanted 300k my wife wouldn't let me

Subject: RE: BS: Anyone defend US gun law?
From: olddude
Date: 28 Aug 14 - 06:56 PM

Civil War guys were in the park this summer dressed up in uniforms etc. No kidding they must have loaded five pounds of black power in their cannon.. Damn that thing shook the windows.. It was awesome, I was jealous

Subject: RE: BS: Anyone defend US gun law?
From: Musket
Date: 28 Aug 14 - 06:12 PM

I have the powers to get pissed. The powers of Adnams.

I assume it means something else in foreign countries eh?

Subject: RE: BS: Anyone defend US gun law?
From: Rapparee
Date: 28 Aug 14 - 06:11 PM

I only have about six or seven pounds (about 2.95 kg) of gunpowder and smokeless powder at home. Hardly enough to even detonate.

Subject: RE: BS: Anyone defend US gun law?
From: pdq
Date: 28 Aug 14 - 06:09 PM

...for Backwoodsman:


While running for president in 1968, Pat Paulsen, a comic and friend of the Smothers Brothers said:

       "Guns don't kill people, Bullets do. Ban Bullets".
         

He also said about personal ethics:

       "I've upped my standards. Now, up yours"

Subject: RE: BS: Anyone defend US gun law?
From: Bill D
Date: 28 Aug 14 - 06:04 PM

It's hard to read between the lines sometimes and know exactly when someone is teasing or bear-baiting.... I use all sorts of **tricks** and 'emphasis' to show my intent.