27 dead at Connecticut school, including 14 kids

[Jason]

Inside 10 or 20 feet, these attackers aren't exactly getting into a stance and trying to keep the sights on their victims.

Spoken like a true idiot. For anyone else reading this thread, go back and read my post comparing mozg's mini-14 to an AR-15 outfitted for close quarters combat with what she wrote above in mind.

[Jason]

Except that I DO have a right and a reason (several of them actually) to own them, as enunciated by our Constitution and affirmed by our Supreme Court.

That's not a right. That's a privilege of legislature. Do you even know what rights are?

Indeed I do. Do you? Evidently not. The 2nd Amendment doesn't enunciate a right, it protects against legislative infringement a pre-existing natural and fundamental right claimed by the People. In other words, our Congress, and all other government agencies including the states under the 14th Amendment, have NO AUTHORITY to infringe upon my right to keep and bear arms. Any arms. And specifically arms suitable for use by the individual soldier, such as the semi-automatic version of the military-issue M-16.

You have a pre-existing natural and fundamental right (holy fuck I'm laughing already) to own and carry weapons which are designed specifically to function with maximum lethality in assault situations?

[Tero]

Wait till the supreme court makes you form a militia, Seth. You can have the hunting gear but anything specifically intended for killing masses of people will go thru your militia. With a locked armoury. And rules.

[Seabass]

Agreed. I didn't realise I would end up with a mental image of my children lying slaughtered at the feet of an American pro-gun nut, but there you go.

He's Canadian.

But honestly, what did you expect, after "raise you 20 dead children"?

[Blind groper]

Whoops, made a boo boo.

[Blind groper]

It still amazes me how so many people mis-identify the problem. Mass killings, in schools, malls, or movie theatres, are terrible tragedies of course. But they are a small part of the problem. It is the 20,000 firearms deaths each year and the 80,000 firearms maimings each year in the USA that is the big problem. Nor are military style weapons the real problem. Most of those deaths and maimings are done with hand guns.

There is no 100% solution to the problem, any more than there is any method of solving 100% the carnage on roads. But there are many ways of reducing the death toll. Ways not to solve the problem, but manage it.

As a non American, I can look at the problem without the inherent bias seen by Americans who are emotionally involved, like Seth and Gallstones. The second amendment is an absurdity, which is used to justify that which is beyond justification. It can be eliminated by a two thirds vote in congress. Even though Seth thinks this "right" to bear arms is a divinely inspired right, it is not. It is just a rule made by a long dead government out of expediency at the time.

There are a heap of regulatory actions that can be done to reduce the problem and reduce the number of people killed or maimed each year with a bullet hole through them. All it would take is the political will.

[Kristie]

That we haven't already done this is our national shame.

That people like you and mozg exist is your national shame.

Gotta agree with that!

Fuck you too, bitch.

Wow, you and Gallstones really are alike. Pretty sad, actually. You seem like an intelligent man, and 'fuck you, bitch' is all you can come up with? Looks like this discussion is getting to you.

[Animavore]

Is "constitution-olatry" a word? It feels like it should be a word

[odysseus]

Is "constitution-olatry" a word? It feels like it should be a word

I have to agree - there seems to be an almost religious worship of a bunch of words written by some funky-hatted beardies from a frontier era. While I have a lot of respect these guys and also for much of what these guys said (and much of it is still relevant today), it needs to be borne on mind that the world has changed and in some cases the way of doing things has to change to keep up with society.

[Coito ergo sum]

That we haven't already done this is our national shame.

That people like you and mozg exist is your national shame.

Gotta agree with that!

Fuck you too, bitch.

Wow, you and Gallstones really are alike. Pretty sad, actually. You seem like an intelligent man, and 'fuck you, bitch' is all you can come up with? Looks like this discussion is getting to you.

Maybe he is trying to be romantic.

[Coito ergo sum]

Is "constitution-olatry" a word? It feels like it should be a word

It probably should be... I always forget who said it, but some legal eagle said --

"Most people think the constitution absolutely prohibits everything they are against, and expressly permits everything they're for" or words to that effect. That does tend to be the case. It's like "that's unconstitutional!" followed by declarations of what "The Founders" (capitalized, even verbally) "intended." LOL.

[Jason]

"The Founders".. why am I suddenly reminded of Star Trek Deep Space 9?

[Blind groper]

The American founding fathers were no supermen, or even particularly virtuous. They were simply human, with all the vices and imperfections that go with being human. You can see that with the fact that they were slave owners.
http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Which_Foundin ... ned_slaves

That fact alone makes the pontificating preaching found in their early documents into total hypocrisy. "Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness". They did not value life, instigating actions that led to multiple deaths. They did not value liberty, since they kept slaves, and the pursuit of happiness is not a right - it is an inevitability, since everyone, even in prison, will do what they can to make themselves happier.

The hypocrites (proven by the fact that they were politicians) who set up the second amendment, were acting out of temporary expediency, and that amendment should be seen for what it is. Damaging, and a blot on the American legal landscape.

[aspire1670]

A real context, not brags and insults, you two.

It is real context. Strangely, with all that ammunition and all those guns I've not killed a single school child with any of it, and all of it is 100 percent intended and to be used for protecting the innocent and defenseless.

I'm sorry, but did you just describe yourself in some role approximating that of a police officer?

Yup. "Police, at all times, should maintain a relationship with the public that gives reality to the historic tradition that the police are the public and the public are the police; the police being only members of the public who are paid to give full-time attention to duties which are incumbent upon every citizen in the interests of community welfare and existence." Sir Robert Peel, Founder, London Metropolitan Police, the model for every modern law enforcement agency in the civilized world today.

That would be the unarmed British Police Service, Seth. Any chance you might join an unarmed police service?

[JimC]

Everybody good with Norway's gun laws? If so, they sound good to me. 33 guns per Norwegian citizen out there, and they have hunting and sport shooting weapons, and some strict regulations on the amount of ammo and all that, and the kinds of guns. I did a quick read through Norway's law and it seems quite reasonable. They didn't ban guns. They regulated them well.

33 guns per Norwegian citizen? That can't be right. Maybe 0.33 guns per person

Yes, I did misstate -- it's 33 per 100 citizens. Norway is 11th in the world in per capita gun ownership. Other than that pesky Anders Breivik mass shooting, they do pretty darn well in terms of keeping violence down. Two more European countries - Serbia and Switzerland, are 2nd and 4th in per capita firearm ownership. Finland and Sweden are 8 and 10. Iceland is 15th. The only Scandinavian country that isn't in the top 15 is Denmark, which is 54th, with 12 guns per 100 citizens. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Number_of_ ... by_country

The US is far and away number 1, though. That's an interesting statistic. But, I wonder where it comes from. 88 guns per 100 citizens. I wonder if there are small numbers of people that skew the stats up -- like folks with 100 guns or more as collectors and such. I guess, though, that maybe gun owners in the US like to get another gun once they have one. Or, they'll have a rifle and a handgun and such.

Given the ease of getting guns in Norway and Sweden, though, something must account for the lower per capita gun ownership in those places. I have a sneaking suspicion that "price" has a lot to do with the reduced "demand" for guns. Just my initial hypothesis. But, in the US, guns have traditionally been really inexpensive, relatively speaking. Even today, when I was pricing rifles and shotguns and such, a pretty good gun is not that much money, and people in the US tend to have more discretionary income than Yerpeeins. We have lots of toys here -- bigger houses, bigger and more cars, more stuff in the houses -- more guns. We have more money here, per capita, than in most countries, so a guy interested in guns will have the capacity to buy more of them.

Australia has fewer guns per 100 citizens than Luxembourg!