Guns bad...case closed

[Jason]

LoL Seth. You haven't changed a bit.

And, as it happens, nations know full well that the better armed their military forces are the less likely it is that a belligerent nation will try to attack them. It's called "deterrence" and "peace through superior firepower." Why do you think the US spends so much of it's wealth building the best-armed and most formidable army on the planet?

Because the US is set to become part of the economic third-world in the future economy which will be largely predicated on the rapid-freight-transit of the 'New Silk Road' being built by China which will connect the economies of Asia, India, Russia, and Western Europe making them almost inseperable while the best the US can hope for is an agreement with Russia that will see the Bering Strait being bridged.. but that's advanced economics for futurists. The short version is the US is being a bully and trying to bull their way into the future from the barrel of a gun. Mao would find it most amusing.

So you see how armament leads to belligerent behaviour at the expense of society as a whole to, ostensibly, benefit the individual whether it be at the level of persons or nations.

That's hardly anywhere near the truth. Whatever the economic situation in Europe and elsewhere, the US is still the nation that other nations call out to when they are oppressed by their belligerent behaviors and that's because our military is simply the best military anywhere on the planet. Your claim assumes that the US having a superior military is "belligerent behaviour" when in point of fact it's anything but that. Unlike many other nations, including the UK, the US does not empire-build or take over countries it defeats in combat. In fact, exactly the opposite happens. We win the war and then spend even more of our money rebuilding the nation for the benefit of the people (not the despotic rulers) who live there. Like the 44 million dollars we spent to build a gas station in Iraq. Some people need to end up in jail over that one.

Which of course has nothing whatever to do with personal self defense and the right to keep and bear arms to facilitate it. It's simple logic that when one faces an enemy, be it a belligerent nation or a violent criminal, one's best prospects for survival and avoiding harm come from having defensive (or offensive) weapons superior to those of your attacker. In no case should anyone ever be less well armed than one's criminal attacker, that's just bad strategy and tactics.

Yes, the Alan Greenspan school of economics would have everyone negotiate from a position of strength. The economics of the past would have us continue having the nation-state as the prime economic mover combined with its standing armed forces and military-industrial complex as the heart of the unit. The economics of the future would have apolitical, at least as much as possible, international corporations as the prime economic movers with simple trade and transactions between people of the world as the heart of these units. The economies of the nation-states will become so intertwined that armed conflict will not only be undesirable on the part of all it will be anathema to continued prosperity. The age of the military-industrial complex is coming to a close within the next 50 years. What the US is doing in Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria, and many other places, is not a war for oil but a war for control or economic influence in states that will be important in the building of the new economic ties in the future. It is the economics of the past, of the gun.

There is a better way forward from individual armament and a state of eternal vigilance as the price of personal well-being and that is a way of open-palm diplomacy and trade, or put simply, co-dependence with anyone and everyone in your society. Stress reduction alone is worth the effort, not to mention the boon in recouped productive energy that can be put to more exploratory and developmental use than simple armament development and production. We don't need Jesus.

[Tero]

You lie. As I said, nothing you have suggested will prevent a straw purchase and the illegal transfer of a firearm to a disqualified person and you know that. At best it's a mechanism to punish the straw purchaser and do absolutely nothing about the now-missing and untraceable gun.

You know as well as I do your intent is to ban guns bla bla bla

Of course we will take the guns away. Eventually. The world as a whole is going liberal, despite the flow of conservative Muslims to Europe. The liberal point of view will dominate the 2000s. Currently we are outvoted by...idiots. They vote too. In the mean time, we need to stop the machinery that manufactures guns and sells them to you, but with a good portion ending up in criminal hands. You are willing to do nothing to prevent criminals from getting guns. Simply saying "it's illegal for them to have guns. Straw purchases are illegal" does nothing at all. There is no control, no record,no tracking. Gulls will flow into criminal hands with NRA promoted laws and rules. The NRA is happy. "More guns for us."

[Seth]

You lie. As I said, nothing you have suggested will prevent a straw purchase and the illegal transfer of a firearm to a disqualified person and you know that. At best it's a mechanism to punish the straw purchaser and do absolutely nothing about the now-missing and untraceable gun.

You know as well as I do your intent is to ban guns bla bla bla

Of course we will take the guns away. Eventually.

Ipse dixit quod erat demonstrandum

Now fuck off with your other lies about wanting to control criminals with guns.

The world as a whole is going liberal, despite the flow of conservative Muslims to Europe.

"A liberal is nothing more than a conservative who hasn't been mugged yet." Anon

The liberal point of view will dominate the 2000s. Currently we are outvoted by...idiots. They vote too. In the mean time, we need to stop the machinery that manufactures guns and sells them to you, but with a good portion ending up in criminal hands.

You've had no success whatever doing so thus far. In fact, your attempts to do so have backfired in your faces and resulted in a federal law which precludes the most common attempt at nuisance lawsuits against gun manufacturers, so keep up the good work because every time you try, the public repudiates you and strengthens gun rights.

You are willing to do nothing to prevent criminals from getting guns.

You mean other than the 50,000 laws already on the books which control literally every aspect of manufacture, distribution, sale, possession and use of firearms? Yeah, you're right, other than what we already have by way of laws and procedures to both prevent and punish criminals who get guns, I'm willing to do NOTHING you suggest by way of further gun control efforts because they are not "common sense gun control" they are merely stalking horses for your actual agenda, which you finally state clearly above: total gun confiscation.

Simply saying "it's illegal for them to have guns. Straw purchases are illegal" does nothing at all. There is no control, no record,no tracking.

Well, except for all those controls, records and tracking that exist now, which are marginally effective at best. Controls, records and tracking are not intended to control criminal access to guns because they cannot achieve that goal and anybody with a lick of sense knows this. Therefore the only possible reason for such controls, records and tracking is to infringe on the rights of law-abiding gun owners and set them up for the jackbooted thugs of government to come and seize their guns, which is exactly what you want, as you have admitted above.

So, because your hands are dirty and your intentions evil, and your lies well understood, we are not going to allow you to implement such controls, records or tracking because we have no intention of facilitating your plan to confiscate our firearms. Instead we will increase the number of guns carried in public by law-abiding citizens, which is actually effective in reducing violent crime, and we will work to put violent criminals in prison for life or in a hole in the ground forever, which is the effective common sense way of dealing with violent criminals...and traitors.

[Seth]

There is a better way forward from individual armament and a state of eternal vigilance as the price of personal well-being and that is a way of open-palm diplomacy and trade, or put simply, co-dependence with anyone and everyone in your society. Stress reduction alone is worth the effort, not to mention the boon in recouped productive energy that can be put to more exploratory and developmental use than simple armament development and production.

Yes, yes, unicorn farts, rainbows and pots of gold at the end of the rainbow sound nice, but it's not a sane or realistic view of human nature. When a naked virgin can ride throughout the kingdom carrying a bag of gold and go unmolested, then get back to me with your utopian nonsense. Until then I'll continue to carry a gun so that when some nutcase steps out and starts killing people, with a gun or a knife or an automobile, I'll be able to actually do something about it other than run away or die screaming in fear. If that never happens and I waste all the effort and expense of training and equipping for such an eventuality as a result, well, I consider it a wise and altruistic investment of my time and money that benefited society even if I was never called upon to use my gun. It's exactly like a fire extinguisher or a seat belt, we pay for them and wear them in hopes of never, ever having to use them, but we have them all the same, just in case.

We don't need Jesus.

How did Jesus get into this conversation?

[Tero]

And it's even more clear that Seth does not care how many guns end up with criminals. The main constitutional issue is for Seth to have guns and us not to register them. If we are too stupid to arm against millions of criminals, not Seth's problem.
LOL

[Seth]

And it's even more clear that Seth does not care how many guns end up with criminals. The main constitutional issue is for Seth to have guns and us not to register them. If we are too stupid to arm against millions of criminals, not Seth's problem.
LOL

Nonsense. We agree fully that criminals should not have guns. Where we differ is in how far we are willing to go in order to achieve that goal. You will do anything, including infringing on the rights of others and knowingly placing them at risk for death, injury and victimization in order to achieve your narrow-minded anti-gun agenda knowing full well that your hoplophobic paranoia and self delusional plan will have no effect on reducing crime. In fact it will accomplish the exact opposite by empowering and criminals and thus will have a great effect on creating even more helpless victims who are unable to defend themselves.

I, on the other hand, approach the problem pragmatically. We know that criminals can and will get guns if they want them and that no amount of "gun control" will prevent them from doing so if they are determined to do so, as proven by the fact that every nation on earth, including the ones with the most draconian gun control schemes ever devised, still suffer from gun related crime.

Since it is plainly obvious that gun control does not control criminals with guns, the equally obvious solution is to empower the average law abiding citizen to arm him or herself for self defense, which is the only way that a specific violent crime can be deterred, thwarted or prevented.

You do NOTHING to prevent crime or victimization. In fact you foster and empower violent crime by disarming potential victims, thereby making the criminal safer and less likely to get suddenly dead.

Thus, YOU are the one who is proposing a morally reprehensible and stomach-turning agenda of deliberately creating more and more helpless victims unable to protect themselves to satisfy your paranoid fear of guns.

[Tero]

Nearly all the potential victims are clueless. Merely owning a gun and going to a range to shoot. Putting guns in the hands of tens of millions of idiots does not help them. Or me.

If I were paid to solve these issues and think like s criminal, I would put more effort into. But not my job. Or the job of idiots with guns with no training.

Guns are not solving crime. In a few rare cases the gun owner gets to defend and maybe even shoot criminals. But only a small number compared to the idiots.

[Tero]

I should add that though most of the idiots can't figure out complex human interactions and are likely to just shoot the person running away, they can be trained to harvest deer. If they shoot another idiot or hunter, no big deal. But we should then lock up the idiots' guns for most of the year.

[Seth]

Nearly all the potential victims are clueless.

Which you know after a serious rectal inversion examination I suppose.

Merely owning a gun and going to a range to shoot. Putting guns in the hands of tens of millions of idiots does not help them.

Yah, everybody but you is an idiot, according to you. Fact is that guns in the hands of citizens help them as many as 2.5 millions times per year.

Or me.

Get your own gun then. And since when is anybody obliged to "help" you with anything at all?

If I were paid to solve these issues and think like s criminal, I would put more effort into.

No you wouldn't.

But not my job.

Then how about you shut the fuck up about it.

Or the job of idiots with guns with no training.

Correct, it's the job of law-abiding citizens with training.

Guns are not solving crime.

Police solve crimes, guns prevent crimes. Big difference. It's better to prevent a crime than to solve one by the way.

In a few rare cases the gun owner gets to defend and maybe even shoot criminals.

Well, I suppose 2.5 million DGUs per year might be considered "rare" as compared to 300 million citizens, but to the ones who are attacked, as rare as it might be, it's a good thing they had a gun.

But only a small number compared to the idiots.

It's my experience that calling everyone else "idiots" is a sure-fire indicator of pathological narcissism.

[Seth]

I should add that though most of the idiots can't figure out complex human interactions and are likely to just shoot the person running away,

Except that they don't.

they can be trained to harvest deer. If they shoot another idiot or hunter, no big deal. But we should then lock up the idiots' guns for most of the year.

As I said before, characterizing others as "idiots" is typically a sign of pathological narcissism.

[Tero]

It's convenient short hand. We employ some not so smart people in the police, and they can be a problem with gun in hand. But even they do not have a personal stake in a conflict they were called to resolve. If they are racist they should be fired.

The group next up, say 10 IQ points higher are your average citizen. Even they are not trained to handle a gun in a conflict on the street. At best, they can be trusted to keep a gun at home.

Throw in some alcohol and that group behaves like idiots as well. Impulsive behavior. It's well studied in Finnish alcoholics who typically stab a buddy. They get very short jail time, are "cured" and stab again.

It has to do with serotonin levels.
These yellow bars are all accidents, or some idiots hanging around together when "somthing happened."


They should not be there at all. The training and regulation of use (locked cabinets etc) should prevent all that. Idiots.

[JimC]

Seth wrote:

I, on the other hand, approach the problem pragmatically. We know that criminals can and will get guns if they want them and that no amount of "gun control" will prevent them from doing so if they are determined to do so, as proven by the fact that every nation on earth, including the ones with the most draconian gun control schemes ever devised, still suffer from gun related crime.

How about much more severe penalties for using a firearm illegally?

[Tero]

Well, I suppose 2.5 million DGUs per year might be considered "rare" as compared to 300 million citizens, but to the ones who are attacked, as rare as it might be, it's a good thing they had a gun.

NRA number. Real number is 70 000.

[Hermit]

Well, I suppose 2.5 million DGUs per year might be considered "rare" as compared to 300 million citizens, but to the ones who are attacked, as rare as it might be, it's a good thing they had a gun.

NRA number. Real number is 70 000.

And I wonder how many of those situations could have been resolved by means other than pointing a gun at someone.

[Seth]

Seth wrote:

I, on the other hand, approach the problem pragmatically. We know that criminals can and will get guns if they want them and that no amount of "gun control" will prevent them from doing so if they are determined to do so, as proven by the fact that every nation on earth, including the ones with the most draconian gun control schemes ever devised, still suffer from gun related crime.

How about much more severe penalties for using a firearm illegally?

Depends on what you mean by "illegally." The use of a firearm in the commission of a felony carries an automatic 5 year federal prison sentence already...if the feds would ever bother to prosecute such cases, which they don't.

"Illegal" firearms use is a vague term that covers a lot of ground. As it stands, the penalties for "illegal" use that is even potentially harmful are pretty well balanced in terms of severity. Certainly I feel that the mere possession with intent to use a firearm in the commission of any crime against a person should be harshly punished, and it is supposed to be and that has been the case for decades. If you burglarize a home or business and you're in possession of a firearm, then yes, the penalty should be very harsh indeed because the fact that you illegally possessed a firearm during the commission of a felony shows an intent to use that firearm should you get caught in the act. And that is in fact why most burglaries in the US are "cold burglaries" which occur when the home is unoccupied or the business is closed, and most such burglars do not carry firearms because they know that a simple property crime (burglary) that might get you a year in the county jail turns into a major felony with a federal sentence in addition to severe state enhancements.

On the other hand, if one "illegally" takes too many ducks on a hunting trip it doesn't seem appropriate to impose a five-year federal prison sentence since the crime is neither a felony nor did it involve violence or potential violence against a person.

Legislators spend a lot of time on a state by state basis crafting laws with respect to the illegal use of firearms. It's not like there aren't already appropriate penalties in place. That's what those 50,000 gun control laws are about; dealing with the illegal, improper or unsafe possession and use of firearms.