Connecticut (et al)

[Ian]

If you have a town with an infestation of rattlesnakes, you do not fix it by bringing in more snakes. You kill snakes or remove them.

If you have a nation with an infestation of firearms, firearm users, and firearm crime, you do not fix it with more guns. You remove guns to reduce the problem.

The problem is not the guns, it's those nutbags who wield them for evil purposes. Reduce them and you reduce the problem.

Then I'm sure we can count on your support for the next major expansion of health care, so access to mental health care becomes easier.

Of course, even if a person is deemed dangerous, unless they're committed against their will the lack of background checks at gun shows means they'll still be able to buy firearms at will. So can we assume you're in favor of closing that loophole as well?

Or are you all talk?

[JimC]

That whole "comparing apples and oranges" argument is just a way to separate richer white people from poorer brown people. People are people. We're run by the same emotions. Most firearms deaths happen in the lower economic class, anyway, iirc.

LOLWUT

What is it about the proposition that firearms cause firearms deaths do you not understand? Take your time.

What is it about cultural arrogance and elitism that you don't understand? Take your time.

LOLWUT, again. I understand your cultural arrogance and elitism all too well. They are why you're not the sharpest knife in the drawer.

Shorter FBM "poorer people of colour are more likely to be shot to death therefore guns are a good thing for poorer people of colour to own rather than seek to meliorate the social inequalities between rich and poor. Therefore white people should keep as many guns as possible." You're a twofer: a racist and a gun nutz. Well done.

Absolute and complete nonsense. FBM's posts on the issue have been nuanced and balanced, not sitting with unthinking arrogance at one end of a very polarised spectrum, and he is far from being a racist, as anybody with a serious posting history here would see clearly.. I actually disagree with him on this particular issue, as I'll explain in a moment, but I will do so with the manners expected of civilised discourse.

Perhaps you should try it sometime...

I am fairly certain the original article was making comparisons with other functioning democracies (of whatever colour) that are not currently suffering civil wars or the complete breakdown of law and order. They should have made the basis of their comparison much clearer, IMO. FBM's point about the poorer strata of society being over-represented in violent crime is important, but not germane to the vital comparison, which is simply that societies with lax gun laws will have a higher proportion of mass shootings than other comparable societies with stricter gun controls.

[Jason]

Realistic suggestions on how to significantly reduce the guns in circulation?

[Jason]

Interesting thought: Canadians could arms themselves to the teeth if they chose to, but we evidently choose not to. I wonder why that is?

[Blind groper]

To Seth

It matters very little if someone in a school has a gun, in terms of stopping a massacre. As you pointed out, 30 seconds is enough to see a whole heap of people killed. High schools tend to be large, with many buildings and cover a wide area. If a killer walked in at one point, and started shooting, and a guard with a gun was at another point, a randomly decided point, then it would probably take him a good five minutes plus to get to where the killer was. By the time the guard arrived, the massacre is done. The whole bloody exercise with guards is pointless.

Not only that, but you are talking of thousands of armed guards across the country. A small percentage of those armed guards will, through carelessness, or crazy design, end up killing people themselves. Another small percentage will meet the killer and the guard will become just one more victim.

The NRA is being two faced. They know damn well that this system will not work, but are simply pushing their own agenda.

[JimC]

Interesting thought: Canadians could arms themselves to the teeth if they chose to, but we evidently choose not to. I wonder why that is?

Consuming vast quantities of maple syrup has sweetened your temperaments?

[Blind groper]

Realistic suggestions on how to significantly reduce the guns in circulation?

The problem is political. That is, getting people to agree. It will be well nigh impossible even to get government to agree, much less the 100 million gun enthusiasts like Seth.

Probably a small start is the best approach. Prof. David Hemenway suggested that a law making all new firearms child-proof. That seems kind of too little to me, but at least it would be a start.

The Chinese proverb of a journey of a thousand miles starting with a single step may be applicable here. Get a few small changes done, and then see how you go. The important thing is to get a beginning. In time, we might bring the USA in as part of the civilised world in terms of gun laws.

There was an interesting item in New Scientist a while back which suggested it would be possible to make a programmable gun, which detected its owners fingerprints, and would fire only for its owner. Interesting idea. If this idea is developed, making it illegal to sell any new gun without that feature would be a major step forwards.

[Jason]

Maybe. I'm just pontificating on the cultural differences that lead Americans to exhibit gun-seeking behaviour while Canadians, generally, do not. Perhaps it's that silly 2nd amendment and its various interpretations that leads them to believe gun ownership is not only a right, but a responsibility?

[JimC]

Maybe. I'm just pontificating on the cultural differences that lead Americans to exhibit gun-seeking behaviour while Canadians, generally, do not. Perhaps it's that silly 2nd amendment and its various interpretations that leads them to believe gun ownership is not only a right, but a responsibility?

There's certainly a significant number of Americans that push that line very strongly indeed, so it wouldn't surprise me if it were a major factor...

Things can snowball, when a certain cultural momentum is achieved. Very hard to reverse, I suspect.

[Jason]

Realistic suggestions on how to significantly reduce the guns in circulation?

The problem is political. That is, getting people to agree. It will be well nigh impossible even to get government to agree, much less the 100 million gun enthusiasts like Seth.

So no realistic suggestions. That's what I thought.

Probably a small start is the best approach. Prof. David Hemenway suggested that a law making all new firearms child-proof. That seems kind of too little to me, but at least it would be a start.

"Child-proof"? What does that mean and how would that prevent anyone from using a gun except the 1-5 year-old gunman crowd?

[Blind groper]

"Child-proof"? What does that mean and how would that prevent anyone from using a gun except the 1-5 year-old gunman crowd?

That's why I said I thought it was too small a change. I am not an expert on this, but I believe there are ways of making it impossible for a child's weaker fingers to pull a trigger. Or else a child proof safety lock can be attached.

My own personal opinion is that the second amendment must be repealed, and that personal possession by ordinary citizens of hand guns needs to be made illegal. However, Seth need not get his knickers in a twist over this. I have no power to push my opinion.

There will probably need to be intermediate steps. First : making it illegal for anyone, even on the second hand market, to sell a firearm without a proper background check into the buyer. Second : to require gun licensing, for which one condition is a police approved gun safe to keep the guns in.

There are many possible law changes. I do not believe that making military style weapons illegal is going to achieve much. It is hand guns that kill the most people.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

[Svartalf]

And after we get armed personnel in every school (just like Columbine had, not to mention how Virginia Tech had its own police force), we'll get armed personnel on every school bus, in every supermarket, at every daycare center, in every movie theater, etc. That'll take care of it. And it won't cost too much to do that, I'm sure.

The US has by far more guns per capita than any other country. By pure coincidence, it also has by far more gun homicides than any other advanced nation on earth. Therefore, we need more guns in more places. Makes perfect sense! Analytically irrefutable.

Why not make it a civic duty for every citizen to be a qualified firearms user and to carry at all times while you're at it?
Less hassle hiring specialized personnel if every teacher, driver and janitor is packing and knows what to do with it.
(but hiring armed guards will be good for employment, if you can find employers and get them to fork out the budget for it)

[Blind groper]

Finagle help us!

The toll today is 20,000 plus each year dead from bullets, plus another 80,000 each year maimed.
If each and every citizen carried a gun, that would multiply rapidly.

For a start, there are 200,000 unsuccessful attempts at suicide each year in the USA. If all those people had access to a gun, as you suggest, Svartalf, the dead by suicide numbers would reach at least 150,000 each year, if not more. The murder rates would also skyrocket if every person who got mad at someone else had a gun on them.

Talk about irresponsible suggestions!

[Ian]

I think he was just trying to build off my satire.