Ah the absurdity of a mind on gun culture. — Landru Guide Us

There is a particular community that exudes the characteristics that you are mocking, Landru. However, the majority of gun owners(in my experience) don't fall into that category. The reason people here calling you a troll is because you either don't see or pretend not to see this issue on a spectrum. It is not so perfectly black and white as you portray it.

Landru will defend himself, naturally.

Of course it isn't a black and white issue. There are all shades of gray from gun metal black to the faintest gray of smoke coiling out of the barrel.

If one fractions the 320 million American population into gun owners, then gun nuts, one ends up with maybe 13 million gun rights activists as a rough estimate. While 13 million is a small fraction of 320 million, it's still a lot of any kind of nut, whether it be the gun nut, anti-abortion nut, gay liberation nut, communist nut, or charismatic Anglican nut.

Pro-gun lobbying is carried out by a multibillion dollar industry. The interest of gun manufacturers is somewhat different the ideological gun nuts: The industry is about making money, and protecting access to a largely untapped market. 2/3 of adults don't own guns. The manufacturers don't want to see that potential market closed off by restrictive legislation.

Just consider the handgun business: more than 3,100,000 were manufactured in 2012. The list below is not exhaustive, and leaves out some of the military suppliers that also have products in the retail stream.

• Saeilo, Inc (Kahr Arms) Saeilo, Inc is the parent company of Kahr Arms. They produced 65,327 pistols at their Worchester, MA plant. -
• Kel Tec CNC Industries, Inc. Kel Tec produced 78,074 pistols at their Cocoa, FL facility in 2012.
• Beemiller, Inc (Hi Point) which made 82,700 pistols at their Mansfield, OH factory. -
• Taurus International Mfg, Inc. 92,074 pistols in Florida
• Kimber Mfg, Inc. 120,152 pistols manufactured
• Glock, Inc. 131,550 pistols in 2012 in Smyrna Georgia (more in Austria)
• Beretta USA. 140,670 pistols in 2012 at Accokeek, MD plant
• SIG Sauer, Inc.532,575 pistols in 2012
• Smith & Wesson 542,297 pistols at one plant, 216,150 at a second plant
• Sturm, Ruger & Co., Inc. 1,247,299 pistols and revolvers manufactured in 2012 -

According to Cenk Uygur of the Young Turks @ArguingWAristotleTiff (see below), Paul Ryan just recently blocked legislation aimed at preventing those on the terrorist watch list owning guns. Presumably you would agree that a) the sole reason he made that move was probably because he is in the pay of the gun lobbyists and that b) it was a very bad move.



The fact that your politicians and their gun lobbyists are happy to have suspected terrorists owning guns as long as they can make money out of the situation should seriously disturb you. I can't think of any other developed country where politicians could get away with that level and type of corruption.

The reason people here calling you a troll is because you either don't see or pretend not to see this issue on a spectrum. — ProbablyTrue

Actually I'm not calling him a troll because of that. I'm calling him a troll because he doesn't even respond to actual comments of others, but just lambasts, makes derogatory remarks about others and gives strawman-arguments that he thinks others have in their mind. Who cares what people actually write or think? You don't have to respond to what people write. Facts, like that Finnish gun control is far closer to Australia than the US don't matter (or that Finland is a country like Australia that made gun legislation more stricter after a shooting incident). Doesn't matter, Landru has this own created stereotype for anybody that might say anything other than he thinks. A troll wants to rant, insult people and get the people angry. A troll thinks if people get angry, then naturally he has won the argument. Landru is a simple troll, or at least behaving that way.

What I'm starting to be fed up with of is the total inability or incapacity to think about this issue, or any issue actually, in other than the idiotic juxtaposition of the US politically discourse that dumbs down everything to simple ranting about the opposite views. The most idiotic discourse is of course in the right-wing camp (perfect example is Trump), yet that doesn't mean that the other side is somehow ideal and constructive. The confrontational aspect of US discourse is the basic problem in the US. The ultimate reason for the confrontational attitude is simply that the two parties are actually ideologically very close to each other, basically making legislation for those who can pay for it, and hence they have this urgent need to portray themselves different. Hence gaining a consensus isn't an objective. Some Americans can really think with their own minds. The majority seem to be complacent with just reurgitating the lines dear to them, which basically boil down to loathing the other side. You cannot be anything else than a "pinko liberal" or a "gun-nut", obviously, you have to be basically either a republican supporter or democrat supporter. And if you come from a different political environment, where gun control is far more stricter and widely supported (even by yourself), who cares a sh*t? Your either a "pinko liberal" or a "gun nut GOP supporter".

Hence I don't have much hope for the US. If even in a Philosophy Forum any kind of serious talk what actually to do is impossible without ranting, it's obviously worse in other forums. And there's no solution in sight. The dumbing down of US politics has indeed been very successfull.

WOW!

What a horrible topic!

(Time for a rant... as if that would be something new in this case...)

Can we put it into 'Philosophy of Religion'?

--------------------------------------

Anyway...

... I always thought that 'gun control' in the USA meant using two hands to fire a gun rather than just one.

--------------------------------------

For what it's worth:

http://shootingtracker.com/wiki/Mass_Shootings_in_2015

Might I add that no guns where harmed in these shooting.

More fun to spin how you like... there's a stat for everyone, get 'um while they're hot!



---------------------------------------

Can we simply agreed that the human species is simply an irresponsible one?

If we are irresponsible with our toys, which works better...

...more toys or less toys or no toys or simply lessen the number of irresponsible people?

If the latter, then how?

Should we simply shoot them? :D

---------------------------------------

Now if we can only debate the merits of a religious order who advocates circumcision using an AK 47 vs. another religious order who advocates the use of a Glock 9 to perform the task instead? :s

---------------------------------------

Anyway...

... crap topics like this take the headlines when people seem to be under the misconception that there are idealistic absolute answers to questions which indeed are quite relative in nature.

Perhaps less of the ranting religious devotion to one side or the other, as if there are only two sides to the issue and look at who is holding the guns and especially WHY they are holding them.

As far as I can tell, the vast majority of the reasons to hold a gun are only there because we are allowed to hold a gun and simply don't trust the others who have been granted this liberty... so what we have is a religion founded upon fear and distrust... a very typical psychological religious disorder, so to be honest... they are really shitty reasons at best, so I suppose shitty reasons will the the best we can do in a debate.

Again...

... can we have this topic moved to 'Fetisch of Religion'?

Meow!

GREG

Paul Ryan is trying to strike a balance between not reacting emotionally to what the gun control advocates use as their platform, the crisis of the moment, BEFORE it is even over. As soon as a gun is known to be involved, they latch on to tightening gun rights.
In voting down the bill, that would paint with a VERY broad brush, that if someone is on a No Fly List that they should also be banned from purchasing or possessing a firearm would violate American citizens Constitutional right to do so.
Simply based upon the unconstitutional foundation in which the No Fly list was compiled. Tens of thousands of people are on the No Fly List but for the American citizen, they are promised due process and suspicion does not satisfy the governments right to infringe on your individual rights. There are many, MANY people that should never have been put on the No Fly List and that is a nightmare to try to challenge but to sweepingly take away a individuals Constitutional right would be illegal.

There is a particular community that exudes the characteristics that you are mocking, Landru. However, the majority of gun owners(in my experience) don't fall into that category. The reason people here calling you a troll is because you either don't see or pretend not to see this issue on a spectrum. It is not so perfectly black and white as you portray it. — ProbablyTrue

Of course you are correct about many people owning guns and not being nuts. Most people who own guns just have them sitting in their closet, where they will never use them and where if they tried to use they would likely shoot their foot or their uncle Fred getting a midnight snack (that happens with frightful regularity but it isn't some looming threat). Some people own guns to hunt (though very few). I owned guns in my salad days, not knowing any better. I don't really have strong feelings about guns. They're not very interesting or useful. I have strong feelings about the danger of gun culture, which is undeniable.

So, the issue is should the rights of people to casually own guns trump the danger guns pose for society by empowering the weirdo cadre of gun fetishist who seem to have a propensity of going out engaging in mass killings.

If your position is yes, we profoundly disagree.

For what it's worth:

http://shootingtracker.com/wiki/Mass_Shootings_in_2015
— Mayor of Simpleton

Might I add that no guns where harmed in these shooting.

Looks like America is winning again! Thanks NRA for keeping the US exceptional!

↪Baden Paul Ryan is trying to strike a balance between not reacting emotionally to what the gun control advocates use as their platform, the crisis of the moment, BEFORE it is even over. As soon as a gun is known to be involved, they latch on to tightening gun rights.
In voting down the bill, that would paint with a VERY broad brush, that if someone is on a No Fly List that they should also be banned from purchasing or possessing a firearm would violate American citizens Constitutional right to do so.
Simply based upon the unconstitutional foundation in which the No Fly list was compiled. Tens of thousands of people are on the No Fly List but for the American citizen, they are promised due process and suspicion does not satisfy the governments right to infringe on your individual rights. There are many, MANY people that should never have been put on the No Fly List and that is a nightmare to try to challenge but to sweepingly take away a individuals Constitutional right would be illegal. — ArguingWAristotleTiff

Oh, yeah, Ryan has a cool head and uses soothing conservative rhetoric in facing crises.

Jeez, once you believe in gun culture, you can believe ANYTHING!

By the way, conservative Republicans called for and got the No Fly list, but don't let facts get in the way of your narrative.

Interestingly the US and Belgium, being the only countries with permissive gun laws are bang in the middle when it comes to both Rampage Shooting Incidents and Fatalities per capita.

I can't imagine what you think it is that the US is winning, but this data seems to do nothing to support your contentions.

Interestingly the US and Belgium, being the only countries with permissive gun laws are bang in the middle when it comes to both Rampage Shooting Incidents and Fatalities per capita.

I can't imagine what you think it is that the US is winning, but this data seems to do nothing to support your contentions. — John

This is poor analysis. You have to compare big countries with big countries. Big samples are very different from small samples when it comes to regularities and prediction. Small numbers are subject to being easily skewed by irrelevant or unpredictable events. This is Statistics 101.

Compare the US with China, Russia, Germany, Britain, France - we're winning the gun massacre competition hands down. Thanks NRA and thank the NRA's mathematically illiterate defenders.

Nonsense. A population of a few million people is plenty big enough to assess average trends.

I don't disagree with you entirely. I think at the very least the US needs to start making it more difficult for people to own them; e.g., permit courses, long hold periods, psychological tests, etc.. Unfortunately the NRA fights every little battle as if it's the whole war, which effectively stalls most reasonable gun legislation. In a way I suppose it is the whole war since it's incremental changes that are going to eventually change the culture.

I do sympathize with people who use a gun(s) for home protection. Especially those who live in less urbanized areas where wait times for police would be unreasonably high. I personally have a handgun in my home that I would be glad to have if my front door was kicked by the Manson family or would-be burglars at 4 in the morning.
Is that likely to happen? Burglars, maybe; Manson family, extremely unlikely. It doesn't take much perceived risk for people to want to hedge their bets though.

Residing in Maricopa County, AZ we are protected by the Maricopa County Sheriff Officers, who is led by Sheriff Joe Arpaio. Here is what he wants us, as private citizens, to do with our firearms.

“My goal of utilizing 250,000 citizens armed with concealed weapons is to stop the carnage, stop the killing before cops arrive,” said Sheriff Arpaio in a video posted to social media.

The sheriff’s goal of getting 250,000 armed citizens would be just under 10 percent of the Valley's population.

Many gun owners agree that more armed citizens might be the answer.

From the top down...

On a related note, the U.S. urgently needs a Mass Shooting Channel to make some room for real news on cable. Oh, and they could leave the Republican debate on the mass shooting channel.

On a related note, the U.S. urgently needs a Mass Shooting Channel to make some room for real news on cable. Oh, and they could leave the Republican debate on the mass shooting channel. — photographer

"...urgently needs"? :s

Don't they already have that in FOX News (aka the world's largest terrorist network :-$ )?

Meow!

GREG

It is essential to get down to a "granular" level when talking about American guns & gun violence. The 320 million Americans living in this 3.8 million square mile country are not a single environment. Look at census tracts or zip codes. A large number of the ZIP codes and census tracts have about the same level of gun violence as London, Copenhagen, or Amsterdam. There are some ZIP codes, though, that compare favorably with war zones. The different levels of gun violence are stark: 1-5 deaths per 100,000 people per year, in a low gunfire ZIP code to 100+ per 100,000 people per year in a violent ZIP code. Then there are zip codes that are pretty violent, but not war zones - like Mississippi or... Arizona?

Most Americans do not live in high-death-rate ZIP codes because most of us are not impoverished black people living in zones of extremity (i.e., the ghetto) or old fashioned southerners or wild west gunslingers. Most Americans are not engaged in high-risk occupations such as illicit drug sales or gang management. Most American are not hanging around in any of the various ghettos.

For the most part, we don't have a problem with guns! Exclude the ghettos, exclude suicides, exclude accidents, and it's not a terrible problem. The exclusions reveal the real problem: It isn't guns.

It's a dysfunctional economy and culture manufacturing death in the ghetto. It's a dysfunctional society driving suicides. Too many guns in the hands of amateurs and children leads to accidents.

The NRA has nothing useful to contribute to America's real problems. It's a fetish of conservatism. Liberals aren't doing much for America's problems either. I love liberals more, but to be honest, they're not really doing much for us either.

Just to be clear, I'm not blaming blacks. They are as much victim as perpetrator when it comes to violence. Nobody in the ghetto elected to be there. Social Dysfunction built the ghetto and social dysfunction governs the ghetto. That goes for Europe too. The various populations living in the outer arrondissements of Paris weren't hoping to end up in a dead end. The French didn't intend those arrondissements to be dead ends either, but such are the failures of policy.

Here John Fogerty makes the eternal much belovéd proposal (2007 - Revival)

If your approach were solid research rather than hand-waving BC it would look a lot like the epidemiological research that was subject to an NRA initiated ban, and now that the ban has been lifted remains unfunded by the Republican dominated Congress.

What do you mean by the phrase, "hand waving"?

I wish there was such epi data, but alas...

A good book relevant to the topic is Ghettoside: A True Story of Murder in America by Jill Leovy. Leovy spent several years on the LA TIMES LAPD beat. The book analyzes the high rate of homicide in South Central LA. One of her conclusions is that the homicide rate is so high is that murders there are nowhere close to adequately investigated and prosecuted. Consequently, a would-be murderer (say, a gang member who needs to "take care of business") can be fairly certain of getting away with murder. Something like 1/2 to 2/3 of murders are never 'cleared'. Far too few detectives are assigned to the area, and the population is notoriously uncooperative with the police, while at the same time urgently needing their services.

She makes some of the same observations as Stephen Pinker about the kind of cultural condition (anywhere in the world) which produces the high volume of violence. Marginalization, a regime of DIY justice, statelessness, powerlessness, and so on.

John, you might be right if the populations compared were very similar. I just saw a report that tried to compare Honduras to Switzerland in terms of gun ownership versus fatalities. See rebuttal here:
http://www.snopes.com/politics/guns/hondswitz.asp

On a related note, the U.S. urgently needs a Mass Shooting Channel to make some room for real news on cable. Oh, and they could leave the Republican debate on the mass shooting channel. — photographer

Too late, photographer. They already started one.
http://www.guntalk.tv/site88.php

Nonsense a population of a few million people is plenty big enough to assess average trends. — John

No, it's not. But I won't get in your way of using bad statistical analysis. It's something of a gun nut tradition.

It's like comparing the Greek economy to the US economy, another rightwing trope

Sheriff Joe Arpaio — ArguingWAristotleTiff

He is probably one of the craziest and most divisive people in this country's leadership at the moment. It's no wonder he thinks more guns are the answer. He's appealing to people's fears, especially their xenophobia.

another rightwing trope — Landru Guide Us

I'm not so sure it's as much a right wing trope as it is an error all people tend to make with statistics.

I don't disagree with you entirely. I think at the very least the US needs to start making it more difficult for people to own them; e.g., permit courses, long hold periods, psychological tests, etc.. Unfortunately the NRA fights every little battle as if it's the whole war, which effectively stalls most reasonable gun legislation. In a way I suppose it is the whole war since it's incremental changes that are going to eventually change the culture.

I do sympathize with people who use a gun(s) for home protection. Especially those who live in less urbanized areas where wait times for police would be unreasonably high. I personally have a handgun in my home that I would be glad to have if my front door was kicked by the Manson family or would-be burglars at 4 in the morning.
Is that likely to happen? Burglars, maybe; Manson family, extremely unlikely. It doesn't take much perceived risk for people to want to hedge their bets though. — ProbablyTrue

Like I say, I don't think guns are very interesting or useful tools (except for committing mass murder and occasional hunting). Young adult males get all thrilled about them, and then most of them grow up and move on. Guns are noisy and expensive.

So it isn't guns per se, but gun culture that is problematic.

But I'm afraid we can never extirpate gun culture without banning guns. Guns are fetish objects for the weak-minded, who see them as the only way to grasp male power that they can't get by any other means. So I'm for banning them. Gun bans really do put an end to gun massacres.

As to home protection, unless someone trains constantly and is always at the ready, an armed intruder is going to shoot you dead before you even have time to load. And if it's in the middle of night, the likelihood that a person will have the presence of mind to get out of bed, get his gun, load it, and take down an intruder - in the dark - is somewhat fanciful. It happens but more often the guy shoots uncle Fred getting a midnight snack.

In any case, let me suggest that if people truly feel so insecure that they think their homes will be invaded by marauding criminals, they should be doing more to build a viable, just, safe democracy than arming themselves. Something is profoundly wrong with that society, and guns won't solve it. Though like you I'm sympathetic with people who just feel scared and want to protect themselves. But what does that say about the failure of our system?

John, you might be right if the populations compared were very similar. I just saw a report that tried to compare Honduras to Switzerland in terms of gun ownership versus fatalities. See rebuttal here:
http://www.snopes.com/politics/guns/hondswitz.asp — Cavacava

The meme analyzed by Snopes is typical of the misuse of statistics and outright lies propagated by the NRA and similar organizations.

The fact that deceptive graphs, statistics, memes is the stock and trade of gun activism is telling as to how totally ideological it is, even as it constantly pretends to be factual and unemotional (mostly via projection as we've seen on this very thread)

So it isn't guns per se, but gun culture that is problematic.
But I'm afraid we can never extirpate gun culture without banning guns. Guns are fetish objects for the weak-minded, who see them as the only way to grasp male power that they can't get by any other means. So I'm for banning them. — Landru Guide Us

I agree for the most part. I don't think they're always fetish objects. Guns are a great equalizer for those of diminutive stature. However, they become a great un-equalizer when someone grabs an AK-47 and starts shooting up a public space.
It becomes a trade off. Do we think that the protection of people in private or public settings is more necessary/more important?I think it should probably be the latter.

Keeping a sword or machete at one's bedside would probably be an effective and possibly safer alternative if one felt the need for home protection. Banning guns outright is likely an impossibility at the moment. That's why I support incremental changes to the law to make it more and more inconvenient to obtain them. This would at the very least deter spur of the moment homicidal maniacs.

People will of course say that if you ban guns, only criminals will have them. That would be true for a time. However, I think the long-term benefits would outweigh the risks.

Point taken, Cavacava, thanks. I certainly don't want to argue that there is a clear correlation between gun laws and shooting deaths or rampage killings; quite the reverse, there are so many other complexities involved, so many differences between different societies.

I agree for the most part. I don't think they're always fetish objects. Guns are a great equalizer for those of diminutive stature. However, they become a great un-equalizer when someone grabs an AK-47 and starts shooting up a public space.
It becomes a trade off. Do we think that the protection of people in private or public settings is more necessary/more important?I think it should probably be the latter. — ProbablyTrue

As I've said, there's no doubt most gun owners in the US just have them in their closet somewhere and don't give them a second thought. It's that small percentage who are fixated on firearms (and small is a relative term), that is a constant threat to our public space. Nor is it a coincidence that gun activism is associated with ugly political themes like white supremacy, xenophobia, violence against women, and so forth. So there is a bigger issue here in which guns are the focal point.

Keeping a sword or machete at one's bedside would probably be an effective and possibly safer alternative if one felt the need for home protection. Banning guns outright is likely an impossibility at the moment. That's why I support incremental changes to the law to make it more and more inconvenient to obtain them. This would at the very least deter spur of the moment homicidal maniacs.

A baseball bat next to your bed is probably the most effective melee weapon for home protection in the world. And they only cost about 50 bucks.

I don't doubt that a ban is politically impossible in the current environment. But that is always true of any progress at any time when there is no leadership. Transformational political leaders, like FDR make the impossible possible. The first step for getting a ban is calling for it.

People will of course say that if you ban guns, only criminals will have them. That would be true for a time. However, I think the long-term benefits would outweigh the risks

Ironically perhaps, the fact that only criminals would have guns is exactly the point, unbeknownst to the activists who use that slogan. Because it would be illegal to own a gun, we would know that the people who are caught with them are in fact criminals intending harm, and we could sentence them to prison without waiting for them to kill or injure somebody. When the bad guys own something that law-biding citizens don't, it's easier to identify the bad guys, especially since bad guys tend to get in other trouble with law enforcement for other reasons, allowing for searches, and hence arrest for gun possession.

That's why the ban on bombs is so effective - the only people who would possible possess a bomb are criminals planning to use it. So the slogan can be changed to if you criminalize explosives only criminals will have explosives. Yep. We did that and it works.

Residing in Maricopa County, AZ we are protected by the Maricopa County Sheriff Officers, who is led by Sheriff Joe Arpaio. Here is what he wants us, as private citizens, to do with our firearms.

“My goal of utilizing 250,000 citizens armed with concealed weapons is to stop the carnage, stop the killing before cops arrive,” said Sheriff Arpaio in a video posted to social media.

The sheriff’s goal of getting 250,000 armed citizens would be just under 10 percent of the Valley's population.

Many gun owners agree that more armed citizens might be the answer.

From the top down... — ArguingWAristotleTiff

What could possibly go wrong with a brilliant plan like this?

Looks like America is winning again! Thanks NRA for keeping the US exceptional! — Landru Guide Us

All I can do is laugh at it all...

... if not, I'd probably just cry.

Funny thing is when I went to high school back in the late 70's early 80's guys who drove to school in their pickup trucks all had gun racks in their trucks. Indeed there were guns on most all of those gun racks and also there when they were parked in the school parking lot.

We had issue, fights, cliques, outsiders and typical high school angst frustrations, yet no one ever considered using a gun to resolve a problem. Never ever...

What changed?

Granted these guns were all for hunting and were not AK 47's or 'gangsta hardware', but they were guns nonetheless.

What changed in the people?

Anyway...

... back to laughing:



... let's promote spoon control to fight fat!



speaking of fat people...



I like the idea of making fat kids run until their gym shorts fit them. They won't have time to shoot each other or get indoctrinated via some sort of internet idealist bullshit con-artists claiming some sort of religious revolution. This fixes 3 problems all at once! :D

Meow!

GREG