Let us all take a moment....

to remember this guy's Constitutional Rights !

http://gma.yahoo.com/colorado-batman-movie-shooting-suspect-phd-student-08594058...

What a bunch of BS.....when the founding father's wrote the second amendment.....they had no way of knowing that there would one day be a gun that shoots 100 rounds of ammunition. Time for people to wake up and get over themselves when it comes to what kind of guns we have floating around in the hands of idiots and how many of them. MORE guns is NOT the answer.

You are "preaching to the choir" here my friend. And most non USA'er have never understood the "right to own machine guns". Well guns in general.

But the few times I have, even gently, questioned this, even on LT, well...

Responses vary from "I just like guns and the constitution..." to "guns don't kill...".

I found I really can't argue/discuss guns with those people. Even though some of them seem "rational" in other aspects.

Guido.

Obviously America's gun laws figure in. Although even nations with strict laws, like Norway, will produce shooting mass-murders, American laws lower the bar.

But I think it's an open question how magazine restrictions relate to crimes like this. I haven't seen facts on what magazine sizes he actually used, but the guy had three weapons. If Colorado were like California, which restricts guns to ten bullets each, the guy would still have had thirty shots without reloading. Those restrictions didn't hinder the recent Oikos College shooter, who used 8-shot magazines and still managed to kill a lot of people and wasn't done-in by reloading considerations.

Guns are made for one thing....to take a life. He who points the gun with the finger on the trigger gets to decide if who or what is on the other end of the gun ever gets to drawn another breath. Guns are a power trip....they let mortals play God.

The more of them we have circulating in our society the more "Gods" we have the potential of creating. Hate the things.

Wow Tim, we are discussing the 'logistics' of a massacre.
I remember Himmler had those same worries when he moved from Rifles to Gas.

Sorry Mate, I became a bit emotional there and was going to delete this post but then though, "let it stand".
Wrong analogy and tasteless, but I hope my pain shows through.

Guido.

I am sorry for your feelings, but the point was raised that this had something to do with 100-round guns--something that didn't exist in the early US. You yourself spoke of a false "right to own machine guns." I think it's worth considering whether capacity is really the problem here, or just a horse-sense objection, which doesn't seem so clear when evidence is brought to bear. If the type of guns were the problem, you'd expect recent mass shootings to involve such guns. But by and large I don't think they do. The Oikos shooter used 10-shot magazines, the VA Tech shooter 10 and 15-shot magazines. The Texas Tower shooter killed many of his victims with a bolt-action. (Loughner, however, was stopped precisely because his magazine gave out, and he wasn't able to get another in before people rushed him.)

No solution is going to be total. Brevik in Norway was able to get what he needed despite very strict gun rules--rules that made him jump through hoops, but he was willing to do it and his personality was stable enough to hang on and carry through. But it's also clear gun laws have an effect. It's my suspicion that magazine restrictions are relatively low-value deterrents, and psychological evaluations and irritating hoops that people sliding into psychosis won't surmount are relatively better.

I can understand that feelings are too raw to get into what measure would be relatively more effective and which just make us feel better. But I don't think it's a useless question.

But Tim,

In Australia, after our own "worst massacre", our Conservative
Prime Minister, initiated a BAN on ALL semi-automatic guns.

And even "bolt-actions" are looked at askance.

I really don't think that "magazine" capacity or such has much to do with massacres. Yes it will, possibly, diminish the victin count, but surely it is sociatial attitude. And The USA is rather strange, to my mind.

~7

"But Tim,

In Australia, after our own "worst massacre", our Conservative
Prime Minister, initiated a BAN on ALL semi-automatic guns.

And even "bolt-actions" are looked at askance".

Yept. A really cool solution. Only an Aussie could think of that one....... But don't worry, we Americans will top it. The next time an automobile hits someone, we're going to ban automobiles.

And progress marches on...........

Please do look at my #2 post. Last sentence.

On Nightline tonight they said that our country's gun murder rate is 20 times higher than the next 22 richest countries combined.

I just wonder what it would take for people to say 'enough!'--what would have to happen, to how many, how often, etc. We have speed limits because speed poses a risk to the driver and to others that is greater than the right of the individual. I can't legally buy marijuana because of the threat it poses to me and to others but with the right identification and a few weeks notice I can buy enough ammunition to kill hundreds of people in a moment's notice.

Maybe it's our youth--maybe at 236 years old our country is just too young to be at the 'sacrifice the rights of individuals for the sake of the group' mentality. Maybe these tragic things have to happen every 6 months for hundreds of years before a group comes along and sees that the second amendment (while written with good intent) never took into account the likes of using fully automatic assault weapons to basically kill strangers at will.

~9

Yah, I looked at it. So you don't want to have a rational discussion because you have strong prejudices. That is fine. I'm sure that is true of most of us on some topic or other.

Personally, for instance, I can't imagine why people are so fascinated by team sports. Not only do my eyes glaze over, but I start entertaining doubts about the person's sanity who is going on and on about trading X and whether A team will be stronger or weaker this season. As you say "I found I really can't argue/discuss (sports) with those people. Even though some of them seem "rational" in other aspects."

But, you know, I don't expect other people to find my attitude as morally superior or admirable. Perhaps that is a difference in the subjects?

>6
There was a device found at the scene in Colorado that held a 100 round magazine...or what ever the thing is called.

Not sure the NUMBER of rounds is so important as the mind set of someone who feels the need to have a gun that has the potential to do that kind of damage. The direction of this country in so far as guns and the laws around them is disturbing. We are not aiding our boarder guards in regards to gun trafficing as it is perfectly legal to buy multiple guns at one time. We've changed our "self defense" laws to include "perception". Which allows one to shoot someone without a weapon of any sort and claim that they perceived themselves to be in danger. The NRA is so powerful and refuses to look at the reality that not everyone in society would choose to arm themselves. Those who choose not to are slowly losing their rights to a safer society.

The whole 2nd amendment thing is not much different than the idea of the "freedom" that we insist we have a right to, but refuse to accept any of the responsibilty that comes with it. We want our guns but no laws or restrictions that make any kind of sense.

>8
"Yept. A really cool solution. Only an Aussie could think of that one....... But don't worry, we Americans will top it. The next time an automobile hits someone, we're going to ban automobiles."

NO.....The American NRA will use the opportunity of a massacre in this country, to ramp up the fear of gun owners. They will say that somehow there is a conspiracy against gun owner's individual FREEDOMS. At which point they will introduce another bill to loosen restrictions on the use of guns. Given the attitude of the last couple of administrations, when it comes to any cognitive thinking regarding gun crimes in America, they will decide that loser laws are better laws and more guns make for a safer society. THAT is how it works in America. (Not to mention how much money the NRA can throw at the situation)

>10
Kind of fits with the mind set of about half this country. Never....never.....NEVER change ! We are the best, the greatest....America is exceptional ...why on earth do we need to change anything ?

2>I found I really can't argue/discuss guns with those people. Even though some of them seem "rational" in other aspects.

I know how you feel Guido. Especially where someone would seriously suggest that banning guns is in the same category as banning cars, kitchen knives or fishing rods.

>13
LOL How stupid that sounds ! BUT, people repeat it and repeat it and repeat it. Good grief !

American Family Association establishes godly causality:

"AFA Today, Jackson explained how this country has gone to shit — and why that made James Holmes open fire on a crowded theater.

--In the community there were community standards that reflected biblical principles, whether people knew it or not, the standard in the community was based on Scripture. In that short period of time, roughly forty years, we have seen such a transformation in values in our communities, whether it's rural or whether it's big city. I have to think that all of this, whether it's the Hollywood movies, whether it's what we see on the internets, whether it's liberal bias in the media, whether it's our politicians changing public policy, I think all of those somehow have fit together — and I have to say also churches who are leaving the authority of Scripture and losing their fear of God — all of those things have seem to have come together to give us these kinds of incidents.--

Jackson and his co-host, AFA Journal's Teddy James, tied the shootings to the lack of prayer in our public schools, and churches that — heavens forfend — embrace their gay members.

--I think the sources of this is multifaceted but you can put it all I think under the heading of rebellion to God, a rejection of the God of the Bible. ... We've been dealing Teddy and I know the AFA Journal has been dealing with denominations that no longer believe in the God of the Bible, they no longer believe that Jesus is the only way of salvation, they teach that God is OK with homosexuality, this is just increasing more and more. It is mankind shaking its fist at the authority of God.--

To which James helpfully responded, "And God will not be silent when he's mocked, and we need to remember that." http://gawker.com/5927974/american-family-association-news-director-blames-mass-...

15>

I don't really see the correlation. Of the 5 countries deemed the 'happiest' in the world (Denmark, Finland, Norway. Sweden and The Netherlands, in that order) 3 are also in the top 5 "least religious", with Sweden, Denmark and Norway coming in 2nd, 3rd and 4th.

I don't think losing fear of religion is it at all; if anything, I think it's the opposite. The people who live in fear and let fear dominate their lives are the ones who (predominantly) have the guns. When you hear stats like, "the owner of a gun is 43 times more likely to shoot a friend or a family member than an intruder" you can see my point. Logical people hear that number and know those are terrible odds, whereas emotional people dismiss them, saying, "I'm different--I know how to use it" or "that's nonsense". No amount of proof is ever enough. You could say they were 1000 times more likely to shoot a friend or family member--the number doesn't matter. Belief trumps evidence.

That's our country in a nutshell: it doesn't matter what the scientists say--the emotional side always knows better.

~13

How do you feel about team sports?

with Sweden, Denmark and Norway coming in 2nd, 3rd and 4th

Could it be that there's some cultural value at play when three of five countries largely share not only irreligion but borders, dialects of the same language, and culture? To heck with religion; you'd be on much better ground claiming happiness is largely a function of cured fish intake.

Incidentally, a recent Gallup poll listed the top happiest states as: Hawaii, North Dakota, Minnesota, Utah, Alaska, Colorado, Kansas, Nebraska, New Hampshire. Now, Hawaii has very low gun ownership—the lowest of any state. The others, however, are all over the map, including Alaska (2), North Dakota (10), Utah (15). Colorado has one of the lower rates--33/50. It would seem, frankly, that there is no strong correlation between gun-ownership and happiness.

>16
Well done !

>18
I think he was making a correlation between gun ownership and fear.

This seems like one of those issues that you could easily argue your way into a position that you really don't like and then be possibly forced to grimly defend that false position.

And all it takes is one fucking whack job going for a spree. I would venture that events like these are going to happen now and again gun laws or not. I really don't like the NRA as an organization--however asking our government to intervene and put an end to all our fears of madmen armed to the teeth seems to me just about equivalent to asking it to stop the flow of 'illegal' drugs--'oh, they're doing that'--you bet they are!--how's it worked so far?--the same government of ours that whether run by democrats, republicans or both together is the biggest arms dealer by far in the world.

1) there is an almost endless supply of firearms in this land of ours.
2) just about every community has its share of maniacs--whether social or anti-social--and a broad range of the alienated--coherent, incoherent or otherwise--the vast majority of which never shoot anyone--ever. And even the small miniscule % that do--well we can't even trust the powers that be in politics or social class/wealth to be any better nor the forces of law and order. Need an example watch the Marine standing at attention next to the Navy guy proudly holding the stars and stripes at the Oakland Occupy rally get shot in the head with a tear gas canister at point blank range by a police officer in full riot gear--with no provocation. Maybe the cop didn't mean it.

But I don't want to take somebody's hunting rifle away--even if I don't care about hunting. Nor do I think a person who collects firearms shouldn't have the right to do that if he's not about harming other people. It's weird to me I suppose but people collect baseball cards and Barbie dolls too.

I think he was making a correlation between gun ownership and fear.

I don't know of any way of calculating fear. Violent crime rates could be a proxy, insofar as fear of violent death is part of fear. If so, well, the data is very vexed. It seems that gun ownership is very weakly correlated with increased murders, and legal gun ownership is weakly correlated with less violent crime overall.

Some useful links:
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/29/weekinreview/29liptak.html?pagewanted=all
http://www.factcheck.org/2008/03/violent-crimes-and-handgun-ownership/

In any case, I think it's fair to say that the notion that people who own guns are afraid paranoiacs is a lot more about cultural attitudes towards gun owners than the gun owners themselves.

>22
"In any case, I think it's fair to say that the notion that people who own guns are afraid paranoiacs is a lot more about cultural attitudes towards gun owners than the gun owners themselves."

Don't thinK that is exactly what was implied.

I don't worry about any one breaking into my house, it is not a great fear of mine. Nor do I spend a great deal of time worrying about what may happen when I am out and about. Granted I do not live in a high crime area but I was totally surprised by how many people ARE afraid of some thing happening in my neighborhood and the surrounding township. And yes, most of them were very happy when the conceal carry law was passed in this state. They were happy to be able to "protect themselves" Not sure what they are defending themselves from but they are obviously afraid of something. Most people who feel the need to be on the defense are afraid of something, whether they own guns or not. However I don't believe that owning a gun is exclusive to those who are afraid, some like a gun as a crafted item, some feel more powerful when owning a weapon and some actually NEED to protect themselves based on where they live. I do believe that a "frightened" person with a gun is probably the most dangerous, other than someone with criminal intent.

~21

Watch. None of the "regulars" will pay any attention to what you just said. Much too sensible.

Oh I see 'lawcom'.

But, you know, I don't expect other people to find my attitude as morally superior or admirable. Perhaps that is a difference in the subjects?

Oh by the way, I find synchronised swimming, excruciable.

Yes, you were one of the ones who I thought were part of the "reasonabile basket". After that Aussi comment I am no longer sure.

Guido.

ETA. spelling.

22, 23>

Another good analogy is the fear of flying. People who are terrified of flying feel validated every time they hear about a plane crash. And their fear strengthens: every time they hear that a plane has crashed they think that not flying is what has saved them. In truth, flying is so much safer (on average) than virtually every other form of transportation, but the belief trumps all evidence.

Guns are the same way: people think that having a gun on their nightstand or carrying one when they walk the streets is what keeps them safe. The fear begets the belief. In truth, they're sometimes right, for you may stop an intruder or scare away a mugger who approaches you on the sidewalk. It is possible. In truth, though, it's peace of mind probably 99% of the time, and most people buy guns to eliminate threats that really are hardly ever there.

And I'm all for peace of mind, whether it be locking doors or carrying mace when you walk alone at night. When it comes to guns, however, I just wonder if the people who live in fear of not having them are really getting a good return on their investment.

Guns are the same way: people think that having a gun on their nightstand or carrying one when they walk the streets is what keeps them safe. The fear begets the belief. In truth, they're sometimes right, for you may stop an intruder or scare away a mugger who approaches you on the sidewalk. It is possible. In truth, though, it's peace of mind probably 99% of the time, and most people buy guns to eliminate threats that really are hardly ever there.

Nobody has complete numbers, but a recent large scale telephone survey ( see http://injuryprevention.bmj.com/content/13/1/15.full ) found that 60% of guns were "long guns" (shotguns and rifles), vs. 40% for handguns. Of long-gun owners 77% put sport-shooting as the main reason they owned guns. Of handgun owners, self defense was the most important reason, but it wasn't a majority--46%. Various other non-self-defense reasons, like collecting, round things out, and the survey doesn't have all the runner-up reasons. But anyway, it's quite clear that guns are more commonly owned for hunting and other sport shooting reasons than for self-defense.

In other words, if it's "fear" that grips the majority of gun owners, it's not fear of the streets, but fear of not finding a free weekend to take down a deer or blast some clay pigeons with friends.

Tim, I just can't buy into that--at least not the hunting defense. The number of guns worldwide as of 2007 put the number around 875,000. The U.S owned around 290.000 of them. We are less than 5% of the world's population and we have one third of all the guns.

Now if your hunting theory held water you would think we were out in the field 365 days a year looking for our next meal. This isn't the Congo or Botswana we're talking about--this is a country that eats at diners and McDonald's and Applebies.

If hunting were the main reason we had guns in the world they would be a lot more spread out, especially throughout rural countries where hunting is a more vital means of survival. The truth is that there are two big reasons why other countries don't have as many guns as we do: (A) they can't afford them or (B) they're too civilized.

#16: Of the 5 countries deemed the 'happiest' in the world (Denmark, Finland, Norway. Sweden and The Netherlands, in that order)...

I think it's the beer. All that alcohol for those cold Scandinavian winter nights. Outside Scandinavia, I'm sure it helps to have some beaches. All you really need is beer and beaches.

But I do think you're right to consider the effect gun ownership has on a person's mindset. Take MLK Jr. He was an absolute gun nut before his nonviolent mentors finally got through to him.

# 16 ...happiness is largely a function of cured fish intake...

Actually, some depressed people ARE low in long chain omega 3 fatty acids. :) Vitamins, too.

>28

I live in Colorado, and the gun ownership divide is pretty strongly rural vs. urban here, with the rural population owning and using guns more than the urban population. Most of my family lives in rural Colorado and I can state from experience that hunting is a very significant part of life for a lot of people in the rural areas. Most of them eat what they kill, and for some the line between sport and subsistence hunting is pretty thin, especially when the economy is bad.

I think guns should require licenses, lessons and waiting periods, and I think there's no sensible argument for automatic weapons at all. I would never have a gun in a house with children. I don't support a ban on guns, though. They are a tool that has a proper place and an appropriate use.

>28

The US has a lot of guns because, at least in the US, people who own guns tend to own many. That is, we're nearing one gun for every citizen, but in fact only 14% of citizens own guns. As stated, the majority of these guns are long guns, and the people who own them put hunting as the primary reason they own them. By and large people who own many guns do so not because having two guns under your pillow is better than one when your house is broken into, but because gun-people find guns interesting, and have different guns for different purposes. I have six computers. Some people have six guns.

If hunting were the main reason we had guns in the world they would be a lot more spread out, especially throughout rural countries where hunting is a more vital means of survival

They are spread out in the US exactly as you describe. Rural people are twice as likely to own guns as city people. Your reference to "survival" is at best an outsider joke. Although poor rural Americans sometimes do in fact supplement their diet by hunting, sport shooting is generally more about fun than survival. You will also find that rural people own more canoes and kayaks. This is not because rural people have an inordinate fear of drowning.

Anyway, I don't see the point in arguing with you. I provided the data from a large survey published in a peer-reviewed scholarly journal. You responded to without data of your own but rather with jokes about hunting not being necessary when you have fast food.

I would add, incidentally, that nothing I say is—or is intended—as a complete defense of gun ownership. Maybe we need stricter laws. (I'm inclined to think we do.) But I object when people's perceptions of an issue seem to be mostly about cultural prejudice, founded on provably wrong assumptions.

~25

"Oh I see 'lawcom'."

You know someone is really loosing an argument big time when they start sounding like Fox News.

~26

"Guns are the same way: people think that having a gun on their nightstand or carrying one when they walk the streets is what keeps them safe. The fear begets the belief. In truth, they're sometimes right, for you may stop an intruder or scare away a mugger who approaches you on the sidewalk. It is possible. In truth, though, it's peace of mind probably 99% of the time, and most people buy guns to eliminate threats that really are hardly ever there."
-------------------------------
And exactly the same thing could be said of seat belts. Since such fear is, in your world, is wholly irrational, perhaps seat belts should also be outlawed?

--------------------------------------
"And I'm all for peace of mind, whether it be locking doors or carrying mace when you walk alone at night."
--------------------------------------
I guess I don't get your "logic." You just pointed out that there really is no danger 99% of the time, so isn't it equally as "irrational" to carry mace or lock your doors as it is to carry a gun? No real danger of robbery or physical injury, just irrational fear.

And just think how much the door and lock and mace capitalists are making out of profiting on that fear !! There ought to be a law........

(Some people really need to learn how to think before they type.)

~31
"I live in Colorado, and the gun ownership divide is pretty strongly rural vs. urban here, with the rural population owning and using guns more than the urban population."

Maybe that is because discharging a firearm in the city limits is a crime? Naw, couldn't have anything to do with it.

The second amendment was written at a time when the US didn't have an army, men would be conscripted to fight in a war and so would have needed to keep their gun in the house.

Two hundred years later, there's no danger of citizens being called up to fight in a war and no reason to actually own a gun - let alone semi-automatic weapons.

>35

Not a lot of game animals in the city, either.

~36

The fist sentence is correct, and many people think that the change was a big mistake. It certain is a situation that was warned about extensively at the time that the US was formed.

The second sentence is such a nonsequitur that it doesn't even merit laughter.

~37

Granted. Probably ANOTHER reason that gun ownership differs between the city and the country side.

But tell me, are guns, in your world, only for subsistence hunting? If so, couldn't the government just "harvest" wildlife (as it does to a limited extent in some areas anyway as part of its wildlife population control programs) and then dispense the harvest to those in need? Probably no more trouble than the elaborate and arcane hunting permit programs that are run in states like Arizona.

Then "we" wouldn't have to put up with dangerous instrumentality in the irresponsible hands of those who aren't government agents. Doesn't that follow from your underlying logic? Or would you rather be shot by a shotgun rather than a handgun if you lived in the country, just because it was convenient for some people to own shotguns?

>39
It is not so much the gun or the type of gun. Not a matter of where one lives or the reason one feels the need to have a gun.
What is obvious is the mentality of our society. Which slides closer and closer to that of third world countries. The countries whose citizens think nothing of standing in the street and fist pumping with automatic weapons. Lots of fist pumping going on, no guns yet but..... The bulk of our society is sliding into poverty and/or substandard income, our Supreme Court has made it easier for other countries to elect our leaders (we ought to know about this because we have done it to other countries) and we continue to arm ourselves, how is it that we still see ourselves as "exceptional" in any way. We are becoming that which we have spent a lot of wealth and many lives to "overcome"
We can tout our "freedom of speech" but in the past decade or so it seems that there is little or no truth in what many are saying. Or perhaps we've just lost the ability to recognize the truth. Our right to freedom of speech has been sorely abused by those who prey on our "undereducated" ( a statistic that is also getting higher in the U.S.) Those who would like nothing more than to see chaos. Nothing has to be factual and there are no boundries as to how ugly they can speak. As I see it they are putting the gun on the table and whipping up a frenzy...waiting for a whack job to pick it up. We even have a member of the elete running to be our leader....when the man has no clue of the struggles of 98% of the people he will be making decisions for. How dictatorish.....not to mention that if we do not do things the way they want them done, than nothing will actually be accomplished. My way or the highway.

Guns and/or weapons are indicative of a society that has no middle ground but lives in power v fear. The powerful have guns because they want power and control. The rest feel the need to protect themselves from the powerful. How long before it blows up ?

So it isn't the "gun" so much as a society who seems to feel the need to have them......many of them, without restrictions and/or responsibility for who is buying them for what purpose. If this were not the case the kid in Colorado would not have been in possession of the gun he had. There is absolutely no "reason" or "excuse" for a citizen to own such a thing, other than mayhem.

I'm afraid we have societal problems that are going to lead to more violent events such as the movie theater massacre in our future. The knee-jerk solution of outlawing firearms on the surface may look like a good one but if we do not even attempt to get to the root causes of alienation that is sweeping through the middle classes all the way down to the absolutely impoverished it's going to be as useless as tits on the proverbial bull--sorry if that sounds sexist but I'm a little tired and weak on my metaphors today.

Again I'm going to make remarks about police. When you have city leaders (major cities such as New York, Boston, Los Angeles, Oakland, Washington DC) using their respective police departments almost in the way a general deploys his army on a battlefield against unarmed, largely peaceful protesters--lobbing teargas, nightsticking, shooting rubber bullets into a crowd something has gone haywire. Whether you agree with the Occupy protests or not--the use of force against these protesters is pretty much unprecedented--at least under the administration of a supposedly liberal democratic president. In the respect that we see those forces of law and order acting with very little restraint and being protected--and the very same authorities giving them their orders will be the same ones implementing, supervising and controlling any law curtailing or eliminating firearms in our society--it makes at least my head spin.

i dont understand why it is not a right to machine guns. it is surly a right to military weapons. what else does a militia use?

>42
Just had a Republican aquaintance tell me that the 2nd Amendment means that we have the right to be armed in the same fashion as the government.

The Republican are hawks...they spend a disproportionate amount of our budget "arming" our government. We have the largest supply of weapons in the world. Not a squeak on defense spending from Conservatives. BUT, should our government decide to turn on the people, we should be prepared and the 2nd Amendment means we have the right to the same weapons they have.....in other words they are willingly buying arms that they feel they may potentially have to protect themselves from ?

The logic in this is mind boggling !

>43

I think it's pretty clear that at least some founders felt as your Republican did—that an armed citizenry was a check on state power.

The one thing that we know for sure is that gun lovers and groups like the NRA will sacrifice nothing--not one tenth of one percent. Any suggestion that we limit people's ability to purchase stockpiles of weapons or that we simply make machine guns or assault rifles illegal would be met with total outrage.

Again, think about it: we are 1/20th of the world's population and we have 1/3rd of all the guns. And it doesn't matter what statistics you show about safety, no one wants to give up anything. As the saying goes, "In an avalanche, every snowflake pleads not guilty".

That's who we are: a country of individuals who cherish their personal freedoms so much that it often comes at the expense of society.

>28 "The number of guns worldwide as of 2007 put the number around 875,000. The U.S owned around 290.000 of them."

These numbers are off by a factor of a thousand, right?

#24--interesting to me anyway lawecon that we want to control the sale of firearms domestically so we can let the 'proper' authorities do whatever they will like we're children and they're the adults but meanwhile we have no problem with those same adults exporting this same grief elsewhere--under loosely defined terminology such as 'national security'.

Think I'm about done with this thread anyway. We know these gun shows/gun shops especially in the south and southwest are arming the Mexican cartels. Depending on the state there is a lot of leeway. We know this--or at least I think we all should know this but we don't give a rat's ass until sone knucklehead like Holmes shows up in our own backyard. We watch police and security forces here act without restraint and with the blessing of politicians and big business men and women and that's okay too. This random stuff is what throws fear into people--gets them outraged but a couple months down the road from here this event in Colorado is not even going to be a blip anymore for the vast majority of people railing about it now and neither will be any of the underlying problems that are more and more leading people to lash out.

>44 I think it's pretty clear that at least some founders felt as your Republican did—that an armed citizenry was a check on state power.

An informed citizenry is a better one.

#44: I don't see that working out real well. Several groups that have stockpiled guns have gone head to head with the federal government, and when the smoke cleared, none of the dead bodies were from the government. WWII made it clear that civilian targets are a liability in a war... or at best, they can act as a distraction for the enemy so you end up trading civilian lives to keep your military targets safe.

I suppose it does depend on the military you're fighting. The arms the Iraqis insurgents have have been a major issue for the US for several years, but put Darth Vader in charge, and the war in Iraq would be over in a week after we nuked Baghdad and leveled much of the rest of Iraq. Then again, it depends on the insurgent's ethics, too; the insurgent's continued fighting has got many civilians killed in the cross-fire and blown up by insurgent IUDs.

>47
Yeah...kind of hopeless isn't it !

>48
Well said. However I believe that there are those in this country who have no interest in developing an informed citizenry.

>49
At this point in time, the year 2012, if anyone thinks that their "stock pile is going to be effective against our well financed and heavily armed government they must be a bit delusional. If the citizens were to flex their muscles, we would soon find out what it felt like to be in Iraq after 2003.

~42 & 44

I agree with both of you, albeit I'm certain that Simon thinks he's being witty and sarcastic rather than making a serious comment. This is, in fact, the reason that I don't get that involved in "gun politics," but limit my comments to making fun of those who think that gun ownership is just a version of insanity.

Most of us, at least me, aren't that interested in hunting. It just isn't an equitable competition. We are skeptical about keeping guns for "home defense," particularly if you are required to lock them in a gun safe, and we don't expect to be able to take down an attacking swat team with a 38 S&W or even (gasp) an "assault rifle."

Since the original purpose of the Second Amendment was collective defense and defense against the collective, and since that purpose is no longer possible with "legal weapons," the Second Amendment is a nullity and has been for a long time. End of story.

43 > the amendment is manifestly not a right to revolt.

Not receiving widespread coverage was a news story this past week in which an armed robbery was foiled by an armed citizen:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/07/18/samuel-williams-duwayne-henderson-davis...

Now, if one person had been armed in that "gun free" zone, the ability of the Aurora gunman to commit wholesale slaughter in that movie theatre might have been averted.

Rep. Louie Gohmert (R-Texas) said Friday that the shootings that took place in an Aurora, Colo. movie theater hours earlier were a result of "ongoing attacks on Judeo-Christian beliefs" and questioned why nobody else in the theater had a gun to take down the shooter .

yikes

i'm making an exception here and replying to you directly, Lawecon, No I honestly believe the amendment is a right to bear military weapons. I also believe it should be removed and the most powerful military in the world should stop pretending it is not a standing army.

Actually there was an occasion once when I kept adding clarifications of my positions to a thread and found that you had immediately prior to each clarification questioned me on the very point it addressed, It felt bloody weird. and looked to me and I am sure to you as if we were engaging in a normal and civil conversation.

Now, if one person had been armed in that "gun free" zone, the ability of the Aurora gunman to commit wholesale slaughter in that movie theatre might have been averted.

A single case, an NRA wet dream. I've heard it has suggested weaponized popcorn in theatres.

#45: And it doesn't matter what statistics you show about safety, no one wants to give up anything.

Actually, no. Typically when a person acquires a gun they do give something up. They give up a certain amount of their own money and in return they get a gun. Basic trade. The gun then becomes the buyer's property. But when you say that gun owners don't want to "give up anything," you're talking about something else entirely. You're complaining about people not giving up their property rights because you don't want to give up your illusions about safety.

Perhaps the next time you expect someone to give up something, you should offer them something more substantial than your own personal satisfaction.

~52

It may well have been a right to revolt against the federal government.

~55

"i'm making an exception here and replying to you directly, Lawecon, ..."

Darn nice of you too. Particularly since your exception follows your having done exactly the same thing three posts previous.

"Actually there was an occasion once when I kept adding clarifications of my positions to a thread and found that you had immediately prior to each clarification questioned me on the very point it addressed, It felt bloody weird. and looked to me and I am sure to you as if we were engaging in a normal and civil conversation"

My goodness, I am truly sorry. Of course I don't have a clue what you're talking about, but if it "felt damn weird" and bothered you so much over what is apparently an extensive period of time, it must merit an apology.

Incidentally, I would never purposely attempt to have a normal conversation with you. I really don't find these exchanges with you to be very productive. For instance, your proposal that the Second Amendment be repealed makes less sense than a prediction that the Venusians will be landing tomorrow. Sorry for presuming that you were being sarcastic. I should have known that you were leading up to some totally crazy proposal like this one, but sometimes my imagination just doesn't extend far enough.

~56

"A single case, an NRA wet dream. I've heard it has suggested weaponized popcorn in theatres."

Pearls

>39

No, as I said, most people in rural areas use guns for sport hunting. I don't particularly want to be shot with any type of gun. I don't particularly want to be stabbed with any kind of knife, or hit over the head with any kind of lamp.

There's a middle path between completely unrestricted gun ownership and complete prohibition. Like knives and lamps, guns are useful tools that can be turned to violent ends. I acknowledge that the purpose of guns is to kill things, so they're more easily turned to violence against humans, but I don't think blanket prohibition is going to be an effective solution in the U.S. If we really want to solve the problem, we need to avoid the extremes of both sides.

>61
"There's a middle path between completely unrestricted gun ownership and complete prohibition."

Ah, here in lies the entire problem ! In America, today, the year 2012, there is no middle ground....none !

>53
So as a citizen I should lose my rights to go anywhere that is a "gun free" zone ? What about hospitals, clinics, pharmacies, churches ? Conceal carry has been a nightmare for hospitals and clinics in Wisconsin....if you do not want guns you have to post and you have to post on every single entrance....if you do NOT post and something happens in your facility, you can be held responsible for not having posted your building and if the posts are ignored you can be held responsible for not having proper security. What do you think THAT is doing to our healthcare cost ?

Did you not read about the gun toters in the Gifford shooting ? Bet not...they did not make a big deal of it but MSNBC did interview one of the men. He almost shot the wrong person. He actually said "I almost shot the wrong person" He heard the shots and pulled his gun, aimed at a man with a gun. Someone screamed at him that the man he was aiming at was not the shooter. Do you REALLY think that people in the situation like Colorado are going to behave rationally ? That is the stupidest arguement I've ever heard. Most people probably didn't even know clearly what the heck was going on. Besides, one gun against what the shooter came with ? A NRA...wetdream indeed. What should concern you is the fact that the NRA...Beck and Limbaugh use a situation like Colorado to ramp up fear and ultimately lower gun restrictions. An action I find morally corrupt in the face of all of the deaths that occured. In fact an NRA member, I know, just passed on a snarky sign saying "Colorado theater was a "No Gun" zone.......How is that worken for ya"
I don't want to go to a theater full of guns ! Where are MY rights in this arguement ?

Here is a question that rattles around in my head from time to time.

How does one reconsile the teachings of Jesus Christ and an assault weapon ? Don't know the statistics on this but would guess that many Christians tote the things. Seen the signs....GUNS....GUTS...and GOD. Never can figure out the relationship between the three.

~61

That is a very nice string of platitudes, but, you see, human beings are not chess pieces that you can simply move hither and yon. When you propose a governmental policy there has to be some likelihood that it is in fact enforceable.

A policy that attempts to restrict gun ownership and possession to those persons living in rural areas that "need" guns for subsistence hunting is totally unenforceable - unless we all have our homes and businesses searched by law enforcers and all carry papers specifying where we live and how we are employed.

Outright prohibition of guns, or of guns in certain categories, has also proved to be very very difficult to enforce, for many of the same reasons that marijuana prohibition is very very difficult to enforce, but at least there is some chance. You can then, at least, arrest anyone in possession of a gun, without asking for their "residence papers."

Sometimes one is forced to "an extreme" by reality, even if one would prefer to sound ever so moderate. You see, legislation is not a tea party.

>63

Wait. What?

I never said anything about restricting guns to subsistence hunting in rural areas.

Clarify something for me - what do you think should be the gun policy in America - complete prohibition?

>64
Good luck with that question. there is no middle road on this issue with most people who support guns and gun owners. It would seem it is all or nothing. When the subject of gun "laws" comes up....immediately they are in a dither about self defense, the 2nd amendment and personal freedoms. Have at it....maybe something will make sense but thus far the converstation ends with some one claiming that they have their rights to a gun and if guns were everywhere we would all be safer. End of converstation.

the amendment is manifestly not a right to revolt

No, but it's clear the founders thought there was indeed a "right to revolt." The Declaration of Independence is an argument for it, and there are lots of later statements supporting such a right. This right is frequently connected to the right to bear arms, and not just by the Jeffersonian wing of the Revolutionary generation. Here, for example, is Hamilton in Federalist 28 ( http://constitution.org/fed/federa28.htm )

"If the representatives of the people betray their constituents, there is then no recourse left but in the exertion of that original right of self-defense which is paramount to all positive forms of government, and which against the usurpations of the national rulers may be exerted with infinitely better prospect of success than against those of the rulers of an individual State. In a single State, if the persons entrusted with supreme power become usurpers, the different parcels, subdivisions, or districts of which it consists, having no distinct government in each, can take no regular measures for defense. The citizens must rush tumultuously to arms, without concert, without system, without resource; except in their courage and despair."

The quotes that can be piled up here are so numerous, that it's a wonder there's any argument about them. Icky as it may seem to many moderns, and wrong as the right wing may be about some things (eg., the Christian basis of the Constitution), they are dead-right about this.

Of course, this doesn't mean the founders were right. And it certainly doesn't mean the US is within a million miles of the sort of tyranny they thought licensed violence, but there's simply no denying that the Founding generation supported a "right to revolt" and understood private arms as a safeguard against tyranny. It's also true that these sentiments were often connected with popular militias—the understanding being that private arms and militias were almost two sides of the same coin, a notion that confuses us today. All three ideas—the right to revolt, the right to arms and the connection with the militia—are succinctly put by Henry Lee here http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/documents/a1_8_15s11.html .

>51 and 59 (lawecon):

In 51: "Since the original purpose of the Second Amendment was collective defense and defense against the collective, and since that purpose is no longer possible with "legal weapons," the Second Amendment is a nullity and has been for a long time. End of story."

Yet, in 59, you say to Simon: "Your proposal that the Second Amendment be repealed makes less sense than a prediction that the Venusians will be landing tomorrow."

So you yourself admit that the Second Amendment is, as it stands, a legal nullity, and yet you declare the suggestion that it be repealed ludicrous?

How is that purpose no longer possible with legal weapons? I shudder to imagine it, but if the citizens did in fact rise up against their government, I suspect whatever armed forces opposed them would be in a real pickle. The Syrian rebels have done rather well with very few guns, against a military positively geared to quell domestic unrest. Our situation is exactly the opposite.

It might be that the drawbacks of this right are great, that the chance of tyranny is low and so forth—I agree with both mostly—but are you really arguing that our armed citizenry would be ineffective if called upon to fight the government?

>68
Not sure how effective we would be if we fought our government. What I do know is that the government is rife with individuals like Cheney who had himself a man size safe in his office and a bunker at his residence. Don't think he would think twice about dropping a few warheads on area's of his own country if he felt that governmental power was being challenged.
To continue to use the excuse of tyranny while the United States has double the gun violence of any other civilized nation is a bit foolish. How do other countries manage this ? Are their citizens not "afraid" that they may fall short should they need to rise up against the government. We seem to be mirroring countries like those in the Middle East rather than fashioning our gun laws around countries whose citizens don't seem to miss having a boat load of guns in their society.

Again, it isn't about "disarming all citizens" The 2nd amendment is two hundred years old, should it not be examined in the light of the needs and safety of today's society ? There are measures that can be taken to ensure more safety for the general public without taking all guns away.

Even Mexico has asked for help in regards to our gun laws. No matter if their government is corrupt or what ever...the people of Mexico are living in hell and we refuse to deal with it. Comes back to "you can't take my gun away " "I have a right " and the "2nd amendment".....that is such a bunch of hooey !

~67

Right, that is what I maintain, although your terminology, as usual, is wholly inappropriate to the topic.

What makes a law a "legal nullity" (totally wrong term, but one can sort of puzzle out what you mean), is that its expressed purpose cannot be carried out under existing conditions. Militias, currently, cannot either protect the United States from a typical foreign invader, nor can they protect the geographic areas (once know as "states") from which they are drawn from the federal government. The fire power is simply too disproportionate.

That doesn't mean that a proposal to repeal the Second Amendment has a ghost of a chance of being enacted into law. If you believe that is possible, you probably also believe that people could really fly if they just flapped their arms hard enough, and the reason they don't fly is that they are not trying hard enough.

At the rate our country is going we will most likely either kill one another or the governement will take total control of everything. I would like to see some really smart person take on the issue of guns period. Maybe we need to look at how often one particular person purchases guns and the amount of ammunition. How many hunter buy the amount of ammunitition that this sad and sick person purchased. Did anyone think that maybe there was something amiss????????????????????/

Guns seem to be an issue that bring out the crazy in people.

A few years ago I was representing a resolution to the Presbyterian Church for support of youth activities. The resolution including riflery as an activity. That raised more than a few eyebrows. Later I met with the staff of the youth ministries division, and we discussed the resolution. I was asked about the riflery and explained that in Alaska that was a popular activity. I went on to say how important it was, and that when I went on youth camping trips, I brought a gun. For bears, were we to see any. (I never did.)

The conversation went on, but twenty minutes later on of the staff, who had remained silent up to that point, burst out with "WHAT KIND OF GUN?" He clearly could not fathom that a minister would even own a gun, much less bring it on a youth activity.

When I moved to Alaska, one of the first things I did was bring my kids to a gravel pit, and let them shoot .457 so they would know what it was like. I did not want them doing that with a friend with no supervision.

I own no guns, but mostly because my sons were pretty curious and I knew they could outwit any gun lock I had. I basically view a gun the same way I view a fishing rod, except the gun has other, less savory used.

First, with all the guns we have, it is amazing how few incidences we do have. (I assume that all the gun right advocates know that Muslims have the same gun rights as Christians. Were I an unscrupulous gun control advocate I would have an ad with a turban-wearing, gun-toting Muslim that said, "Akim has the same gun rights that you do." Assuming Akim is an American citizen.

Second, there is no evidence that gun control changes the crime rate either way. More guns does not correlate into more or less crime. On the one hand Colorado has a concealed carry right, but no one practiced it that night. (The fact is, I am not sure some yahoo with a handgun, who has not been trained, is really going to do a lot of good in that type of situation. But I could be wrong. I know that if I had a gun, in the excitement of the moment I would probably shoot myself trying to get the killer. Or worse yet, shoot an innocent victim.)

Third, why the hell does anyone need to own an assault rifle? Or cop killer bullets?

Fourth, why does someone need a license to drive, but not to fire a gun? (In Alaska you need to take a class to go bow hunting, but not to hunt with a rifle. I guess bad bow hunters are much more likely to just wound the game.)

By and large I think that's a level-headed post, but…

Second, there is no evidence that gun control changes the crime rate either way. More guns does not correlate into more or less crime.

You don't think there's some evidence that the United State's legal and cultural attitudes towards guns and their raw numbers—so different from other developed countries—aren't behind the relatively large number of Americans killed with guns? Sure, there's conflicting data about what happens in any given locality, but the overall atmosphere is clear, and doesn't change based on what happens here or there. The US is a island (or oasis) of gun rights and guns compared to countries like Britain, Belgium or Denmark. If the US were like Europe—and spent decades going after all the guns already out there—I can't imagine it wouldn't cut down on gun violence. (Excepting violence against the officers sent out to confiscate all the guns.)

>70 (lawecon): "totally wrong term, but one can sort of puzzle out what you mean"

You were the one who introduced the term "nullity" (in post 51), so if it's the "totally wrong term", why did you use it in the first place? How is it, precisely, that "my terminology, as usual, is wholly inappropriate to the topic"? I simply asked whether your initial statement about the "nullity" of the Second Amendment warranted the smug dismissal of Simon's suggestion of repeal. After all, I regularly see measures on the ballot to repeal laws that are no longer applicable or seem absurd (favorites from a few years back when I lived in Colorado were regulations against spitting on the sidewalk and having horses on the second story of a building).

Your condescension towards those of us who haven't gone to law school and thus don't use the language of lawyers in discussing the law seems inconsistent, given that you have in the past scoffed at me (for example) for insisting on the technicalities of theological language.

Rather than muddying the waters with condescension, you could simply address the issue at hand.

nods plenty of evidence that many people then and now believe that there are times and places when revolt is appropriate, indeed I could point to say North Korea as a place I think it appropriate today.

What has that got to do with it being constitutional? what more specifically has an amendment concerning a citizens obligation to defend the state, got to do with revolution.

I known of nothing in the constitution that enshrines a rebellion armed or otherwise.

Rebellion is an unconstitutional act. That was one of the things decided in your civil war.

What has that got to do with it being constitutional? what more specifically has an amendment concerning a citizens obligation to defend the state, got to do with revolution.

It's simple. Read the Henry Lee passage ( http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/documents/a1_8_15s11.html ). It's one of many. The Founders understood gun ownership as not merely a check on foreign invasion, but as a check on tyranny. Militias were not there merely to "defend the state," but to defend the people from tyranny. The two were not equivalent. If the US ever slipped into tyranny, armed citizens and their militias would rise up—just as they had during the American revolution, surely the singular event in all the Founders' lives.

I don't ask you to agree, or to think this thinking isn't dated. But it was a commonplace of Founding discourse.

~74

I did address the issue you asked about, Nathaniel.

I am sorry that you continually want to address topics regarding which you have no knowledge and concerning which you don't know the language. But here again is an example. You asked a question. I gave you a straightforward answer. You are obviously so lost that you don't even realize that there was an answer.

I am sorry, Nathaniel, but your apparent great need to be respected simply doesn't match up with your willingness to do some work before you start to type. You don't need a law degree. You just need to be able to think before you type and listen when someone responds to you. You don't do either. Having a "conversation" with you is like attempting to talk sense to a recording - a recording that just repeats a certain slogan over and over again, in the apparent conviction that repetition and a feeling of certainty is what constitutes wisdom and truth.

#73

I was being provincial. I have not seen the stats vis a vis other nations, except that our crime rate is higher. But within the US, when there is a change in gun laws (like instituting concealed carry laws) there is little difference.

I would accept that one of the contributing factors of the US crime rate overall is the proliferation of guns.

As do many Europeans I sigh at the inability of America to do something about the second amendment, It is I believe as inappropriate to modern times, as Sharia law.
And it worsened by the the modern court interpretation, that effectively make its opening irrelevant.
that you are presently incapable of dealing with it does not mean you should not, and who knows in a century or two you might able to.

>77: Apparently, this is going to be a merry-go-round. Yes, you did answer my question in 70, to the effect that repeal is not a realistic political action at this time.

My point in 74 was to call you out on the gratuitous condescension that accompanied that answer. You have yet to explain what was "inappropriate" about me quoting you on the "nullity" of the Second Amendment -- instead, you lambast me for not doing my research ahead of time. You read into this some pathology of "needing to be respected", even though the pathology here would seem to be yours -- it's not enough for you to answer a question asked of you; no, you need to belittle the person asking the question for their "wholly inappropriate language".

I'm also not entirely sure what the "slogans" you refer to are. So let's try this again. Without condescension, could you simply answer the following question: what "slogan" do I repeat ad nauseam, without actually engaging in conversation?

77> I haven't read such a condescending load of tripe as that in a long time.

>78

Right. Fair enough.

to do something about the second amendment

Is the problem really the Second Amendment, though? The court has said that, while you can't ban guns outright, you can set up all sorts of justifiable requirements. If you had the political will, you could make guns hard to get, and the people who got them would be trained and sane.

~81

Well, I'll try to be more condescending and employ more tripe in the future so that your standards will become higher.

>72

Exactly. Nice to hear another moderate voice.

Some of what we need to do on guns:

1. Require classes and a license to buy a gun or ammunition.
2. Limit the types of guns for sale at the local gun shop - automatic weapons are not a justifiable purchase, and don't bother 2nd Ammendmenting about it.
3. Teach some courage. Life is full of risk and a carrying a gun won't protect you from 98% of it. Guns are useful in limited circumstances and are an actual liability in the wrong situation.
4. Teach rational thinking, reasonable caution and planning - I'd bet on brains over guns to get me out of almost any situation, and I've talked myself out of being raped, so I have some experience to back me up.

This is just a start, and I'd expect some constructive commentary could (and should) be made, but this is where we need to meet, rather than wasting our time being deadlocked by absolutist thinking.

#62: I don't want to go to a theater full of guns ! Where are MY rights in this arguement ?

This is why there's no middle ground. All sorts of weirdos think they have a "right" to take away others' rights just to satisfy their own neocon paranoia. Everybody's automatically a suspect even if they haven't hurt anyone. Like I've said before, the hippies in Vermont get along just fine with the right to concealed carry without a permit. If they can handle it, then you don't have an excuse for not being able to.

Helcura>

One that you did not mention is that the government should study patterns: when someone buys repeated rounds of ammunition over the course of weeks or months shouldn't they be allowed to investigate? After all, they can tap phone calls for "national security"--how is this any different?

Arctic Stranger>

The license idea is great but I'll go one further: why don't gun owners have to carry insurance? I need insurance for my car because of it's potential to do damage, either to other things or to other people. Cars aren't even INTENDED to kill people yet there's the government, telling me that someone has to take responsibility should I make a mistake. How are guns different?

If insurance were required, the seller or provider of a gun would share responsibility if and when someone used that gun. If someone used it uninsured, the records could trace it back to the owner the same way my insurance company would have to pay if someone stole my car from my driveway and ran someone over. We do it with alcohol: if someone gets drunk and kills another driver we can go back and hold the bar or the bartender partly responsible. Imagine how the market might change if Walmart knew that selling a weapon to the wrong person could lead to legal repercussions.

I think insurance is the answer because it would make everything traceable to a large degree. Bob would not lend his gun to a friend because it would be HIS name at risk--that gun and everything it did would be traced back to its owner. Bob would lock up his gun because if it got stolen it would be HIS responsibility--his rates would go up or his attempts to get insurance would be denied in the future Companies would not sell to the uninsured because they would lose their license if they were caught. No, gun insurance would not solve the problem entirely, but (along with licenses) it would be a good first step.

>86

Oh, I like the insurance idea! I hadn't thought of that.

I agree on tracking patterns as well - if the seller had to record the person's license each time ammunition was purchased, it would provide a good paper trail and a chance to intervene before a tragedy occurred.

I'd rather have rules than grant the government the right to poke into legal transactions I make, looking for patterns and "intervening."

I don't have a problem with the FBI investigating when someone buys a whole lot of explosives and the purchase of a whole lot of ammunition strikes me as a similar situation. One of the hardest things when dealing with the mentally unstable is to determine when that person's freedom to be weird is superceeded by their danger to others or to themselves. My experience is mostly with the suicidal, but each time I've lost someone, I've wished that I had had some clue that they were at the point of no return.

But again, Tim, they can already listen to phone conversations or track emails if they think you pose a threat to national security. If they see patterns that look suspicious, what the hell's the difference?

It's funny because I'm not allowed to drive a car at 130 mph because experts have determined that that is too great a risk to myself and to others. t doesn't matter if I can prove that I can drive that fast without crashing, because with speed, odds are based on likelihood, not individual performance.

Yet with guns, statistics could show how you are more likely to shoot a person (or the wrong person) if you own one and it doesn't matter: with guns, odds are based on individual performance, not likelihood.

I just think it's odd that two very serious risks are treated with completely opposite sets of rules.

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2012/07/24/87-gun-deaths-a-day-why-the-col...

When automobile accidents became a life threatening issue, we took steps to try to save as many lives as possible. We did not take cars away from individuals, we passed seat belt laws. When head trauma became the leading cause of death for those who ride motorcycles we passed helmit laws, of course many bike enthusiests would rather NOT so the law was over turned eventually, but the point being we took steps to try and fix a problem. This did not mean that motorcycles were seized by the government. Our failure to do anything regarding gun issues seems a bit crazy, and to quote a document that is 200 years old as a reason to allow everything and anything that has been invented since the document has been written is not only extremely short sighted, it is horribly selfish. One simply can not be thinking of anyone much at all except supporting a 200 yr old "right" that has given this country a bit of a reputation as being quite violent and extremely pig headed about "our right to bear arms"

http://news.yahoo.com/photos/the-city-of-gath-1310145881-slideshow/undated-photo...

This is NOT defending yourself......Jason is correct, if you made as many suspicious calls or sent the same amount of credibly threatening emails....you would find yourself being investigated.

But again, Tim, they can already listen to phone conversations or track emails if they think you pose a threat to national security. If they see patterns that look suspicious, what the hell's the difference?

I think those powers are already considerably more than a free society should permit. So, I can't follow where you're going here. Even if I did, however, national security (when it really is national security) is a higher-order problem for good reason.

because with speed, odds are based on likelihood, not individual performance

I don't agree with your starting premise, but I also don't think this is true. Driving accidents are highly variable according to skill—some people drive well, some don't. If everyone drove well, we could raise the speed limit. If everyone drove worse, we should lower it. The existing numbers are a compromise.

~89

Would you care to quantify "a whole lot of" for us?

84> I believe that automatic weapons are already illegal to own. Perhaps you mean semi-automatic guns?

86> I'm pretty sure that if you lent your handgun to a friend and he used it to kill someone that you'd have some liability. I'm not sure that people lending each other guns is a significant part of the problem anyway.

93>

You use the term 'free society' like it's an end all and that every little law or rule or regulation chips away at that freedom. This is a slippery slope argument at it's finest. In the end, you're afraid that every little concession will be one step closer to giving up the store.

Because if you look at the big picture you can clearly see that an individual shouldn't have access to assault rifles and magazines that hold hundreds of rounds of ammunition--at least not in a civilized society. If you could get John Adams and Thomas Jefferson and Alexander Hamilton in a room and show them how weapons are used (vs). their need to protect us from government control I think they'd admit that this amendment is outdated--if anything, at the very LEAST it needs to be adjusted so as to protect common people from themselves.

I don't know why so many people think that's such a bad thing--that making changes and adjustments to the second amendment is horrific. Our founding fathers, in all their wisdom, could not foresee the likes of people carrying uzis out in public. If anything, I think they'd be more surprised at our stagnation, our inability to make changes based on circumstance.

Access to certain weapons (for regular citizens) should be abolished and the government should be able to (under certain, definable circumstances) trace and/or investigate individuals based on certain patterns. This argument is no longer about a man's right to protect himself from government takeover, frankly.

This argument is no longer about a man's right to protect himself from government takeover, frankly.

it never was, that is is the constitutions job.

Sorry, I haven't read many of the preceding posts. Keep that in mind.

You might be surprised to learn that a conservative like myself is in favor of better gun control. But that's not what the Aurora killings are about. Not sin or evil, not video games or gun control, not society's fault. It's one man's abnormal psychology. But you can't force a person to get help, to take meds, or to keep taking meds without stopping. Mass killings like this will continue to occur, they always have, no matter what anyone does.

>98: "Mass killings like this will continue to occur, they always have, no matter what anyone does."

Except that a few centuries ago, it was a lot harder for a single person to walk into a crowd and come out the other side with 12 dead and 58 wounded.

(99) Probably because the crowd was armed too.

#98: But you can't force a person to get help, to take meds, or to keep taking meds without stopping.

Actually, I'm pretty sure you can. I'm not sure it's relevant here, but I find the lack of political will to take care of the insane frustrating.

#100: Oh, I'm sure they carried those muskets around everywhere. A few centuries ago, there wasn't a ranged weapon in the world that could fire multiple shots in succession without reloading; for one man to get off 80 shots would be quite difficult.

>100
Really ? Are you serious ? Pehaps they may have run out of powder and bullets ? Geez.....amazing. NRA Brainwashing ! ....are people not able to recognize what they sound like ?

Seems a bit odd don't you think that I am coming from a non Christian stance here and I would love to see a kinder gentler society. The gun culture is about power and death... can white wash it you want but the person with the gun is "god" when they pull the trigger. Don't think people should have that power, many people can not handle that kind of power.

Coming from a "Born Again"....everyone should carry guns if they so desire....a whole bunch of god wanna be's. Can argue all you want about "protecting" one's self but the less guns there are available the fewer times one would feel the need to protect themselves. Period ! Quite simple !

>101
"Oh, I'm sure they carried those muskets around everywhere. A few centuries ago, there wasn't a ranged weapon in the world that could fire multiple shots in succession without reloading; for one man to get off 80 shots would be quite difficult."
Seems to be a dark hole when it comes to these pesky little details. Guess there are those who feel entitled to ignore what they want to ignore, make up what they want to make up and insist that all of it is based in reality.

Peter Damian, On the Use of Violence:

For what is more certainly contrary to Christian Law than repaying injury with injury? Where, I ask, are all the proclamations of Scripture? Where are the Lord’s own words: “When a man takes what is yours, do not demand it back?” (cf. Luke, 6:30). And if we are not allowed to take back the very things that were stolen from us, how is it permissible in their regard to seek revenge and to inflict wounds in retribution? There is also this in Scripture: “If someone slaps you on the right cheek, turn and offer him your left. If he makes you go one mile, go with him two. If he takes away your shirt, let him have your coat as well” (cf. Matthew 5:39-41).

On the evidence of Luke the evangelist we learn that, when the Lord was on his way to Jerusalem, the disciples set out and went into a Samaritan village to make arrangements for him (Luke 9:52). But when the Samaritans would not have them, James and John were angry and, letting human nature have its way, they said, “Lord, may we call down fire from heaven to burn them up, as Elijah did?” (Luke 9:54 and 2 Kings 1:10-12). But he turned and rebuked them: “You do not know,” he said, “to what spirit you belong; for the Son of Man did not come to destroy men’s lives but to save them” (Luke 9:55-56). And then he continued thus: “And when they went on to another village,” as if he were saying, not in so many words, but by his actions, “Do not seek revenge” (Romans 12:19); or rather, what he himself said, “when you are persecuted in one town, take refuge in another” (Matthew 10:23).

Evidently, our Savior’s earthly life, no less than his preaching, is for us the Gospel and his proposal for the direction in which our life should progress. And so, just as he overcame all obstacles of a world gone mad, not by threats of dire punishment but by the insuperable majesty of his resolute patience, he taught us in this way to bear quietly this rabid world, rather than to take up arms or to answer him who harms us with injuries.

Truly, among all of the gems of virtue that Our Savior brought when he came from heaven, two have been shone to sparkle more clearly and brightly: charity and patience. He expressed these first in himself, and then taught us that we should be stamped with them as well. Of charity, the Apostle says, “Because of the great love with which God loved the world, he sent his Son” (Ephesians 2:4 and John 3:16); and of patience he writes, “Whatever things have been written, were written for our learning, that through patience and the comfort of the scriptures, we might have hope” (Romans 15:4). For by charity the Son of God came down from heaven, and by patience he truly overcame the devil. Armed with these virtues, the founding apostles built Holy Church and with their help, its champions, the holy martyrs, triumphantly suffered various kinds of death. If, therefore, it is never permitted to take up arms in defense of the faith by which the universal Church lives, how may armored hosts revel in bloodshed for the sake of the earthly and transitory possessions of the Church? Moreover, if when holy men prevailed, they never killed heretics and idolators, but instead refused to flee death at their hands for the sake of the Catholic faith, how can a Christian wage war against a Christian over the loss of trivial things, since he is not unaware that the other was also redeemed by the blood of Christ?

--From Peter Damian: Letters 61-90, pp. 303-308

You use the term 'free society' like it's an end all and that every little law or rule or regulation chips away at that freedom. This is a slippery slope argument at it's finest. In the end, you're afraid that every little concession will be one step closer to giving up the store.

No, not at all. Indeed what I said was so brief I'm surprised you can find any argument in it. But, although I'm not inclined to get into a big honking argument over it now, I do think that current surveilance is too general, too powerful, too little responsive to legal change and too scary overall.

I do not object to a law permitting wiretaps, but when police nationwide inquired into the cellphone records of over 1.3 million citizens--a large percentage of the requests coming without a warrant--something is wrong. And that's not even counting what federal agencies do, and the unprecedented, often secret data-mining that they engage in, all with scant legal basis. I don't want to exaggerate things, but yeah, I think we're going down a very dangerous road, with no obvious road-blocks I can see.

104>

Again, you use words like 'scary' and phrases like 'without a warrant' and 'current surveillance is too powerful' --all terms to imply that our freedom is threatened. You add, "I think we're going down a very dangerous road, with no obvious road blocks" There's a more common way of saying that--we're headed down a slippery slope.

Go back to my original premise: do you think citizens should have the right to buy assault rifles? Better yet, do you any changes should be made to the second amendment, yes or no?

To say that, if you get a tattoo, you'll soon be chopping off fingers, is a slippery-slope argument.

To say that you might want to reconsider swimming naked at night off the barrier reef with raw steaks tied to your ankles is not a slippery-slope argument. It's a "that's dangerous!" argument.

Just an historical note I'd like to throw into this discussion. Before the Civil War, guns were actually quite expensive, and not all families in the U.S. had one. If they did, chances are it was one passed down from a previous generation, and was old and outdated. But that changed with mass production. Suddenly, guns became cheap-- and plentiful. Your founding fathers probably didn't foresee that there would be a day when anybody and everybody could afford a gun (even ranch hands, or 'cowboys' as they called themselves).

Incidentally, the most common murder weapon in the U.S., pre-Civil War? An ax.

~107

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arming_America,_The_Origins_of_a_National_Gun_Cultu...

#96: Access to certain weapons (for regular citizens)...

Interesting. I see what you did there. I bet I can do you one better. How about you take out that ridiculous "regular citizens" clause and have your bans apply to the government too?

106>

Tim, it seems to me that your dogma is so strong that you refuse to see anything else. I don't understand what you see as "dangerous"--you sound emphatic but you're not telling me what it is that's dangerous. That's why I used the term "slippery slope" in the first place, for it seems like you're afraid that if we let A happen it will lead to B then to C then, (God help us) to D. This may be true--we do this as adults all the time: we don't want our daughter to date because she might go out with the wrong guy who could get her pregnant which would make her drop out of school which would ruin her future, etc. etc. The power of anticipation can be very helpful at times.

But what you're doing is going from A straight to D without any explanation. My guess is this: you believe that making any concessions whatsoever to gun laws in this country will open the door to even more changes which, (again, God forbid) will lead us down a path until one day the government will either have total control or guns themselves will be completely outlawed. Your solution, therefore, is to never open the door in the first place. After all, if you NEVER concede on anything, the worse that can happen is the status quo stays the same which you're perfectly satisfied with.

What many of us don't realize, however, is that some of the things we're anticipating aren't really there. Again, when you use this 'swimming at night with raw steaks on your ankles' analogy you sound as terrified as the guy who absolutely will-not get on a plane. If you were to ask these people why they refuse they almost never have evidence of how often planes crash or how many people die flying in comparison to driving, taking trains, or going by boat. And once that belief is established NO AMOUNT OF EVIDENCE matters, for they're not listening... they're not even interested in what anyone has to say, (this in spite of the fact that statistically, flying is the safest form of transportation there is with the exception of maybe walking, and I'm not sure even THAT is true.)

So I'll try one more time: are you afraid that making any concessions whatsoever in regards to gun laws will lead to bigger concessions that you refuse to make? And again, do you think any changes should be made to the second amendment?

107>

Madpoet, that is fascinating! It makes for great trivia, first of all (what was the most common weapon prior to guns) but it also explains how you don't always need laws: sometimes price determines who's in and who's out. That's our culture in a nutshell, really: since we can't risk being accused of discriminating anyone we can simply design systems so that certain people are automatically priced out. In essence, perhaps you're right: maybe our founding fathers couldn't foresee what problems the second amendment might cause because they simply could never imagine guns being in the hands of anyone except the very rich.

Just an historical note I'd like to throw into this discussion. Before the Civil War, guns were actually quite expensive, and not all families in the U.S. had one. If they did, chances are it was one passed down from a previous generation, and was old and outdated.

Whether at first or second hand, this is a summary of the book Arming America by Michael A. Bellesiles, right down to its turning point—the Civil War.

While very attractive to some, and widely retailed popularly even today, Bellesiles' book didn't stand up to scrutiny. Indeed, scholars of all stripes agree it was simple fraud, repeatedly distorting, misreading and inventing data, which simply don't support his conclusions. When confronted about the problems, and asked to provide evidence the academic committee investigating him couldn't find, he claimed all his notes were destroyed in a flood. After a series of investigations, Bellesiles lost his Bancroft Prize, his book contract and his professorship.

See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arming_America
On Bellesiles' recent cringe-worthy attempt at a comeback, see Chronicle of Higher Ed http://chronicle.com/article/Michael-Bellesiles-Takes/123751/ and Inside Higher Ed http://www.insidehighered.com/views/mclemee/mclemee290

>108 I wasn't referring to that book. It's an historical fact that guns became much cheaper when they were mass produced, using interchangeable parts. Although that process started in the early 19th Century, it didn't become widely used until mid-Century, partly spurred on by demand from both sides during the U.S. Civil War. Until that time, guns were very expensive. Also, of course, many of the guns issued to soldiers during the war were not recovered from the soldiers, but remained in their possession (especially among ex-Confederate soldiers).

I wish I could find that table, which showed the most common murder weapon by year. Frankly, if I'm going to be murdered, I'd rather be shot than hacked to death by an ax.

>112

As that was at the center point of Bellesiles' book, gun ownership rates been thoroughly looked at, and the "low" argument found wanting. Got some citations?

I might add that "not all families" isn't the standard. Gun ownership in the US today stands at 14%, yet this is understood to be far too high, and the cause of all our problems.

As for what people are killed with, while I'd also like to see the data, I'm guessing you are is right. There are practical technological reasons that people didn't murder each other with riffles very often, let alone muskets and flintlocks. Revolvers come into their own mid-century, but even then loading was more problemmatic than with modern revolvers, and they were heavy.

>113
"I might add that "not all families" isn't the standard. Gun ownership in the US today stands at 14%, yet this is understood to be far too high, and the cause of all our problems."

You are falling into that mind set that says that the "average" gun owner is the problem. When this happens gun owners get all "up in arms" and nothing happens about what the problems really are. Multiple assault weapons, insane amounts of rounds for high power weapons, purchasing weapons without the proper back ground checks, purchasing guns for criminals, purchasing multiple assualt weapons at one time and we can now add buying weapons online. Would guess that none of these issues are common to the average gun owner. In reality the guy in Colorado with his 6000 rounds and ten guns or whatever he had, is just as much a problem for the the gun owner who has a handgun in his home for protection, as the individual who doesn't have a desire to own a gun.

The "they are taking my gun away" is a deflection...not sure exactly from what but it doesn't make sense.
For some reason your arguement has been maniputlated to be about yourself when it is about the amount of weapons owned by one 24 yr old in Colorado, the continuous supply of arms flowing into Mexico and the crime rates in the inner cities were few guns are registered to those who are using them. All problems we can not deal with because of a frenzy whipped up by both the NRA and politicians when anyone suggests there may be solutions to some of this.

~110

"Madpoet, that is fascinating! It makes for great trivia, first of all (what was the most common weapon prior to guns) but it also explains how you don't always need laws: sometimes price determines who's in and who's out. That's our culture in a nutshell, really: since we can't risk being accused of discriminating anyone we can simply design systems so that certain people are automatically priced out. In essence, perhaps you're right: maybe our founding fathers couldn't foresee what problems the second amendment might cause because they simply could never imagine guns being in the hands of anyone except the very rich."

Read the link.

>115
Would that be possible in a free market system ?

>115
We have done this with cigarettes to some extent but it required taxing them....which was government intervention.

~112

"I wish I could find that table, which showed the most common murder weapon by year. Frankly, if I'm going to be murdered, I'd rather be shot than hacked to death by an ax"

You do understand, don't you Mad, that most guns in early America were "long guns?" It is quite true that pistols were relatively rare and were hardly used at all outside of duels and warfare.

If you're having a domestic feud, it is certainly more convenient to reach for the hatchet or knife at your belt rather than get down the long gun over the mantel place. That, of course, has nothing to do with the rarity of guns in general or their price, neither of which has been demonstrated, but which continue to be matters of great faith.

Here's a website which states that the cost of muskets, ordered by the U.S. Army, around 1800, was $13 each.

http://web.bryant.edu/~ehu/h364/materials/musket/rev_gun3.htm

Now, the average monthly wage of a farm hand was $6-$12 depending on which state he lived in (in 1830, so probably less in 1800) according to this website. (See table, page 453)

http://www.nber.org/chapters/c2486.pdf

Therefore, a musket in 1800 would have cost one to two months wages for the average farm worker. Today, a gun can be bought for-- what? A day's wages? Maybe two days?

~119

Did you read #118?

How many "farm hands" do you think that there were in a society where land at the boundaries of "civilization" was effectively free?

Also, I'm very curious about the monetary units used in these tables. You do realize, I hope, that the coin and currency generally in circulation in the U.S. down to the 1820s or 1830s was the Spanish Reale? You've heard the phrase "not worth a Continental (dollar)"? So how do you get price comparisons in dollars when dollars are not the medium of exchange?

>114

I'm not falling into any mind set at all. My point is merely that "not all families" isn't a very good criticism of early-american gun ownership.

>119

James Lindgren and Justin L. Heather, Counting Guns in Early America, 43 Wm. & Mary L. Rev. 1777 (2002), http://scholarship.law.wm.edu/wmlr/vol43/iss5/2 ; or http://scholarship.law.wm.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1489&context=wmlr&...

Analyzing probate records they found that:

Guns are found in 50- 73% of the male estates in each of the eight databases and in 6-38% of the female estates in each of the first four databases. Gun ownership is particularly high compared to other common items. For example, in 813 itemized male inventories from the 1774 Jones national database, guns are listed in 54% of estates, compared to only 30% of estates listing any cash, 14% listing swords or edged weapons, 25% listing Bibles, 62% listing any book, and 79% listing any clothes.

That the guns were relatively expensive is clear. So were lots of stuff people still bought (like Bibles). But people had them.

>121
Sorry misunderstood what you said then.
"Gun ownership in the US today stands at 14%, yet this is understood to be far too high, and the cause of all our problems."

Are you quoting this from somewhere ? Guess I don't understand what you mean. If gun ownership is at 14% and the cause of all our problems is, indeed, felt by someone....they would be mistaken. It isn't the percentage of people who own guns so much as the TYPE of guns and the percentage of the 14 % who acquire their gun through illegal means.
Pretty sure that if YOU own a gun....I don't know if you do or not but I am guessing if you do, you obtained that gun legally and you most likely don't have something that shoots off 50 to 60 rounds in one minutes time. YOU are not the problem. To include yourself in the issue as part of the problem makes it more difficult to deal with what really is the issue. It deflects from the REAL problem and makes it appear that ordinary people such as yourself will be forced to give something up if we look at some of the gun violence in this country.

But, maybe I read it wrong.....????

This thread at least has got amusing. The average farmworker around 1800 making--$13 a month? Do all of us understand that people lived completely different kinds of lifestyles back then. You might as well take the style out of lifestyle and money was only one kind of exchange. It's not like people were running into grocery stores for a bunch of bananas and a carton of milk. If you were a farmer you ate what you grew and for meat you either butchered your own livestock or shot something in the forest. WTF is a banana? As far as real government issued currency you might stick that in a tin can or a jar for a few months/years until you could figure out a use for it--or in case someone didn't want to do a trade for a pig or a cow.

#118--LOL. When bent of murdering someone surprise comes in just as handy as the hatchet or knife. You don't want to turn your back either grabbing the gun.

A decent hand gun costs between $300 and $800. A decent rifle is about the same.

The problem is not with "the average family." If only the "average family" owned guns, we would not have much of a problem. Occasional mass shootings from kids who steal their mom's gun or something like that, but for the most part, people like my uncle Kenny, who owns around ten hand guns, poses no threat.

It is my crazy neighbor who worries me, the man who screamed obscenities about "liberal scum" for about two hours the day the Supreme Court ruled on the Affordable Care Act. He is sane enough to buy a gun, but crazy enough to use it badly.

Or the street kid who feels the need to prove his manhood. Or the abusive husband, whose wife has access to his arsenal. (Well, maybe I don't worry about the last one so much.)

The real problem is how to limit guns to responsible users, and it is magnified when you throw in that irresponsible users can cause deaths. (A kid was killed in Fairbanks last week, shot by his friend with his dad's gun. Can anyone say "gunlocks"!?)

If they made me king I would make it harder to own a gun, but I realize that means different things for different states. For instance in Alaska, I would actually want kids to own guns. On the other hand, I am not sure I want a NYC kid, whether she lives in Manhattan or the Bronx to own a gun. Boston, no, New Hampshire yes. You get the point.

(In Alaska, when you get a pacemaker, one question on the intake form is, "From which shoulder do you shoot?")

Oh, one other thing I would do if I were king...well in this case I would have to be Q or some kind of High Lord of the Universe--make it impossible to operate a firearm while drunk.

Long story to follow:

Fairbanks police say alcohol factor in soldier's shooting death
by Sam Friedman/sfriedman@newsminer.com
Jul 25, 2012 | 5447 views | 13 13 recommendations | email to a friend | print
FAIRBANKS — An inadvertently loaded pistol in the hands of a highly intoxicated soldier led to the death of another soldier Sunday night, according to a criminal complaint.

Joshua Jordan Corona, 21, is being held without bail at Fairbanks Correctional Center on a charge of second-degree murder for allegedly shooting Jawaun Collins, 19, early Sunday morning in the presence of four witnesses at a South Fairbanks apartment.

Corona reported the shooting a few minutes after midnight at his home at 1313 22nd Ave., No. 11, but initially told police Collins accidentally shot himself, according to the criminal complaint Fairbanks police filed Tuesday against Corona.

When police arrived they found Collins was already dead from a gunshot wound to the head. Police said Corona’s wife also said Collins shot himself.

Later Sunday morning, the Army Criminal Investigation Division contacted Fairbanks police to say two witnesses had come forward with a different account.

The witnesses, who both went to basic training with Collins and Corona, said they had been at Corona’s home the night before. They reported Corona was carrying a pistol as he came out of a bedroom with Collins and said they saw Corona put the gun to Collins head and pull the trigger.

One of the witnesses reported Collins “made a statement to Corona that he should just shoot him in the head,” police said.

Both witnesses said Corona appeared to be clearing a jam from the gun before firing and one witness said Corona might have taken the magazine out the pistol.

Police later spoke with Corona’s wife again and said she admitted fabricating the story about Collins accidentally shooting himself in the head. She said she was the only sober person in the apartment Saturday night and she had seen Collins and Corona come out of the bedroom and heard Collins tell Corona to shoot him, according to police. She said Collins got down on his knees and Corona ejected a round from the gun and shot Collins in the head.

Her husband did not believe the gun was loaded when he pulled the trigger, she said. After the shooting, she told police, she picked up the gun with a towel and took out the magazine.

Police reported finding two unspent rounds on the floor but weren’t able to recover the casing from the shot that was fired.

Police interviewed Corona again Sunday night. He said he was very intoxicated at the time of the shooting but remembered clearing the pistol and believing it was not loaded, according to charging documents.

“He recalled Collins being ‘lower’ than him and the feel of the recoil of the pistol in his hand,” police said.

Police arrested Collins Monday afternoon. At his arraignment Tuesday afternoon, Corona broke into tears when Magistrate Kirk Schwalm asked him if he had read the charges against him. Corona said he had just read the first line.

>113 Actually, according to a 2011 Gallup poll, 47% of respondents said they 'have a gun on their property'.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/150353/self-reported-gun-ownership-highest-1993.aspx

~127

I believe that the following quotation from this article is well taken:

"The new result comes from Gallup's Oct. 6-9 Crime poll, which also finds public support for personal gun rights at a high-water mark. Given this, the latest increase in self-reported gun ownership could reflect a change in Americans' comfort with publicly stating that they have a gun as much as it reflects a real uptick in gun ownership."

Polls of this sort are usually very unreliable indicators of reality, and small movements in such poll results mean nothing.

127, 128>

I'm surprised this poll doesn't tell us what percent has just handguns, what percent has just hunting guns (like rifles and shotguns) and what percent has both.

My guess is that the industry wants to imply it means "guns to protect yourself" because the higher that percentage is the more it suggests that it's really necessary for everyone to have one.

~129

What ARE you talking about?

The more we believe that guns protect us the more guns are sold. Sellers want us all to think that guns are the solution to our problem, not the problem itself. So even if that poll was not conducted by the gun industry itself, they like to use it to suggest that America is very happy with the status quo and being against guns is the exception, not the rule.

>128

So, before, gun owners were underreporting having guns, and now they are more comfortable with telling the truth about having them? Or so the pollsters speculate.

If you look at past Gallup polls, the numbers are fairly consistent, which suggests the polls are reliable.

Tim, if you don't mind my asking, where did you get your 14% gun ownership statistic?

>122

I wonder, though, how reliable probate records are, in gauging gun ownership. In fact, according to this website, only 25% of estates in the U.S. were probated, prior to 1900.

http://www.byub.org/ancestors/records/probate/intro.html

Are those households representative? As Lawecon will no doubt verify, poor individuals are less likely to make a will than wealthy ones. Even today, 66% of Americans do not have a will. So most of those estates are probably from middle or upper income households.

But probate records also show estates that are intestate (without a will), you say. Yes, but only those estates which are contested, right? Or large enough to attract the notice of the court. Again, this would preclude most poorer estates.

So, do the probate records reveal gun ownership in society generally, or just in wealthier families?

~133

Yes, that may go to accuracy, but it doesn't seem intuitively to cut one way rather than the other. Helcura in this thread argues that guns are just fine for subsistence hunting but should be restricted for any other use. While that point strikes me as somewhat silly in today's debate, it does point out that the most basic use of a gun in an environment where there is a vast wilderness and lots of available game animals is to feed oneself and ones family. From that perspective the most poor - those who moved out to the edges of civilization, because they couldn't "make it" in civilization, would be most likely to have a long gun.

~131

Cool, haven't heard such paranoid political economy in years.

Let's see if I understand.

Producers create demands for their products, by, for instance, rigging polls that they or someone else conducts. Presumably all pollsters and all researchers, except in the case of certain and indisputable knowledge, like that concerning global warming, are up to be bought and are bought.

Consumers buy products because of their popularity (the trendiness of the product) not because there is some basic function for the product.

Remarkable. I have, of course, heard that before, but only in the late 1950s and only about tailfins on automobiles The Affluent Society.

>133

I don't frankly know, but suspect it's a fraught topic. We should ask jbd1 to weigh in on the use and abuse of probate records in social history. I'm sure he's quite knowledgeable insofar as scouring probate records for books is one of his chief occupations.

#131: So even if that poll was not conducted by the gun industry itself, they like to use it to suggest that America is very happy with the status quo and being against guns is the exception, not the rule.

As if you're not happy with the status quo? Why else did you claim in #96 that assault weapon bans should only apply to "regular citizens" when the bulk of the most serious artillery is the hands of a government who makes the Aurora shooting seem like a slow night?

Lunar>

I myself am NOT happy with the status quo. Regular citizens shouldn't have access to certain guns because for one, it's not serving the purpose they're claiming. If people want protection from burglars or while walking the street at night a regular handgun will suffice; having assault rifles or guns that hold hundreds of rounds of ammunition goes beyond the need of personal safety.

I like how some people want to regulate what a law abiding citizen can do, when the issue isn't the law abiding citizen, but those who are breaking the existing gun laws.

If someone like the joker in Aurora broke the existing laws to massacre movie goers, how is another law or confiscation of guns going to help? Those that are ignoring the current gun laws aren't going to obey the new ones, are they?

>140: But fuzzi, if the type of assault weapons that Holmes used (essentially the civilian version of the AK-47) are made illegal (which they were under the Federal Assault Weapons Ban until it was allowed to expire in 2004) it becomes far, far more difficult to obtain them. Holmes would have had to go to far greater lengths to acquire the weapon, and in the process, undertaken far more risks of getting caught.

Let me put it this way: why are you opposed to banning semi-automatic machine guns? What possible use do you envision for these assault weapons other than killing lots of people?

#140: I like how some people want to regulate what a law abiding citizen can do

That's what laws do. It's amazing how people want to regulate marijuana because people drive high, when that's separately illegal. Making it more difficult for people to obtain guns legally should make it harder for them to find their way to the illegal market.

Up until he fired his weapons, the joker in Aurora broke no laws. None of the weaponry he used, including the tear gas, were illegally obtained, and since he had no felony arrests, he bought them all legally.

In 90 seconds he shot around 50 people. 90 seconds. Then he reloaded.

That is one hell of a hunting rifle!

>140 and 142: "I like how some people want to regulate what a law abiding citizen can do"

I live in a dry county in Kentucky, surrounded by dry counties -- that's right, the government here tells me that I am not allowed to buy or sell alcohol, period. And every time somebody proposes legalizing the sale of alcohol, we are bombarded with leaflets and editorials (mostly from Baptists) informing us that drinking alcohol is sinful (accompanied by a list of apropos scriptural passages -- omitting, oddly, the miracle at the Wedding at Cana).

So why is it that the government can tell me I can't buy or sell alcohol, but can't regulate whether I buy machine guns?

144>

I can't go into a pharmacy and buy Sudafed on back to back days either. Not that this is a huge issue, but I drove 3 hours into NY state one day before realizing I forgot to pack it. When I went into a pharmacy there the woman was like, "According to our system you bought some in Pennsylvania yesterday." She was sorry to hear about my sinus headache but there was nothing she could legally do--she couldn't even sell me ONE tablet and watch me take it.

That's what drives you crazy sometimes--the fact that so many things are regulated in this country yet assault rifles aint one of them.

You can't buy a 'machine' gun. You can buy a semi automatic, which requires you to pull the trigger for every shot.

I don't think the government should force you to have a dry county, but if the people vote for a dry county, then the will of the people should prevail.

FWIW, alcohol and guns are not equitable: the Constitution/Bill of Rights does not guarantee freedom to drink, but it does protect the freedom to own weapons.

Jason, I don't think OTC medication should be strictly regulated, either, nor guns.

All those people are wounded and dead, because he had the right to buy those guns.

~144

"So why is it that the government can tell me I can't buy or sell alcohol, but can't regulate whether I buy machine guns?"

I don't know. What did the leading thinkers of the Middle Ages have to say about that topic? After all, we can't really examine these issues except in historical perspective.

~148

"All those people are wounded and dead, because he had the right to buy those guns."

And the toll from fatty foods is truly a massacre. Therefore..........

#146: I don't think the government should force you to have a dry county, but if the people vote for a dry county, then the will of the people should prevail.

There's no such disjunction between the people and the government in the US. The same people who vote on outlawing guns vote on outlawing alcohol.

FWIW, alcohol and guns are not equitable: the Constitution/Bill of Rights does not guarantee freedom to drink, but it does protect the freedom to own weapons.

So? I think the alcohol issue shows that the Constitutional right to possess something can be given or taken away at the will of the people. The Bill of Rights may limit what we can do today, but not what we should do in the future.

#84 Limit the types of guns for sale

Here's a look around the corner to the future.

http://www.extremetech.com/extreme/133514-the-worlds-first-3d-printed-gun

---

via Grady Booch on [t]

#139: Regular citizens shouldn't have access to certain guns because for one, it's not serving the purpose they're claiming.

Wow, you really have it in for "regular people." Is that because you think the government needs all their weapons for "self-defense" or because the thousands of people your government kills don't matter to your inner statist? Really, an assault weapons ban wouldn't bother me that much if it's proponents weren't such apologists for the government and were willing to apply such a ban equally.

(148) No, he could have just as easily thrown a firebomb.

Maybe we should ban gasoline?

The theatre was a 'gun free zone'. All the law abiding citizens were put at a greater risk because one person broke the law/rules, and there was no one to stop him.

>154
You can't buy a 'machine' gun. You can buy a semi automatic, which requires you to pull the trigger for every shot.

You are wrong....the gun shot 50 to 60 rounds in one minute. Did you see the pictures of the guns he had ? 6000 rounds ?? To do what with ? Obtained on line for the most part. LEGALLY !

Fuzzi, if we ever get to a point where the government does insist that everyone turn in their weapons, it will be because individuals such as yourself who use arguments such as you just posted. Nothing you said makes any sense what so ever.
They also have proven that armed individuals in a group setting when attacked with assault weapons are most often ineffective.
People are dying in this country because of a mindset that says there is no middle ground between hand guns for self protection and ASSAULT weapons with no purpose other than to be used to commit crimes. Is there no middle ground here ? Another all or nothing argument ?

If gasoline were being used as firebombs on a consistant basis...than I would expect someone would look into where that gasoline was being purchased and how much was being bought. If the U.S. was one of the countries with the highest amount of "gasoline bomb" incidents, killing hundreds of people per week....than yes, I would expect a few regulations regarding gasoline purchases.

See post number 103 How do you interpret these passages from the good book ?

~151

"There's no such disjunction between the people and the government in the US. The same people who vote on outlawing guns vote on outlawing alcohol."

So, you are proposing action by initiative, and only in those areas where initiatives are available, not legislative action. Well, that is a far different proposition.

The other evening, I watched an interesting documentary, provided to our home by free satellite and courtesy of Russian Television. It was about the gun culture in the USA. It demonstrated many valid points of view from both sides, although what stuck in my mind were these two points that clearly favored gun owners:

1. Are the anti-gun lobbyists aware that there is an area of Philadelphia where if you are not armed it is a very real possibility that you might be killed? Should the father of three girls not keep a gun to protect his family in such an environment? I, for one, would not ask him to disarm. I would have no right to ask him to take such a risk until I was willing to do what is necessary to provide security for his neighborhood. The police, you say? When I finish laughing, I'll cry. Response time in his part of Philadelphia - 30 minutes, minimum. Measure the velocity of a bullet coming at you and the possible arrival of a police car to determine which outcome is probable, death or life.

The USA is a very violent place and until social and economic issues are resolved, it is rational to assume that it is likely to get much worse than it is now.

2. Many US citizens have finally awakened to the realization that they already live in a police state and it is getting worse, day by day. They firmly believe that there is every possibility that what little is left of their personal freedom - and constitutional right - will soon be stripped away, including the right to bear arms. The Second Amendment is one of those that the common man has taken to heart and gun sales after the recent theater incident spiked again, as many of them believe that the government will once again introduce knee-jerk legislation to appease the public. Take away a man's gun and he cannot defend himself against a corrupt government.

These citizens do not want their right to bear arms restricted and they are well aware of the fact that when a government purportedly wants to take an inch, they will always take a mile...after the fact, when no one is looking. An argument could be made that when you cannot trust your government, you might be wise to arm yourself.

Are the anti-gun lobbyists aware that there is an area of Philadelphia where if you are not armed it is a very real possibility that you might be killed?

I suspect that's an exaggeration. Have there been any studies done to show that in fact unarmed people are routinely killed in that area? My understanding is that even in areas with high murder rates most of the people killed are gang members or drug dealers.

Many US citizens have finally awakened to the realization that they already live in a police state and it is getting worse, day by day.

And you're going to stop that by buying a handgun? A more effective course of action would be to vote and encourage others to vote for Representatives that would repeal the Patriot Act.

158> "I suspect that's an exaggeration. Have there been any studies done to show that in fact unarmed people are routinely killed in that area? My understanding is that even in areas with high murder rates most of the people killed are gang members or drug dealers."

You may suspect it, but the people I listened to who were being interviewed seemed like everyday, hardworking people, and he shared his information in a rational manner. I tend to believe someone who lives in such an environment before someone who 'suspects that's an exaggeration' and has no similar living environment from which to extract an intelligent counterpoint.

I use my own experiences to further add credence to those interviewed in this documentary: having lived in a nice area of San Francisco which bordered on an area that was not so nice, I can state that the response time for police in that area was never swift, after shots were fired. And that is with a precinct building less than six blocks away.

"And you're going to stop that by buying a handgun? A more effective course of action would be to vote and encourage others to vote for Representatives that would repeal the Patriot Act."

You have not been, nor will you be given, an opportunity to repeal the Patriot Act. It is there to stay. Obama once stated that it should go, during his election run. Once in office he fought to keep it and even enhanced it. You can keep hoping, but it is not going to change. To believe that you have any actual effect on legislation in the USA by voting for any of the representative choices offered reflects a naivetè that would, under other circumstances, bring a smile to my face.

As for me buying a handgun - no, in that circumstance I would not. I would buy a Howitzer.

.159
Again...the leap from hand guns for protection to assault weapons. There is a middle ground. Just unwilling to see it.
Guns should be harder to get, they should be traceable like your car....if you sell your car with out registering the thing, you can get in trouble. Stiffer punishments for those who are carrying guns that are not registered to them personally. Some type of alert system when 6000 rounds of ammunition are purchase by one person or delivered to a single address.
There are plenty of things that can be done....we just live in a society which is bent on making this an "all or nothing" deal is going to evoke the 2nd amendment or scare the bejesus out of the unarmed.

(155) I stand corrected: apparently a person can own a machine gun, but not a new one: it can only be transfered from someone who already owns one. There are several hurdles to overcome, including getting a letter from a government official okaying your purchase, and paying a transfer fee of $200. The cost of a machine gun is high: the cheapest one I saw listed was $4000! Most of us cannot afford that kind of money on any collectable item.

You can play the blame game all you want, but history has shown that once the government controls the guns (or swords, see Japanese history), there is no recourse for the citizens. Those who put the second amendment in the Bill of Rights KNEW why it was important to maintain an armed citizenry.

>161
NOBODY IS SAYING THAT THEY WANT TO TAKE AWAY YOUR HANDGUN ! What about that sentence is not understandable ? The guy in Colorado bought his stuff ONLINE !

Collectable item ? $4000 dollars ? Transfer fee ? Letter from the government ? What country are you living in ? WE are selling boat loads of assault weapons to buyers from Mexico....they come here and buy them because it is LEGAL here to do so !

This is scary....cause I know that you vote. And you have no clue about this issue...none. You are repeating things you've heard about someone allegedly "taking your gun away" and that is as far as the thought process goes. Nothing more is getting in. All you need to know. You have an opinion but definately not an INFORMED opinion !

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_and_weapons_of_mass_destruction

Did the founding father's know about these ? Should we all be armed with these as well ? Saying that we need guns to fight the government is an insult to the intellegence of thinking individuals.

You did not answer about the Bible verses....are they not to be taken literally then ? Are they not the word of God ? If they are the word of God...should we not be striving to follow those verses or should we be ignoring that particualr part of God's word while we lock and load ? Don't get it...not at all.

Fuzzi,
http://usmilitary.about.com/od/afweapons/Air_Force_Weapons.htm
http://usmilitary.about.com/od/armyweapons/Army_Weapons.htm
http://usmilitary.about.com/od/marineweapons/Marine_Corps_Weapons.htm
http://usmilitary.about.com/od/navyweapons/Navy_Weapons.htm

You may want to do the math here....not sure specifically how much they have but given the Conservatives love of all things "defense", I would guess there are plenty of them...enough for the entire planet I would suspect. So the same Party that feels the second amendment is cruicial to not allowing any kind of sensible assault gun restrictions pass into law is continuously using our tax dollar...YOURS and mine to arm our government. Make any kind of sense what so ever ?

#161: You can play the blame game all you want, but history has shown that once the government controls the guns (or swords, see Japanese history), there is no recourse for the citizens.

Yeah. Who really wants to live in the hell-hole that is the UK?

Once again, gun-hoarding organizations have gone up against the government in recent history, and the results have been one-sided. Waco was a blood-bath. Given the political will to do so, even large populations armed with machine guns could be pacified with bombs dropped from above. Our best, and really only, defense is a citizen military unwilling to carry out war against American citizens, or at least unwilling to slaughter non-combatants.

#164: Once again, gun-hoarding organizations have gone up against the government in recent history, and the results have been one-sided.

All the more reason for your weapon bans to apply equally to the government. But we both know that the Left and the Right are in love with an all-powerful military.

Our best, and really only, defense is a citizen military unwilling to carry out war against American citizens, or at least unwilling to slaughter non-combatants.

Wishful thinking. All you have to do is tell soldiers in Katrina-struck New Orleans that "looters" are the enemy and the myth of the conscientious objector falls to the wayside. Maybe some would refuse. But so much about the military is about blind obedience that enough would not refuse. The "patriots" in the military like to talk a big game about disobeying the commander in chief's unlawful orders. But they only talk like that when a Democrat is president. In the end, it's just talk.

You can play the blame game all you want, but history has shown that once the government controls the guns (or swords, see Japanese history), there is no recourse for the citizens. Those who put the second amendment in the Bill of Rights KNEW why it was important to maintain an armed citizenry.

And where in the Bible do citizens have the right to take up arms in revolt against the government God placed over them?

The second amendment was also written at a time when we had a very small population. If someone came on your farm and threatened you you had no choice but to protect yourself. If you live in a rural area today that may still be true, and that's why (some types of) guns are still necessary.

But this argument that guns "protect us from the government" is so antiquated it's silly. What keeps officials in line nowadays is things like social media--the fact that anyone may film anything you do to someone else and make it public or post it online. Rodney King is the classic example: if he had had a gun on him that night they would have either taken it from him before beating him or he would have been shot to death once he drew it. The gun would not have protected him. The weapon was the video that proved how he'd been violated.

That should be the new twist on the 2nd amendment: anytime a cop pulls you over or a government official comes to your home you should be able to film it and stream it online instantly in case you're violated in any way. My guess is that that would protect my rights a lot better than owning a musket.

160> "Again...the leap from hand guns for protection to assault weapons. There is a middle ground. Just unwilling to see it.

You lost me. I have no idea where you came from, nor where you were headed with this.

~167

"But this argument that guns "protect us from the government" is so antiquated it's silly."

http://friendsofsyria.wordpress.com/2012/06/19/an-extermination/

http://www.serendipity.li/waco.html

http://www.constitution.org/ruby/ruby.htm

But, basically, you're right. The sort of legal weaponry that Americans are permitted to own today are next to useless when the federal or a state government has decided to take you down. (And you can see from the above what happens later - nothing.)

"That should be the new twist on the 2nd amendment: anytime a cop pulls you over or a government official comes to your home you should be able to film it and stream it online instantly in case you're violated in any way."

Dream on, oh ye of great imagination. It is a crime to film a "law officer" in the course of his duties in many jurisdictions http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110623/02573314823/woman-charged-with-obstruc...
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110805/16005515413/police-yet-again-arrest-so... . But you just keep coming with those brilliant ideas of how things SHOULD BE in gaga land.

167> That should be the new twist on the 2nd amendment: anytime a cop pulls you over or a government official comes to your home you should be able to film it and stream it online instantly in case you're violated in any way. My guess is that that would protect my rights a lot better than owning a musket.

Evidently, you have not spent much time on Youtube, where hundreds of citizens have been ordered to cease filming of an officer in the performance of his duties. It is a fantasy to assume that you can film a cop in the USA without being harassed or arrested.

http://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=filming+police

168>

What faceinbook is saying is that somewhere between the extremes of abolishing all guns completely and making no changes whatsoever is the middle ground--the place where rules regarding things like assault rifles need to have tighter restrictions. The "all or nothing" mentality just doesn't cut it.

As for not being able to film a police officer I don't get it; they work for us, the taxpayers, and they should be held to the highest level of accountability. Again, perhaps you'd have limits (like a third party couldn't pull up to an exchange and film it so as to sell that film to the person who'd been pulled over--something like that) but I don't understand why if I have a video camera or an audio recorder I couldn't record it. If that officer makes a mistake or doesn't follow procedure I think I should have the right to prove that in some way.

The sad thing is these rules all crisscross--we have huge regulations to protect ourselves (supposedly) from tobacco and drugs and alcohol yet in other categories we have softer restrictions protecting ourselves from each other. It makes you wonder what rules we'd have if it were solely about safety and if money and special interests weren't at the helm.

#171: As for not being able to film a police officer I don't get it; they work for us, the taxpayers, and they should be held to the highest level of accountability.

I don't know where you're coming from here, as I can't trace this thread back. I've not read any of us arguing that you shouldn't be able to film a police officer. But certainly I've been hassled by police for wielding a camera in the vicinity of a police officer, and I think the evidence supports the claim that wielding a camera in the vicinity of a police officer is likely to get you hassled, that that occurrence is not an exception to the rule.

#167: "But this argument that guns "protect us from the government" is so antiquated it's silly."

Only because you're happy for the government to have all the weapons they can get their hands on. If it had been Barack Obama shooting up theater patrons, you wouldn't give a shit. And none of your supposed "checks and balances" stops him from killing as we speak. Stop pretending you give a shit in these rare circumstances in which a murder victim wasn't killed by a government.

I'm not sure where your argument is going, Lunar, All I know is that I have never had a gun protect me from the government. I've never had anyone tell me (or even heard third person) of a case where someone was threatened (or felt threatened) by someone in the government yet--because they had a weapon on them or at their disposal--were somehow able to dodge and/or eliminate that threat. I can't name one such case--ever. Can you?

#174: I can't name one such case--ever. Can you?

Vietnam.

And don't play coy. You're as much pro-gun as anyone else could be. You just don't like it when "regular citizens" have them. But the more inequality the better, right?

The idea that the people can take back their government by force of arms is lunacy. That is at least as long as the general perception of the population believes that is has two political choices then it will continue to go to the ballot box and be divided along sometimes even vague perceptions of left and right with a good portion on the fence in between. Yes--we know there are militias running around in the hills here and there with all kinds of weapons and armaments but the actual membership--the varying degree of weaponry--almost always subpar to the forces of law and order and the military--the varying age factor of older and more out of shape vs. younger and very fit--the ability of elected politicians whenever necessary to call on an ever more and more forces--more and more technological and logistical solutions such as helicopters with infrared tracking--hell if worse came to worse they could napalm away difficult problems.

161 fuzzi " history has shown that once the government controls the guns (or swords, see Japanese history), there is no recourse for the citizens. Those who put the second amendment in the Bill of Rights KNEW why it was important to maintain an armed citizenry."

What does this mean what does this lack of recourse mean? What for example does the control of guns in Britain France, Switzerland. Where nearly all weapons are in the hands of the armed forces, mean for the citizenry,

How about Israel where guns are similarly tightly regulated, What is the common factor is it that you see in these countries? because I cant see it.

what do you see as applicable to America about feudal Japan, Do you have so little faith in democracy that you see the only reason for regulation being as a response to a tsuchi-ikki, do you have such little faith in democracy that you see the need for a Jacquerie,

That should be the new twist on the 2nd amendment: anytime a cop pulls you over or a government official comes to your home you should be able to film it and stream it online instantly in case you're violated in any way. My guess is that that would protect my rights a lot better than owning a musket.

Truth

Evidently, you have not spent much time on Youtube, where hundreds of citizens have been ordered to cease filming of an officer in the performance of his duties. It is a fantasy to assume that you can film a cop in the USA without being harassed or arrested.

precisely why it should be a right,

The idea that the people can take back their government by force of arms is lunacy.

Shall we inform Aleppo and Benghazi?

Now, if you think this is unwise in an American context, you may well be right. The US is very far from a dictatorship now, with a degree of stability and unity that would have impressed or even amazed the founders. But there's no guarantee this will last forever. People who see this as an important side-benefit of the Second Amendment take the long view, perhaps—back to the founders and forward to God-knows-what.

#180--The North African governments are really dictatorships--if you're not in with the powerful you really don't even have the illusion of having a voice. Again in the United States--the people are more or less divided between two political ideologies which are really not even that distinct from each other. The majority of Americans still seem to believe they can make a difference through the ballot box.

And no I don't think there are guarantees either but I also think that those in militias or thinking militias can 'take back the country' are seriously delusional.

If we're looking at recent movements like the Tea Party or Occupy there is a lot of disillusionment on both the left and the right. The tea party movement evolved so as to fix the current system--still propping it up--e.g. running candidates--more or less revolving around a harder right wing ideology than what was typical of republicans before and the tea party is at least somewhat indebted to plutocrats such as the Koch brothers or political gadflies like Sarah Palin or Glenn Beck. Tendency to be anti-immigrant, anti-union, anti-taxes. Republicans have more or less embraced them.

Occupy on the other hand has not attempted to work within the system which is maybe why the system has clobbered them both literally and figuratively. Democrats for the most part have kept their distance--including the POTUS--with a few exceptions. Whereas that movement started out pointing out the growing disparity between the super well off and practically everyone else it's varying protests range along a broad spectrum of local and national issues. Primarily though it's about balancing/sharing the nation's wealth out more equitably. Of the two movements IMO it is the more anti-government and though sometimes miscategorized as violent--not really. There have been no shootouts with police and the injury ratio between police and protesters has got to heavily be against the protesters.

One thing it does show me is that the democrats have lost a lot of the enthusiasm that fired up people about Obama in 2008. I don't know if that means Romney is going to win because I don't think republicans are that enthusiastic about him either. But generally from many who might have expected that Barack would have their backs in a crisis--like in Wisconsin or like with Occupy--there is much disappointment. Obama IMO is just about a carbon copy of Tony Blair more or less carrying on the same policies of the preceding administration--and an agenda that supports large financial interests over the general public. In some respects he and the democrats are not seeing what they don't want to see. If they lose in November it'll be their own fault.

I don't think the US bears any comparison with dictatorships, believe me. It's a question of the far and improbably future only.

I remember talking with a member of the Socialist Workers Party at a booth on the campus of UNC at Chapel Hill. He said, "When the revolution comes...." and I looked around and saw all the preppie kids, probably about half from rural North Carolina, some of whom were the first in their family to attend college, all of whom has a pretty promising future, and thought, "This guy really IS crazy."

Which is exactly how I feel when I hear people talk about needing guns to protect ourselves from the government.

Now, if we had an open season on lobbyists, lawyers, insurance executives...

182: The thing is, even if citizens of the U.S. had stockpiles of automatic or semi-automatic rifles, the only way for an armed revolt against the U.S. government to succeed is the same way that the revolt succeeded in Libya: for elements of the actual armed forces to switch sides and choose to support the rebels. NATO air support didn't hurt either, but I doubt a rebellion against the U.S. could count on that or anything similar.

I dunno. Things might change, but the US army is extremely weak internally. Countries like Libya have their armies primarily pointed inward. The exist to prop up the regime. The US army just doesn't. Now, if we imagine a distant future of tyrannical government, maybe we can imagine the army conforms to that. But… well, you get my point.

185: Well, for internal issues the U.S. relies upon auxiliary organizations like the National Guard. Even though they aren't as well equipped as the regular armed services, I just can't see a bunch of guys with personal longarms standing up to them for more than a trivial amount of time. I think it would require elements of those forces defecting in order to be any kind of threat.

>186

I take that to some extent for granted. I mean, even the Chinese military hesitated to fire on its own. They had to bring in fresh divisions from the provinces.

~184

"182: The thing is, even if citizens of the U.S. had stockpiles of automatic or semi-automatic rifles, the only way for an armed revolt against the U.S. government to succeed is the same way that the revolt succeeded in Libya: for elements of the actual armed forces to switch sides and choose to support the rebels."

This is exactly correct. Anything else is a wet dream. That is why one should support groups such as this one: http://www.militaryreligiousfreedom.org/

My hang-up is that this is used as a defense: this belief that 'guns protect us from the government' is the bridge people actually use to justify making no change to gun regulations what-so-ever.

#189: My hang-up is that this is used as a defense: this belief that 'guns protect us from the government' is the bridge people actually use to justify making no change to gun regulations what-so-ever.

And yet the inverse of that argument is even more absurd. "Steak knives won't protect you from the government, so there should be no objection to banning them."

>190
""Steak knives won't protect you from the government, so there should be no objection to banning them."

As far as I know the guy in Colorado did not enter the theater with 6000 steak knives. You are comparing apples to oranges. The fact that this sentence makes any kind of sense to anyone at all, is why nothing is done about gun violence in the U.S. Guns are not steak knives.....Hm-m-m-m maybe the issue is bigger than I thought ?? Rather than focusing on the danger of guns, we may have to become more elementary and teach individauls what a gun is and how it works.

>191: As I understand it, the primary purpose of a firearm is to injure and kill.

The primary purpose of a firearm is to hurl a lethal piece of lead through the air at speeds where it can do real damage to anything it collides with.

The person behind the gun intends to injure or kill.

That said, the person behind the gun is what we regulate--whether they should be given the power of gun. We mostly agree that convicted felons and the mentally ill should not be given this power. We cannot agree that we should keep this power from children by demanding trigger locks. We cannot agree that we should not intensify the power by giving the person the ability to shoot multiple rounds in a very short period of time. We cannot agree that people should be able to conceal the fact that they have that power, although that is less contentious in some places than others.

We have agreed, in the state of Alaska, that someone should not have the power of an automobile at their disposal until they are 16.

My favorite gun story: After a presentation in the Presbyterian church on the Church's stance on firearms, a native elder came to me and asked, "Do you think the rocket launcher we use to kill whales would be considered an assault rifle?"

#193

The answer to your elder is "No, since it's a one shot weapon." Good story, though...

Unfortunately, prior events seem to indicate that after all the fuss has died down, what will happen is...very little.

NO-thing will happen, Bruce. Very little is quite a lot compared to what WILL happen.

#182--said it much much better than I did and I agree but there is still a divide when a third of the country thinks voting this way can make a difference and another third think that voting that way will make a difference. In a place like Libya--voting didn't make any difference at all and 98% of the population whatever they did were behind the proverbial 8 ball. It seems to me that it takes a lot of collective suffering to get people to rise like that en masse.

Your militia man with his squirrel rifle and a bunch of his overweight 30ish 40ish friends who more or less think the same running around the hills of his own backyard is living in fantasy land.

I will point out the danger of a military 'professional' army instead of a 'volunteer' army. The powers to be (at least in my humble opinion) have in mind to gradually groom our military to the point where it can be used as a force both internally and externally.

#191: As far as I know the guy in Colorado did not enter the theater with 6000 steak knives.

Oddly enough, even 6000 steak knives won't protect you from the government. But the point wasn't to make a comparison (though the UK knife ban has to make you wonder). It's to question the logic of "X won't protect you from the government, therefore it's ok to ban it."

In any case, freak shootings like the Aurora shooting are not a very persuasive tool in the gun control debate. This guy rigged his home with explosives so it's not like any gun ban would have stopped him from tossing a bomb into the theater instead.

>197
How do you propose that, as a society, we maintain civility without a form of government ?

Hey, it's that optimistic streak in me...

I'm sure there will be a very public trial, with lots of commentary and expert opinion on how it's being badly handled.

It's to question the logic of "X won't protect you from the government, therefore it's ok to ban it."

You have misunderstood the argument. The argument is not "X won't protect you from the government therefore it is okay to ban it."

The argument is "X won't protect you from the government, so using the supposed government protection from the government as a justification for having it isn't a viable argument."

#200

Well said. I'm a gun owner, but I harbor no illusions about my ability to resist government intrusion should that happen.

Arguments against gun control should focus on property rights and resistance to civilian/criminal intrusions. And general ineffectiveness of prohibition in general.

#200: True. But such criticism only holds when someone is actually using that argument to rebut gun control which you'd probably only encounter on some gung-ho patriot website. Jason only introduced that strawman in #96 because he simply doesn't think lowly commoners should get to have any of the toys the government gets to have. But I guess the American military is "more equal" than the rest of us.

>202
Do you read back over your posts ? Just wondering because they do not make sense what so ever. Either you are totally unaware of how ill equipped many people are to handle any type of weapondry the military has at hand or you are playing devil's advocate....just throwing stuff out there.

~201

"Arguments against gun control should focus on property rights and resistance to civilian/criminal intrusions. And general ineffectiveness of prohibition in general."

Well, as much as I agree with some of that, I'm not quite sure why that "should" be the case. It obviously was not the case originally.

~203

"Either you are totally unaware of how ill equipped many people are to handle any type of weapondry the military has at hand or you are playing devil's advocate....just throwing stuff out there."

Yes. It is truly wonderful the transformative experience of becoming an inductee. One day you are ignorant and incompetent to handle any weapon. The next day you can juggle rocket launchers and play races with tanks. Thank G-d for his grace in transforming those who are taken into His Service.

>205

So I get it..there are no answers to gun violence in America....none what so ever. What other countries have succeeded in doing we are incapable of addressing. See post #202 and post #205 Sadly, these two "valid" points are not coming from the undereducated but being tossed about by those who one would expect to come up with answers rather than obstruction. Guess not in America....not going to happen.

#205

Basic Training, in the U.S., takes ten weeks. Even then, the soldier isn't necessarily highly competent with the tools of their trade; merely adequate enough to be allowed in the field. So, invocations to a deity aside, it takes time, money, and effort to learn how to handle weapons competently.

>207
NO Bruce...you don't understand...there is NO solution. We are stuck with gun violence because ...... well.... just because.
Multiple choice answer:

A. We should all have acessability to the same weapons as the military (even the nut jobs) (He who has the biggest gun wins)
B. Soldiers are gun wielding idiots who "play" with weapons on a daily basis. (Since we allow soldiers to "play" everyone gets to "play")
or
C. It takes little energy and even less change to leave things as they are and throw out inane statements as to why we can not deal with the amount of gun violence in our society. ( We get to sit on our duffs and complain about our "freedoms" until some whack job shoots us in the head)

I don't see a good solution in there at all. Obviously others see all kinds of possibilities.

I find a lot of people's attitudes towards service people to be really strange. 'Thank you for your service!' Hello? 'America's heroes!'--a lot of this is just blah, blah, blah from people who never had any intention of ever joining up--and I don't know--feel some guilt? while at the same time feel patriotic too?

From my own experience--limited as it may be--to only 4 years in the Coast Guard (McHale's navy--is that part of the military?) between 81 and 85 your average recruit volunteer was a C+ high school student with limited prospects--either because of lack of money, general disinterest in further education, lack of job opportunities--generally their outlook was dim staying wherever it was they came from. They (or let's say 'we') drank a lot and smoked a lot of dope--(the drinking still goes on--the dope smoking not so much--they're tested on that too much). A lot of them were angry, exasperated young people and like just about anywhere not everyone liked everyone else and most often at least for those at the bottom rung of the latter the ones that were disliked the most were the ones giving the orders.

Really this is just the way the world is and soldiers and sailors are just people like anyone else and to call someone a hero just because he joined the Marines is kind of silly IMO. Our asshole politicians are the ones who started this 'hero' crap--and a good % of our population blindly parrot them. Our asshole politicians also have no problem sending them out to get shot full of holes for the profits of oil companies while pretending and spinning that America's security is at stake.

To be honest as far as the gun debate--believe me the military has its fair share of lunatics who it would be best for everybody if they never picked up a gun. And we can say pretty much the same about policemen/women in this country.

>209
"To be honest as far as the gun debate--believe me the military has its fair share of lunatics who it would be best for everybody if they never picked up a gun. And we can say pretty much the same about policemen/women in this country."

Probably could say that about any segment of society.....which to my mind would make people WANT to see high powered assault weapons off the streets. It would seem this is a very nonproductive way of looking at the issue.

If one lunatic has a hand gun or twenty single shot hand guns.....he can do a lot less damage than if they have a gun that shoots multiple rounds. Somehow this is SO difficult to figure out that the sale of assault weapons in this country has done a major uptick.....which means that we are all a lot safer ? We are to assume that the uptick in assault weapon sales is NOT being percipitated by the lunatics ? Only the sane segements of society are arming themselves ?

Nothing about the whole thing makes any sense what so ever....and some of the excuses thrown out there as to why we refuse to consider a human life more important that the "rights" of those who feel that assualt weapons should be part of the American way of life, don't make a bit of sense !

#210

In a mercantile society, property rights are more important than personal rights. Therefore, your right not to be shot is less important than the right to be able to own an implement of shooting.

This isn't a 'sense' issue. Excuses are being made because most people don't want to actually say that human life isn't as important in our country as other things. Those people feel (perhaps rightly) that such a statement would make them seem cruel and heartless.

Now, we could go into a very extended discussion as to how this state of affairs came about. But this is why it has been such a struggle to put any restrictions on any weapon ownership.

210/211

I've said this before but maybe it's the age of our country; perhaps if you looked at the countries that aren't so "Me me me!" in regards to rights, you'd see countries that have had 500+ years to come to such a conclusion.

Maybe 2 or 3 or 5 generations from now (assuming we're still one country) people will see that with guns we may be treading water but we're still not getting anywhere.

#210--all very well and good but there's more angles to this than simply banning assault weapons. I have a problem for instance with those who are going to enforce the ban. Whether it's politicians or the law enforcement in it's variety of guises that are going to be charged with it.

Very little is said these days about the militarization of police around this country. Most people think I'm sure--'well I'm never going to wind up on the wrong side of the law-so it's nothing to do with me'. A so-called moderate such as Michael Bloomberg calls the NYPD--his own private army. Some people these days are talking up the democratic mayor of Los Angeles as a potential president 4 years from now. The Oakland mayor considers herself 'progressive' and was elected by people many of whom see themselves likewise--yet all of these politicians when faced with a massive mostly peaceful protest have no qualms about calling out their troops in full riot gear--hundreds and hundreds of cops dressed sort of like Darth Vader. And if or when events get dodgy--they crack heads. This is how you handle situations of public dissent today-it's a show of force (and not necessarily needed) and I'd call it intimidation. So to me this matter of gun banning overseen by the same people--even moderate--not necessarily rabid right wingers is just tightening the controls for a current entrenched system of bureaucrats and ambitious politicos that has been runing our society into the ground.

210> According to The Posse Comitatus Act of 1878, there would be no military in the streets of the USA. So, your leaders did the next best thing: years ago, they started giving and selling military gear to the police departments around the country. Visit YouTube or Google this subject and you will be shocked to see what types of gear the police now have. You don't need a military on the streets of the USA. You already have the next best thing.

As an aside, I recently had the opportunity to chat with the State Trooper who helped pull my broken body from a wrecked car, years ago. I asked him what he thought about all of these new issues with the police and their use of sprays and tasers. His reply: "When you hire goons with low IQs that don't know how to think, you have to give them weapons such as these. They couldn't do the job any other way." That is the future of the USA.

#214

I must take issue with the 'taser' portion of that comment.

Most police don't want to shoot and kill people; even bad people. Tasers are a mostly guarenteed method of taking down an armed suspect without having to kill them. Unfortunately, some officers do take that as a license to taze; but the intent (and general use) of tasers was to lower civilian deaths at the hands of officers. (For the benefit of city budgets, mind you, not the civilians or the police.)

As an unexpected result; actual criminals who used to openly taunt police (knowing very well the shooting regulations police operated under, and that the cops couldn't just open fire) have been less willing to provoke the police, who are much quicker to taze offenders. (Less paperwork, less guilt.)

And in many major cities, college degrees are fairly common among officers; the requirements of the job are becoming more demanding.

Of course, as in all jobs, there are spectacular exceptions. And departments are getting more militarized; but much of the hardware goes to the 'sexy' divisions, like SWAT; not your average street officer.

Anyway crowd control is a tactic used by police pretty much nationwide and it's not necessarily subtle and the levels of provocation for them to act are going to differ for this or that reason. The massiveness of some of these displays of power (such as the Seattle WTO riots) goes far beyond (in personnel and logistics) the local SWAT team and the many acts of violence they perpetrated during those riots when things turned ugly only exacerbated the situation.

There is a kind of hierarchy involved--within the police themselves from the Chief on down but that Chief also takes orders and is subject to the political whims/ambitions of those giving them. Police departments are well known for covering up and protecting their own. The politicians do as well. Someone like Bloomberg can give 'his' NYPD their marching orders and explain it away--he has pretty much unlimited access to the press and can control the kind of narrative that people read or watch the next morning with their breakfasts.

Generally most protests are not violent in nature. I don't think this is an acceptable way to counter free speech--literally these days speaking truth to power--which is at issue in just about any protest--even my left wing friends--tea party protests. IMO large city and state government officials elected or not are abrogating for themselves the right to silence those they are in disagreement with and the police departments they have control over are the weapon of choice--and an armed gang if you will when employed that way.

Part of my issue with the various 'Occupy' movements is that their lack of organization prevented them from making an effective protest.

The counter-reaction from the government was inevitable, predictable, and should have been prepared for. (No, they shouldn't have reacted that way; but it was a pretty safe bet that they would.)

#217--well for even someone within a jaundiced eye it was a little eye opening. They were still by and large peaceful protests at least from the protesters side. A least a good portion of the objects thrown towards the police were objects thrown back. That of course was spun against the protesters. From my perception there are some distinctions to be made differentiating the tea party and occupy protests beyond just right and left politics. The tea party being more particular in its stances--more working toward change within the system as currently constructed and older in terms of the average person taking part.

These crowd control measures though have been in the works for quite a while--at least in part came about because of worldwide protests against organizations like the IMF, WTO, Worldbank--or even G-8 summits which are even even somewhat unpopular with elements more towards the right.

An interesting work somewhat of a novel by a British writer David Peace GB84 revolves around the miner's strike in the midlands and Northern England in 1984. Much of the same elements in play in Thatcher's England and more or less for the same agenda--class war of the wealthy against the not wealthy which is spun in the press the other way around.

Its not fair the military insisting on a ten week course, those soldier should be Up in Arms a bout it. How the hell can they be regulated when when citizens are not.

I don't know the web site, but the video seems germane:

http://www.disclose.tv/action/viewvideo/109265/Is_Anaheim_Under_Martial_Law_/

Who is armed? And what is the danger?

Robert

I rather liked that episode of "Boston Legal" where a rich community went to Court to argue its own constitutional right to have nuclear weapons.

Who is armed? And what is the danger?

Two nights ago, over dinner, I asked three people who had
recently visited USA about the fear of being randomly shot,
one visited NYC, two SFC, they said the weapons were too
expensive for most people so the risk was low…

I suppose the danger is the criminal and⁄or crazy.

You are pretty likely to be shot by someone who knows you, so your friends were safe.

#206: So I get it..there are no answers to gun violence in America....none what so ever.

Of course there are. It's just that such answers don't come from people who vote for warmongers and then turn around and fearmonger about the miniscule chance that some wacko will run into your theater and shoot you in the head. But if you don't like your chances here in the US, maybe you'll want to see what it's like living in a country that has cruise missles being fired at it on a regular basis. You know, because the people firing them are "trained."

because the people firing them are "trained."

In the case of nukes, any truth to them being trained
to shoot the one next to them in case of crazy ?

>224
Just mentioned an NRA member who feels that the 2nd Amendment gives the people the right to be armed with the same weapons as the government has.
I don't like ANY weapons...not sure why you keep painting me as a warmonger of some sort. Didn't agree with the war in the Middle East and I don't especially like the fact that we are still over there. Though I don't think it is as easy to leave as it was to go.
Because I want regulations on assault weapons in this country I should go over seas and have cruise missles shot in my direction.
You know Lunar....you do not make any sense.....sometimes you say two opposing thoughts in one dang sentence.
Stop making this a personal arguement .....you are sounding more and more like the far Right....for or against YOU and there is nothing in between.

I know that it is common/expected that discussions on LT meander. But from a sad discussion about a "Gun" massacre in the USA, to citizens "standing up" to their own
Army (possibly their own kids) to Nuclear weapons...

I am lost.

Guido

#227--well because the issue is more complex than just cutting off the availability of firearms of any kind.

As for the potential of citizens "standing up" to (their) own army--whose 'army' is it? You or I are not calling any shots here. Apart from maybe 2003 Iraq and Afghanistan haven't been super popular--Obama garnered a lot of votes in 2008 at least insinuating that he was going to end those adventures and shut down Gitmo. That's not worked out well and it's not because the Republicans won't let him. He's the 'decider' now. Or even your local police department--whose police department is it? I've mentioned Mayor Bloomberg referencing the NYPD as his own private army. Just arrogance? I don't think so. They really do seem to do the things that he wants him to do--even if they have to trample over some pesky 'rights' and 'laws' in doing so.

Don't really think I'd just want to hand over to such people more power than they already have.

>227

There is a reason for that.... the kid in Colorado had in his posession 10 or 12 assault weapons and over 6000 rounds of ammunition. From what I've gathered, he purchased most of this online. Some individuals see this as a problem within the guidelines of what constitutes a civil society. When trying to address the issue this is what you get :

Self defense and the 2nd Amendment
Tyranny and the 2nd Amendment
Idiot soldiers who "play" with weapons
living where nuclear weapons are dropping now and then
Untrained soldiers and/or over trained police forces
Gun safety classes/ trigger locks
More 2nd Amendment yammerings/ thoughts on the Founding Father's foresight into today's advanced weapondry and/or the current socialist take over of the government and how to deal with it. Arms of course...lots of them.

I'm pretty sure I missed a few but it works.....no discussion as to why an individual has the right in this country to purchase 10 or more assault weapons and 6000 rounds of ammunition online....over the internet.
Obstructionism at it's finest !

These same people will whine like babies when the "government" makes a decision regarding a very real issue that they themselves seem totally incapable of addressing.

>228
Almost too late now....once MONEY became the "decider" those without a lot of it are screwed. Those who try to seperate themselves politicaly from it's influence, can not. Example ? The man running for President against Obama. All that needs to be said

#230--I have no use for Romney. I'm seriously disappointed in Obama. Voting for Jill Stein this year. She's not going to win but I'm not interested in the lesser evil route. You ask for evil--you got no complaints when you get it and we're going to get more from Romney and maybe a little less than that from Barack. So....there.

Anyway if you want to get a glimpse of massive police riot control methods--go onto youtube and google 'the battle of Orgreave'.

And it's not that I don't in general principle think that assault weapons are too easily available. I don't trust the powers that be. Give them an inch and they'll run with it. I don't think your average policeman is in a position of neutrality. They do what they're told and quite a high % of them will bash your head in if given the green light for some minor infraction and fit you up for something major if they feel like it or have to have reason to justify what they've done. The 'professional' part of the military is right behind them. Not talking necessarily about someone who goes in and then comes out four years later.

>231
Do I think that the police get out of control ? Yes I do....however, I guess my view of the profession is less jaded than yours. I know several police officers....a couple who worked in the inner city of Milwaukee and a few who are small town cops. Almost not the same profession considering what they do on a daily basis.
All of the cops I know from the inner city are frustrated with a legal system that continues to pump back out on the streets, those who've they've just hauled in. The cops have been spit on, bit by drug addicts, run over with vehicles and generally disrespected in countless ways.
Guess the mentality that goes along with becoming a mini military isn't helped much by what they are dealing with. Often without any visable affect on the problems that persist in the cities of this country. Like most of the other problems in the US, the very fact that we all have "rights", and no matter how one behaves or what one says in the name of "free speech" those rights are protected, will eventually catch up with us. To combat crime in the US is a thankless job.....

Not sure that having more assault weapons handy is the answer. How do other peaceful countries do this and why are they not "afraid" that their government will turn on them ? What is it we should be looking at in our government that other countries don't seem to have a problem with ? There are "free" countries with common sense gun laws.

Well you could look for signals. Obama's administration making a big deal out of the repressive Syrian government. We're meddling there--even so he worries about their civil rights and doesn't seem to see what's going on in his own back yard when protesters get met with police overreaction and there is at least some reason to believe that his DOJ played a part in some of the crowd control measures vs. the Occupy movement. In the meantime we can assassinate American citizens overseas now. Just tag them with a terrorist label and that's all you need. His administration has pretty much enhanced the Patriot Act tightening controls on civil liberties that his predecessor GWB started.

I would say there are probably lots of cops caught out in no man's/woman's land. This is how they see their job and this is what they're told to do and it's not necessarily the same thing but what they're told to do takes precedence. The idea of who they really serve when push comes to shove has pretty much been answered.

#226: sometimes you say two opposing thoughts in one dang sentence.

It's only a difference of degree. Holmes kills dozens, Obama kills thousands. The latter is a much greater problem. And if you think it's so hard for the government to stop it's own mass-killings, do you think it'll be any easier for them stop lone wack-jobs? I'm not voting for Romney either, but out of the two main options, all your claims about not liking violence don't mean squat when it's plain as day you're voting for the candidate who actually kills people. I don't think you get cast me as intransigent just because electing mass-murderers doesn't faze most people.

>234
"It's only a difference of degree. Holmes kills dozens, Obama kills thousands. The latter is a much greater problem."

Respect your opinion on this matter....however, it is my belief that we have cultivated a culture of violence in this country and it is not getting any better, if anything all that is going on from the Limbaugh and the Becks, to some of the top lawmakers, it is only getting worse. There is a fostered belief that the "I" comes first and things can not go the way that "I" want them to well then we settle that with the wrong end of a gun...or a devestating lawsuit, or inhibiting any progress what so ever.
To my mind, the bigger picture is a result of the smaller picture, the one closer to home. I don't know if Obama would have reacted to 9/11 in the same manner as the Bush administration. His actions with Bin Lauden were actually the only actions that needed to be taken afterwards. Dont' know enough about what is going on in the war to understand why we are still there.......I am reluctant to lay it on Obama. Colin Powell made reference to the impossibility of "putting any thing back together" once we "broke it" If we are not present now would a greater amount of people be getting killed ? We are, in part, responsible for the situation. As I said, I am not knowledgable enough about the current situation to judge Obama's actions. Knew that going over there was a mistake in the first place.

Obama may have settled the whole matter with special forces and a minimal amount of lives lost ? Sorry just do not see Obama as the "gun toting" cowboy that Bush was......or the "Great White Hunter" that was Cheney...(who shot someone in the face and has never to this day apologized to the man)

Fixing the problem that you seem focused on, to my mind, needs to start at home. when half this country shows up at political rallies carrying signs that say "Guns, Guts and God" we have an internal problem that in turn will spread itself into all that we do as a country.

Beyond all that I'd venture to guess that you can't go anywhere in this world today where there's a dispute between two or more countries, a civil war or a guerrilla movement or where there are criminal gangs without finding tons of weapons that we've exported. And other stuff too--everything from jet fighters and bombers, to guided missiles to land mines. This country is the No. 1 seller of weaponry around the world and it's not even close. Our so-called leaders are in the middle of everything. And no qualms selling to dictators either everyone from Osama to Suharto to Saddam to Pinochet. Really Holmes is small potatoes.

215> Of course, as in all jobs, there are spectacular exceptions. And departments are getting more militarized; but much of the hardware goes to the 'sexy' divisions, like SWAT; not your average street officer.

Perhaps much of it does, but a comparison of uniforms of standard, on-the-street police officers in the USA, compared to the same in Germany and France will give you another perspective. Check how many items are clamped to those belts on the USA police officer, from Albuquerque to Boston with those worn by officers here and you will see a startling difference. As the officer I mentioned suggested, they did not need several of those items to do their jobs before, and he would not consider pepper-spraying an intoxicated woman who was refusing to exit her vehicle upon his command. There are other options.

He also referenced another point that he found troubling within the ranks of police with whom he still has associations: communications have taken on an even more militaristic tone than he remembers from his time on duty.

From another perspective, it might appear to many that the police in the USA have assumed a more authoritative tone and if you do not immediately respond to their authority, they will overpower you with force, no matter what the circumstance.

As a footnote, I have never been able to get comfortable with the phrase 'Homeland Security.' My German friends have found its implementation rather odd, as well.

#237: From another perspective, it might appear to many that the police in the USA have assumed a more authoritative tone and if you do not immediately respond to their authority, they will overpower you with force, no matter what the circumstance.

Yep, typical "shoot first, ask questions later" stuff. Personally I think it began with Daryl Gates' Los Angeles SWAT team (first one in the US) who started doing home invasions with the excuse that suspects might flush drugs down the toilet. And then there's the recent crowd control tactics used by the police down in Anaheim which included siccing police dogs on kids. Culture of violence, indeed.

The Occupy protests whether you agree with them or some part of them or not at all--the over the top reaction by the authorities has very often been way over the line. Not quite Tiananmen Square but it's headed in that direction. The local governments and their respective police departments are handling them like military operations. People injured, hospitalized, arrested on trumped up or charges way beyond their actual activity. Attempts to silence the press. Just general acting with no impunity on the part of law enforcement. It serves somebody's purpose--whose?

#239: It serves somebody's purpose--whose?

Mostly just their own. When the feds provide funding for the Drug War, for example, police departments devolve to the usual "free-for-all" mentality. The thinking is that even if they don't need funds earmarked for drug warrior equipment, if they don't take the initiative to apply for the funds themselves, some other police department will get them instead so it might as well be them. And once they have tanks and machine guns lying around for those rare circumstances combined with the authority to use them... the thinking devolves further into "It would be a shame for this stuff to go to waste." It's principally a very bottom-up kind of corruption rather than serving the purposes of any particular interest group.

240> It also readily serves a government in power to have a military-grade authority in place, in every community. That is the purpose of arming the police in this manner.

Another day, another massacre. A bad day for the 18th century Second Amendment; a good day for gun manufacturers (if the post-Aurora weapons buying binge is a leading indicator); a revealing day for the milieux of the violent American right-wing.

>242
If all those on this thread, who are complaining about the "over zealous" police force, could have seen them in action on Sunday morning in Wisconsin, they would have a different view as to why they are trained and armed in such a fashion.
The police officer who was shot...had a vest on. He was hit 8 times with a repeat magazine.....he is in intensive care. I do believe that he got his face shot off....they are not saying that but at the very beginning they had said that several of the bullets hit his face.
It is lunacy to imagine that this does not affect his fellow officers in some fashion.

Yes another "hate" crime.......The Limbaugh's Bachmann's and Beck's are prevaliling in riling up the looney's. But, that is O.K.....pretty soon it may be a crime to leave the house without a weapon.....at best it will be very very foolish not to be packing !! Better be a big weapon as well ! Too bad nobody in the temple had a gun ?? The officer had a gun.....the guy who no longer has a face....guess he wasn't "quick draw" McGraw !

As for the "peaceful" Occupy Movement....don't know much about it but I do know some of the members of the 98%ers........they are wacked out....no different than Bachmann. I am serious. Was with a friend a couple weeks ago and a friend of ours who is WAY into the movement said that the government caused a nuclear explosion in Michigan and it would never make the news cause nobody was supposed to know and on and on.....something new every day. Some type of government disaster and then "cover up" Not sure how many of the these people are armed, I suspect probably not many but they are not all that peaceful at times and often there concerns are not based in reality. Probably why the movement was not effective.

#243--spoken like one who still believes are system of government works fairly and squarely for all. Again I don't see police relative to all strands of society as exactly neutral. Cops get shot sometimes. If you plan on being one it's best you keep that in mind. Cops also shoot people and sometimes it's not justified. For instance just about every year there's two or three pretty egregious examples in NYC of cops shooting unarmed people (often people of color) and causing a real shitstorm. LA is another place like that. Now you don't have to see these things the same as I do--there's really no possibility that you should expect complete agreement and if you can't handle alternative views--I'm sorry.

As far as what constitutes being whacked out--deciding on that is a personal thing. Interesting though the shooter in this case apparently was recently discharged from the military and it brought to mind your short exchange with lawecon--#203 and #205. I know some cops too--and some of them are okay but not all of them. You're just as capable finding whacky people in any profession and the availability of employment for some of them walking or riding around--on the job with a loaded firearm and collecting a nice paycheck to boot will seem like a dream job.

Interesting though the shooter in this case apparently was recently discharged from the military...

The report I read said that he was discharged in 1999. Doesn't make a difference to your argument but I had been wondering whether he had PTSD but he was discharged before the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq were started.

>244 How does what I said equate to the government working fairly and squarely for all ?
No way do I think government works any more fairly and squarely for all than ANY of the systems we have in place seem to. None of them are entirely fair. Just have nothing against cops....wouldn't want their job for any amount of money. Dealing with people in unusual situations, stressful, traumatic, angry, drunk/high......no thank you. Worked closely with them when I worked in a hospital for 14 years.

The shooter was in the military from 1993 to 1998 and was not honorably discharged....he had behavioral problems within the military. He had a criminal record and he had a gun that though registered was not registered to him.

I know a lot of doctors....some are O.K. but not all of them...same goes for lawyers, bankers, any one really. I can handle alternative views but you seem to consistantly paint the cops as bullys......just because they have guns. Can almost assure you that there is a reason why many cops drink too much and more than a few commit suicide...has little to do with the gun. You are also focused on the cops which respond to inner city situations....said before, they act differently than MOST cops but there is a reason for that and I am not entirely sure it has as much to do with the "government" as it does with the people they deal with on a daily basis.
Would venture to guess for cops in high crime areas it isn't much different than a military unit in a war zone. Soldiers tend to do things they normally would never do when exposed to violence for extended periods of time. Not justifying it, just saying that it happens. Are there "bad" cops ? Of course there are but to paint an entire profession based on "bad" cops is a bit unfair.

Wonder how many cops actually USE their guns ? Would be an interesting statistic.

>245
He may have served during Desert Storm ? Not sure...not enough out there about him yet. They are checking for ties to White Supremacy groups. Also another person of interest was at the scene. Haven't found him yet.
What ever......
They are already questioning why a cop shot him. The guy shot a cop eight times at close range. He refused to drop his gun and he fired at police cars AFTER being told to drop his gun. But, already they are investigating the cop's action. If I were a cop....this would tick me off ! Especially hearing some of the twists the media is taking. I am surprised that more cops do NOT become vigilantes.

It could be a preemptive investigation. I understand that in some police departments just discharging your firearm could bring an investigation. I would imagine that anytime a cop kills someone there should be some kind of investigation even if, as it appears in this case, the killing was a no brainer.

My cop friends in Anchorage rarely if ever even pull their guns, much less use them. Some have been on the force for 15 years and never pulled a gun.

As I heard it (and granted there is much confusion over this last shooting) the man who walked into a house of worship and shot worshipers did not violate any law--until he used the gun he legally bought to kill people.

>248
My guess is that there are more cops who do NOT use their guns than those who do....only those who do make the nightly news.

I understand the need to investigate...do not understand the tone some use when the cops do something like this.
There is a tendancy to over look the victims of the crime and speculate as to the mental statis of the shooter. Well, he was nuts....and it is sad but cops followed proper procedure if the story stays as is.

What if one of the neighbors had a concealed weapon and took the shooter out ? How much of a legal hassel would that turn into ?
The theory of those who want to carry is that they will be able to stop things like this....we could even speculate that SEVERAL guns could go off.....then we would have to figure out WHOSE gun actually did the killing and was it justified. Just stupid....profoundly stupid !

Yes the gun was purchased legally. The shooter emptied several magazines and had more of them with him.

I guess murders like the Aurora shooting, or the recent one in Milwaukee, is the price we are willing to pay for the right to bare arms. So what if a few innocents get iced? Freedom is not free.

For our local PD, every shooting (fatal or not, of a human or not) requires an investigation, even if the facts of the shooting appear reasonably straightforward.

ANCHORAGE, Alaska - Statistics gathered by Alaska State Troopers show the state has seen an increase in assaults against law enforcement.

The head of the state patrol tells KTUU-TV (http://is.gd/vsDXNq ) officers are dealing with more aggressive behavior from suspects.

Col. Keith Mallard says law enforcement officials take every possible step to capture individuals without violence. But sometimes the behavior of a suspect puts the police officer's life or other people's lives in danger.

Federal Bureau of Investigation statistics show an upward trend in the number of assaults against officers in Alaska, while nationally, the numbers have decreased.

In Alaska in 2010, the most recent statistics available, 386 officers were assaulted. That's an increase over the 315 officer assaults in 2009 and 287 in 2008.

Read more: Fairbanks Daily News-Miner

One correction I'd like to make was that Scott Olsen wasn't hit with a tear gas canister. He was shot with a bean bag round. The Oakland officer who shot him in the head was probably no more than 20 yards away--more or less point blank range. It looks close and when people move in to rescue Scott--the same officer underhand flips a flash bang grenade into the middle of all of them. The officer who has tentatively been identified as Robert Roche is a Sgt. and was in charge of a unit called Tango Team that night. He was seen firing a shotgun directly into the crowd--that is where the bean bag round comes from. Bean bag rounds are categorized as non-lethal. So are rubber/plastic bullets. They were used liberally that night as well. Google rubber/plastic bullet deaths though and one of the first things you'll run into is a list of 17 people killed in Northern Ireland during the troubles. They include 8 children--one as young as 10 and two girls--12 and 14 all shot by the security forces whether British Army or Royal Ulster Constabulary--some of them during disturbances--and a bunch of them not. Olsen as I remember suffered a fractured skull and was in a coma for a few days--so his life was definitely in danger. Roche has had an interesting history as an Oakland police officer. He's killed three people--at least two teenagers--two of whom were apparently armed. The city of Oakland lost a wrongful death lawsuit on one of them. Olsen could have been his fourth.

Be that as it may--back to the question of militarized police. I'm wondering how many people here ask themselves why are large city police departments so well prepared both in terms of tactics and equipment/logistics to face off large/massive demonstrations whether peaceful or not? Why they've allocated so much money, time etc. to training their officers for large scale riot control?--because apart from the WTO riots in Seattle (1999?) how many such sustained demonstrations have we seen in the United States since the late 60's--civil rights and Viet Nam war protest? I can think of a few rather nasty events--there was a park clearing in NYC in the mid-80's that had some scale and another in Philadelphia and then the Rodney King thing and that's about it--but maybe someone could add to that list. It just seems to me that the point of it all is to shut down dissent even if it's peaceful.

#242: If all those on this thread, who are complaining about the "over zealous" police force, could have seen them in action on Sunday morning in Wisconsin, they would have a different view as to why they are trained and armed in such a fashion.

That's great and all that the police were able to actually do something, but I don't think that's an excuse for being "armed in such a fashion." And to suggest that they're "trained" isn't necessarily accurate. Just because they've bought tanks and machine guns is not a guarantee that they've actually been trained in how to use them. And sometimes "training" means training with the military. And then there's the saying, "When seconds count, the police are only minutes away," so it's not like the mere existence of a police response is an excuse to ban us lowly commoners from owning weapons.

>253
My opinion ? We are becoming more and more like Middle Eastern countries.....there has been a concerted effort to spread fear and anxiety within society. It seems that hand in hand with all of this conversation about taking back the country and fighting tyranny has been a loosening of restrictions on assualt weapons......those who are in positions of authority have to be aware of this. One has to wonder how much this has to do with all of the "homeland security" departments set up during the Bush administration.

The seperation between the top and the bottom is getting bigger....more people falling into the poverty level. This is kind of like a perfect storm.

If we keep operating in the same manner, without compromise which keeps us "stuck" where we are, how long are ANY protests going to remain peaceful ? People who have little to lose will resort to violence a lot faster than not.
Would imagine that the powers that be are aware of this.....without a strong middle class, and a growing number of people without a way to make a living and/or survive decently we are setting ourself up for trouble.

What does one call a country with only one political party ? See Karl Roves goal for America....only one "true Party" in charge. Isn't that almost where we are at ? With one Party obstructing most everything, money buying our elections and rapid condensation of the wealth at the top ?

So when we see the police becoming more organized and powerful....it really shouldn't be surprising.

I am not a conspiracy theorist.....but looking at the big picture, is daunting.

>254

The police in Oak Creek were on the scene within three minutes. And they were trained in handling terrorist situations. It was apparent. You are giving the "average Joe" a lot of lee way in so far as remaining calm and pursuing the proper course when it comes to damage control. The police chief stressed the importance of making sure that things were done in an order that is meant to keep people the safest.
Police ARE trained.....so are nurses, doctors, lawyers.........they just don't apply for a job and pick up a knife and start doing surgery or a gun and start patroling the streets.
Again, nobody is suggesting that "lowly commoners" not have guns to protect themselves....what is being discussed is the TYPE of gun that should be used within this society. Assault weapons are unneccessary. Jumping from police not knowing what they are doing, to lowly people having no defense, is an NRA tactic that has allowed an uptick in the sale of assault weapons (see above).

Is that really the society we want to live in ? I don't.....but then, I believe we have turned a corner....one only has to see who is running for President against Obama to figure that out.

This may seem like it is nonrelated but to my mind it is not :

What the Republican Party did to President Clinton during his term as President was unprecidented...the media circus over a stain on a dress. This no doubt lowered the respect for the office of Presidency.
Then came George Bush, who was not qualified to be President. He really wasn't running the show anyway and many people know this. Who was ? We know Cheney was very instrumental in many of the decisions made during Bush's Presidency and we also know that a few people made a lot of money during that period of time.....as well as there being huge loss of money for MANY individuals.
The running of John McCain for President. He is way too old and had no clue about many of the things that were going on.... not even the crash of the stock market which changed the entire face of this country. he was not meant to be in charge either. Especially given the fact that they chose Ms Palin as a running mate. What she accomplished was the start of the "hate" mongering.....the underlying drift towards violence and divisivness.
Now Mitt Romney.....he isn't Presidental material...not at all. Mr Romney is not meant to be in charge. He is a shining example of why we have a shrinking middle class in the first place. Since he really has no clue as to how the "commoner" lives, he has no business applying for a job that would be making decisions for a country that is made up of a population where 98% of them could be considered "commoners" He is raking in the money....way more than Obama.

Who is REALLY trying to be the leader of this country ?

So who is organizing the police forces and why ? It isn't all that hard to figure out......I don't look at this as the fault of the government OR the police. This is the people who will support Donald Trump, Rush Limbaugh, Glen Beck, Ann Coulter and Mitt Romeny. About half of the population of this country are willing to repeat most anything they hear from these individuals, even if it has no basis in fact what so ever.

To my mind if the police are organizing, it is the fault of those who are willing to live a fear based life, riddled with anxiety over the "liberals" "socialists" or "communists" who are trying to hold on to the idea that what is good for the majority will be beneficial to the nation as a whole.

I blame my neighbor who HATES Obama....cause she can not get rid of her inground swimming pool with out a permit and a procedure list. Why ? Cause in her words "A swimming pool can be a considered a biohazard. THANK you very much DNR !!!" So, says she...I decided to keep the pool. Had to dump in 40 pounds of clorine and 3 bottles of shock to clean it up.

EXTREME lack of critical thinking on so many levels ! She has Romney stickers all over her Lexus !!! (and owns several guns)

A mini rant which may or may not be related....I think it all adds up.

#255--have to be fair here though. The Bush 2 administration implemented a lot of the militarization of police departments but it had already at least started during Clinton's presidency--probably even before that though. Thatcher's Britain--miner strike in 1984. Reagan and Thatcher were great friends--if such a concept as friendship ever existed in either mind. Anyway there was a lot of force used during Seattle's WTO riots. That was Clinton. The other thing is Obama has been fine tuning aspects of the Patriot Act--and it's also quite legal now for an American operative to assassinate another American on foreign soil--so long as he can be tagged as a terrorist. Believe me sooner or later some future POTUS is going to really run with that.

If we were to go back four years and someone would have suggested to me that Barack was going to be more of the same old same old and that he was going to even push some elements of Bush/Cheney's agenda further I wouldn't have believed it. Well--I believe it now. The old saying applies--Fool me once, shame on you--fool me twice, shame on me. It's not going to happen again. I'm voting for Jill Stein or staying home but if anything in the extremely unlikely event that a green party candidate ever becomes president then finally you might find someone who will approach the subject of assault weapons (and other issues as well) with some kind of intelligence that isn't all informed by ambition, corruption or greed. That is if in gaining that kind of popularity they haven't been corrupted as well.

>257
"If we were to go back four years and someone would have suggested to me that Barack was going to be more of the same old same old and that he was going to even push some elements of Bush/Cheney's agenda further I wouldn't have believed it. Well--I believe it now. "

which leads to the question : "How much choice does a President really have ?" One is either a pawn in the game unknowingly (Bush, Romney) or one is a pawn in the game just so that is looks as if they are doing SOMETHING (Obama) These men really do not have a lot of power.

At least there is some critical thinking going into your vote...unlike many who are voting only because they have an intense "hate" for the powers that be.

Can't seem to direct my anger and/or frustration at the police force or even specific lawmakers, the problems are so entrenched with who we are as a country and what we choose to prioitize that it is unfair to pin our decline on anyone but ourselves. Romney is who he is.....my neighbor is the only one who has the power to make him more than what he is right now. That damn pool .... all because of Obama's DNR....staggering really !

#258--you know as well as I that the Republicans are just salivating that if they win the whole shebang in November they are going to repeal the few 'progressive' (even if heavily compromised) accomplishments of the Obama administration.

After 8 years of Bush/Cheney though Obama in his 4 years so far pretty much has left all their shit intact. The wars, Guantanamo, the Patriot Act, the Bush tax cuts, etc, etc, etc. Even helped out quite a lot with the bailout--protecting the investment banks and the lenders. Been useless as far as unions go--you're from Wisconson, right? All those volunteers out on cold, windy, snowy nights collecting signatures playing dodgem with people with 4 wheel drive vehicles trying to run them over. Where was he? I don't recall him ever ever even visiting--or even a word of encouragement. I mean if you were in a foxhole next to this guy and then looked over and he wasn't there anymore.

At best we could call his administration a respite (whether it lasts another term or not) before the Republicans get back into power and start doing new stuff but he's kept us on the same road that they put us on and going in the same direction.

Barack was going to represent change--new ideas, new ways of looking at things. I didn't like Clinton at all but when he decided he want something he waged political war on his enemies and he usually got what he wanted.

#259: These men really do not have a lot of power.

No, they do. It's just that most would rather spend their political capital getting themselves re-elected and then once they get their second term they focus on not rocking the boat so as not to hurt the chances of their party's next candidate. It's not a lack of power, but a lack of political courage.

>261
"It's not a lack of power, but a lack of political courage."

That too !

#262: Well, no, not "that too." Obama has all the power in the world to pull out of the war if only he wanted too, but he won't because his choices are concerned with electability. Even one his top generals in Afghanistan tried to cover up the deplorable conditions of the Daoud military hospital (which the military investigator compared to Auschwitz) out of a brain-washed desire to preserve Obama's electability.

I don't think the mindset on Iraq/Afghanistan is all that much different with regard to either the Bush or Obama administrations. IMO we've involved ourselves in resource wars that are really being fought for Oil and Energy related companies. Our military involved in police actions overseas--our police involved in military actions at home.

How has the war in Iraq benefited our oil companies? If anything the Iraqi gov't has bent over backwards to avoid the appearance of favoritism to the US resulting in it being less likely that US companies will be awarded contracts.

At least as regards Iraq--what we were after and how it all worked out in the end are two different things. Bush administration definitely tried their damnedest to get a friendly Iraqi face into power. Didn't quite work out.

shooting people has never been a good way to make friends

http://www.chevron.com/weagree/

267# Would the above company agree?
(seeing a lot of their feel good messages on the tv)

>268
Really ? Where do they want to drill now ?

269#

You can't see how one of America's five largest corporations
can be a part of the solution to the problem ?

So. Here is a data point. Without any of the details
changing, could a choice have been introduced to
events, before, to avoid that midnight shooting?

source: nytimes article tw0 days ago

Interesting. I didn't know that Russian sanity requirements (or police permits in general) were so effective at stopping people from buying guns second-hand.

>272
It doesn't . One of the problems with our gun laws, or lack there of, is the fact that there is very little consequence for obtaining or SELLING an illegal weapon. The person who purchases a gun with a criminal back ground check, a certificate from a gun safety course and a medical certificate of sanity should be held responsible for what he does with that gun....if he sells it to someone he sould require the same information he needed to buy it or be held responsible for not doing so. If crazy cousin Bob wanted to borrow/buy your gun and you knew that if crazy cousin Bob went and shot up a high school classroom or a church congregation that you would be held responsible, in part, for his actions, you may think twice about letting crazy cousin Bob borrow/buy your gun.

We can also purchase multiple guns at one time. for what ?

We can also purchase multiple guns at one time. for what ?

I know people who collect handguns. The Redhead's uncle is an avid collector. He does not hunt, and he certainly does not use them for crime (he is a lawyer, and does not need a gun!) When he gets a little extra cash, he buys a gun. Or two.

If I decide to start hunting with my son, I will be buying two rifles, maybe three, for different types of hunts.

#274

That does seem to be a weak argument, since it can apply to so many legal items. You can only drive one car at a time; why have more? You can only watch one TV show at a time; why have more than one television? And so on...

Although depending on the type of law your uncle practices, he may indeed need a weapon at some point...

Real Estate. He does not do divorce law. (Most attorneys I know who were shot at were divorce lawyers.)

>276: "(Most attorneys I know who were shot at were divorce lawyers.)"

I feel like that should be cross-posted to one of the threads discussing marriage...

#276

Less likely then; but not an impossibility.

#277

Divorces usually involve at least one loser, sometimes everyone loses. And the attorney is a convenient target...

>274

Not talking about "hunting" rifles....I am referring to high power assault weapons. Mexico is buying supplies of these from the U.S. in great numbers. The problem as I see it is that we keep comparing apples to oranges. Perhaps a gun collector should have a special license to purchase multiple guns at one time ? Hunting rifles are not the problem....why is it so easy to come up with problems rather than solutions ? Is being allowed to buy more than one assault weapon at a time worth the life of all of those who have lost their's in just the past month ? To wacko's with multiple assault weapons and stock piles of rounds ?
Collectable cars require a different licensing than regular cars.....often in the "car world" people become known as collectors. Would imagine the same would hold true for guns if they weren't being purchased in such large numbers by lord knows who. Cause we really have no clue....

Well, you did not say "high power assault rifles."

I personally do not have a problem with anyone who owns a gun having to register in some way, although I am not optimistic about how much of a problem it could solve.

Back to the cops--couple years ago several Pennsylvania State troopers assaulted a young man named Robert Leone. Leone happens to be bi-polar. They tasered and beat him after they finally stopped his car. They tasered, beat and hogtied him in the back of a squad car. Took him to the hospital--took him out of the hospital when he asked a nurse for help after ordering the nurse out of the room and then beating him again--took him back to their barracks to arraign him--when he asked the judge for help--they pulled the connection--tasered and beat him again--into unconsciousness--back to the hospital where his vital signs were going through the roof. A nurse remarks about him shaking and trembling and 5 minutes later they were wheeling him out the door in a wheelchair--then it's over to the Bradford Pa. county prison--where the prison wouldn't accept him without getting their doctor because they at the prison didn't want to take any of the credit for it.

The reason they tried to stop Leone in the first place was they suspected him of a minor fender bender hit and run. They charged him with 24 accounts including an assault on an officer in which the officer broke his hand punching him in the head. Looking at the video cam of the event they don't even read him his Miranda rights. Most of the charges didn't stick but Leone got railroaded into 1 and a quarter to 4 year prison sentence and is still (now over two years in prison). Anyone wanting to look at some of the gory details from the police video and hear some of the audio can youtube it though be warned you might not want to eat right before or after. The 5 officers on the scene are all much burlier than Leone. Leone's whole demeanor throughout is non-aggressive. He wasn't drunk and he wasn't lipping off. The 5 officers are still working and no official action has been taken against any of them.

Towanda Pa--where this happened by the way is about half an hour away from where I live in upstate New York.

>280
Sorry....I did not say "high power assault rifles" Probably should have. Assumed....not always good.
Unless the gun changes hands through a reregistration process that requires the same checks as the original.....the original owner is responsible for what happens with the gun. We need to do that with an automobile when we sell it. Would give lots of incentive to keep the things safely locked up or in a location where it is not easy to steal. Would also discourage "straw buyers" and it would , over all, make people stop and think a bit more about the responsibility of owning a deadly weapon. Right now it is a free for all of gun ownership.....many people do NOT understand the ramifications of leaving a gun about or loaning it to someone. Mainly because there are few consequences. Nothing is going to eliminate the problem....but we could work at making the problem smaller. We could make it more difficult for those whose intentions are not about gun collecting, hunting or self defense.

It is frustrating because in so far as guns are concerned...we are talking about two different issues. Gun ownership and gun violence. To me, if it becomes a little more difficult to own a gun, it is worth it if the amount of violence decreases. It seems there are some who don't care much how violent this country gets, they do not want to be told that they need permits or back ground checks or proof of mental stability. They are stuck on the 2nd amendment and are not going to budge......

~281

Yesterday I was going into an Einstein's Bagel for a quick breakfast sandwich before an extensive deposition. This well groomed brown guy in what I would call office professional dress was carrying his box of bagels out the door. One of our finest and best stopped him and demanded ID (caught while buying bagels when brown) He ended up sitting on the curb while she tried to reach ICE.

Eventually he was let go, because, of course, no one can ever reach ICE for any reason, and the recent USSC decision says that any prolonged detention is going to be the grounds for the next suit against the remaining clauses of our glorious SB 1070.

I am not quite sure which is worse: this happening hundreds of times a day in Phoenix, or your story.

Meanwhile our illustrious Governor (commonly known as "carrot brain" among we disrespectful sorts) issued an "executive order" "clarifying" that those qualifying for Obama's latest dodge in lieu of real "immigration reform" will still be denied schooling, driver's licenses, etc. After all they're ILLEGALS. Never mind that according to the federal government (which the courts have told her repeatedly determines these things) they will now be in the U.S. legally.........

Let's all take a minute, not loose our tempers, and do not start shouting at Az's finest or "our" "public official."
After all, in this land of free speech that could land you in jail.

>281

Should all priests be judged by those who abused children ? Should all nurses aides be judged by those who abuse the elderly in old folks homes ?

Any time people are put into positions of power there is a chance that the position will be abused. In every situation I can think of where someone has power, whether it is physical or monitary....there has been abuse. We need to be vilgilent about who we put into power and concious of the fact that all people are not designed to handle that power properly.
There are "good" cops. There are cops who have been "good" for years and then do a bad thing. Is is justifiable, no....but it happens.
Would venture to guess that MOST cops are not bad.....meanwhile the "carrot brains" of this society are trying their damndest to give cops MORE power for MORE reasons which raises the potential for abuse. They would have their own little "police states" Is this a reflection on cops or on leadership ?

#284--one thing that is particularly disturbing about the videocam arrest of Leone if you watch it is that not one of the troopers ever takes a second to think about what they're doing--they're all in all the way and despite their report that Leone was fighting back I didn't see any aggression on his part at all. Keep in mind--he's diagnosed as bi-polar. I have a son who has Asperger's syndrome--I could see him reacting the same way as Leone did--which is 'I didn't do anything wrong'--and keep on driving which is what initially set off this rampage. Again this is 5 separate personalities--acting as one--without any restraint--without any doubt about what they were doing. Later on agreeing on the record. Leone was beaten up 4 separate times--1. outside his car--2.handcuffed in the back of the squad car and later hogtied in the back of the squad car while this torture continued--3. in Towanda Memorial Hospital (of all places) and 4. back in the Police barracks after the video arraignment procedure was disconnected. All these cops--separate personalties--took part in it without any second thoughts. I find it rather amazing that not even one of them would somewhere during this chain of events say 'you know what--this is kind of fucked up'. Instead they fixed the record--piled on all kinds of charges--got this guy sent away for a short prison term--got protected by their own in house investigating--Bureau of Integrity and Professional Standards. There is a lawsuit in the works and the evidence is pretty damning as far as I can tell--I wouldn't bet on Leone losing this one if he's got any kind of competent attorney.

#283--but it does make you angry witnessing even minor injustices of this sort. And it goes back IMO to expectations and realities. I would suspect that most people in their encounters with law officers want to think well enough of them anyway to think they can depend on them to be neutral and skin tone, political or religious belief (or not), gender or sexual inclination--whether they're the mayor or just a regular citizen should have no bearing on their actions or reactions. It's not the reality as far as I'm concerned and when or if someone sees them usurping authority or bending the rules it should give them pause about just handing over more authority.

>285
Not too sure why you find this surprising. What do you suppose happens to soldiers during a war ? If we have cops who are constantly exposed to "war like" conditions.....it is then not surprising that a group mentality takes over. I believe that cops are trained so as NOT to do what they did but it happens.
Guess the closest I can come to the attitude of the general society and how we treat each other would be just drive down any busy street and find out how aggressive most people have become....cops are not immune to this, in fact they have to deal with it in far more ways than simply driving down the street. Isn't it the "carrot brain" who wagged her finger in the nose of the President ? She is supposedly on a level above the cops...if she can act with such disrespect for a sitting President.....imagine how little respect she has for anyone who crosses her who is an average Joe ?

We had a President along with an entire administration who upsurped authority and decided that torture was acceptable. Not one of them stood up to them so as to stop it....nor has anyone taken any action to hold them responsible for their decision.....which to me was a mentality not much different than the cops in the case you just pointed out. Don't feel that the problem is the cops.....it is the society in which they work.

#286--Towanda is a small town--guessing 4,000 people--policemen should not be soldiers at war in their own country and definitely not in a small town like that. They're only soldiers at war if they decide to act like they are. And they have standards they are supposed to abide by. There is a drift these days IMO--I've talked about how police are being increasingly militarized but they are also being politicized at least in the respect that they are more and more becoming tools of established politicians, politicial entities and even sometimes corporate interests. But that's just an opinion.

Again and I don't know if you've actually watched the video cam--at no point do any of the troopers even suggest enough is enough. I mean--group think or not--there is a point where a person's integrity should step in and say 'I will not be a part of this.' Instead the longer this nightmare went on for Leone the more they were drawn into a conspiracy of covering for each other--they did this by lying (as a good look at their own video and or listen to their respective video/audio cams would show) and fixing him up with a boatload of charges. The basis of personal integrity that can say no when all the forces of resistance are against you is a main condition that separates most people from becoming potential Nazi camp guards in the unhappy event that another situation like Hitler era Germany ever reoccurs again. This also should be a main condition for anyone becoming a law enforcement officer.

>287
"The basis of personal integrity that can say no when all the forces of resistance are against you is a main condition that separates most people from becoming potential Nazi camp guards in the unhappy event that another situation like Hitler era Germany ever reoccurs again. This also should be a main condition for anyone becoming a law enforcement officer."

I understand what you are saying and I just had this arguement with a very close friend of mine...she said I would go with the flow....much like many of the German's did with Hitler....I argued that I would not.....could not treat other human beings in such a fashion...no way. The arguement started after the picture from Abu Grave came out. She said I would be a minority because a majority of people are "fear" based and they would not speak out or refuse to participate. She also made the point that I don't really know because I have never been in that position. In that she is correct...I have not thus far been asked to make a choice such as that. I like to think I would speak up.....I still claim that I would.

Think of a group of adolesents......they will all participate in something horribly wrong so as not to stand out from the crowd. I realize cops SHOULD be above such behavior and I do believe that many if not most of them are but obviously not all of them.
Whether you believe this to be related or not....I do think that fostering a attitude of "us" against "them" has heightened our "gang mentality" and for the past decade we have been seeing more and more disrespect for any type of authority.

You also said : " --I've talked about how police are being increasingly militarized but they are also being politicized at least in the respect that they are more and more becoming tools of established politicians, politicial entities and even sometimes corporate interests. But that's just an opinion. "

Aren't we all ? Are we not being forced to "chose sides" ? Posse up ? One of the worst things to come through on my Facebook page after the Colorado shooting was a picture of the theater and the words "This theater is a no gun zone....How is that worken for ya ?" In big bold red letters....like somehow if you want to have areas without guns you are responsible for the death of those people. What is the point ? Almost being continuously reminded that you are either for the potential for violence or you are for death for those who don't want to settle things in such a manner.

Will have to pay more attention to the police actions.... I just know many police officers who are honorable individuals. Many of them choose the work because they are good with people and sharp in crisis situations. The militarizing of the police is something new to me. Heard about isolated problems but not an overall change.

Check out the police department in L.A. during the depression years.....nightmare of corruption and especially hard on women....nothing new when it comes to institutions either.....any of them. It is probably a good idea to be vigilant about what is going on.

We as a country had standards we used to abide by. Standards that were something to be proud of. It set us apart in a good way.....that went down the drain six or seven years ago.

The Milgram experiments (repeated with roughly the same results on multiple occasions) showed that the majority of people will follow the orders of a perceived authority figure without much question. (roughly about 60-65%)

And many police, even those who would never think of doing such acts, gain an 'us vs. them' mentality which can lead to a group committing such acts, and the rest of the group, even while acknowledging that such things are wrong, acting to defend their fellows.

This is, of course, not helped by an atmosphere of suspicion and distrust, which can magnify any small variance from the norm into a possibilty of heinous crime which must be stopped at any cost.

We're in a bad part of the cycle of fear and repression; this was the norm in the 1950s, but better hidden.

http://www.wisn.com/news/south-east-wisconsin/milwaukee/2-injured-during-chaotic...

Bar closing time....wild west style :>0

Hm-m-m-m Suppose the guy with the gun may get fined for reckless use of a firearm ? Good !! gives the cops more to deal with than just a hit and run driver and the riff raff that is stumbling out of the bar ,heading for their automobiles. Keeps our court system busy as well.

~290

Milwaukee, Wisconsin is the West. Who knew? (That is why I like these forums, you learn something new every day.)

>291
Was referring to the "actions" taken not the "location". But, you are right about learning something new every day on these forums, And isn't that a good thing ? Life would be pretty boring otherwise !

#291: What? You mean you've never heard of the Great Cheese Wheel Rustling of 1873? But it was one of the defining moments of the Mild, Mild Midwest!

http://www.postcrescent.com/usatoday/article/57131524

It is not surprising that the police are becoming frustrated, angry and militant. Why wouldn't they ?

~294

Yept, I fully agree. Maybe they should go out and shoot random citizens (you know, their purported employers) until the "civilians" learn not to engage in these atrocities. That'd teach them there a lesson.

>295

Kind of glad this was your idea....not mine !

#294: It is not surprising that the police are becoming frustrated, angry and militant. Why wouldn't they ?

See, if you had said that police are often tasked with dealing with some of the more unsavory aspects of life, I would have agreed with you that that's a reason a cop would become jaded and frustrated (though I would have pointed out that this makes them less competent to carry weapons than ordinary citizens would be). But instead you're using the death of a cop as an excuse when those harmed or killed by police brutality are far greater in number and you could just as easily rationalize ordinary citizens "becoming frustrated, angry and militant" with the kind of record the cops have.

So where is all this bias coming from? Have the police been extra nice to you in the hospital and you feel like you owe them for not treating you like they would if they ran into you on the streets? Or is it a family member that's a cop?

289> The Milgram experiments (repeated with roughly the same results on multiple occasions) showed that the majority of people will follow the orders of a perceived authority figure without much question. (roughly about 60-65%).

I heard a This American Life story a few weeks back where the subject had re-examined the protocols of the Milgram experiment and found that this wasn't exactly what they showed. If you look at the phrasing of the requests for the subjects to continue you find that at the point that the experimenter actually ordered the subject to continue most of the subjects refused. What got them to cooperate was by appealing to their being part of a larger scientific enterprise that was for the ultimate good of everyone. So people don't do bad things just because they're told to, they do them because they're convinced that it's for the greater good.

#298: Interesting. But isn't that kind of the same thing though? I mean the clarification is helpful, but isn't the perceived legitimacy of authority based on the belief that they know what's best for the collective anyway? I guess there could be other ways to unpackage the concept of the authority, but this would seem to be the big one.

EVERY political philosophy claims to know wht t is best for all people (the collective) including libertarianism and anarchism.

And given a chance, every political movement will enforce its precepts.

#300: Yes, in the same way that atheism is a religion and not stamp-collecting is a hobby. Keep dreaming.

And given a chance, every political movement will enforce its precepts.

You better watch out for those "freedom of the press" people. They might try to "enforce" their ways on you! There coming to get you, Barbara!

Or maybe you just have a shit definition for "enforce" and you need to open a window.

Are you saying that libertarianism is just for libertarians? If that is the case why don't they just shut the hell up and get on with it, and the rest of us alone?

#302: If that is the case why don't they just shut the hell up and get on with it, and the rest of us alone?

Because you'll never leave us alone (or even leave non-libertarians alone, for that matter). You'll never keep your fucking wars and your bailouts to yourself so don't tell me to shut the hell up.

ETA: Oh, but it's good to know how much my freedom of speech irks you. No wonder you think everything is "enforcement." Peace and violence are the same to the likes of you.

~296

But you'd approve, right? (As illustrated by your post I was responding to.)

Ater all, we've got to have respect for Law Enforcement, and there is nothing like fear and trembling if you want to breed respect.

>297
"See, if you had said that police are often tasked with dealing with some of the more unsavory aspects of life, I would have agreed with you that that's a reason a cop would become jaded and frustrated (though I would have pointed out that this makes them less competent to carry weapons than ordinary citizens would be). "

I have said that and I've said it repeatedly ! In fact I've compared them to our military personel when in war like situations. Also speculated that this situation is getting worse. Not sure if you read all of the posts or not but in any discussion regarding cops, I have been consistant.
The article referred to more than ONE death of a police officer and most importantly to the "gun violence" the cops are dealing with.

It is not atypical for some to pick out one aspect of the article and make all kinds of assumptions regarding my thoughts on it.

I do not now, nor have I ever, feared running into the cops in the street, before or after my job brought me into contact with police officers.

~300

"EVERY political philosophy claims to know wht t is best for all people (the collective) including libertarianism and anarchism."

Oh, come on now. Let's see, Kim Jong-il knows what is best for all people by ordering all of them to arise at 6 am to do exercises and sing patriotic songs. After which, he knows what is best for them by ordering them to the jobs he has assigned to each of them.

A "libertarian" knows what is best for people in that most prefer general societal rules against murder, theft and enforcing mandatory orders telling other people how to order their lives (e.g., extortion, blackmail, threats based on kidnapping, etc.).

And in your mind these two are the same?

>304

Where on earth have I ever expressed the idea that cops should randomly shoot citizens ? It is more beneficial to "respect" the law and those who enforce it rather than "fear" them. Respect is however, something that is earned...not many systems are functioning in ways that are deserving of respect. My belief is that there is less respect all the way around for everyone and everything. Never said I thought this was a good situation.

I think what best describes what I was saying is this : For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction.
It isn't "right" or "wrong" it just is.

#305: I have said that and I've said it repeatedly ! In fact I've compared them to our military personel when in war like situations.

Really? 'Cause I thought your references to the military were about how "brave" the police have had to be to shoot people in the back. You know, that kind of "unfortunate, but necessary" bullshit that every right-winger believes about what the "enemy" deserves. But I'd be happy to be wrong on that.

The article referred to more than ONE death of a police officer and most importantly to the "gun violence" the cops are dealing with.

Yes, and if I had done the same thing posting a link to a story about regular people being killed by the police and then made some stupid comment about how we need to be sympathetic about why regular people are "becoming frustrated, angry and militant" towards the cops, you'd call me crazy and rightly so. So why do you get a free pass when you side with the cops?

And don't tell me you believe that respect is earned. If shiny little badges were all it took to earn "respect," that'd be some kind of magic indeed. Or a religion.

>309
", you'd call me crazy and rightly so. So why do you get a free pass when you side with the cops?"

Nope you are wrong about that....I do not, as a rule, post thinly veiled personal attacks on individuals. Do not assume them to be crazy or stupid. I do however pick up on a fair amount of anger and dislike but as to why that may be, I try not to make assumptions.

You do realize when you post something like this:
"Really? 'Cause I thought your references to the military were about how "brave" the police have had to be to shoot people in the back"

it says more about you than me.....it sounds like the flip side of Mr Beck or Mr Limbaugh and it serves only to stop any type of solution....cause after all...where are you going with people who believe others should be shot in the back (something that is not even true on my part...never said that...came out of your thoughts not mine) You sound exactly like most every lawmaker who is making the headlines for the past eight years. EXACTLY like those you claim to have little or no respect for. No respect for anyone or any idea's that are not your own, to the point of making stuff up to support your disrespect.

I do not support the idea of the cops shooting anybody.
nor do I like hearing about the number of cops who are being shot and/or injured on a daily basis.

I do not like violence at all. What is important as that we are aware of the ramifications of our actions. If we as a society become more and more violent, continue to allow the raising amount of assault weapons to circulate in society, we will as a result have a police force that is more military like. Just a statement of fact....

In my world we would not have thousands of guns circulating in society....see no need for such nonsense....but since we do....this is what we are going to have. Personally, I do not believe this to be a pathway to a productive society, I've expressed this opinion previously, I think we are more like the Middle East every day. However, there are those who believe the opposite...the more guns, the politer the society. We shall see. If we become militant and refuse to show any respect for each other, the authority figures we have in place will do the same. Pretty simple actually.

#312: How ironic. You've just posted a link to a story which breaks down to people saying, "Gee, wouldn't it be nice if the police weren't a total joke?" Everyone wants to have effective crime prevention. That doesn't lend any credence to the superstition that more cops will provide that need.

If we as a society become more and more violent, continue to allow the raising amount of assault weapons to circulate in society, we will as a result have a police force that is more military like. Just a statement of fact....

No, that's just another excuse. The militarization of police started when the federal government started to give grants to police to buy military hardware that they didn't even need, first under the pretense of the drug war and more recently under the pretense of the "War on Terror." The police in Manchester, NH, for example, are known to use their war-on-terror-funded armored vehicle to serve drug warrants. Not because they need it, but because they simply have it.

>313
Actually there are people in this country who, when spouting off their "rights" according to the 2nd Amendment, are under the assumption that they have every right to be armed in the same manner as the military. If I were the police, I would be aware of that fact. Would also be aware of the fact that one lone shooter can shoot off 50 to 60 rounds at one time. Legally obtained weapons.

Never said cops could provide crime prevention......we are throwing our cops into armed and dangerous situations and complaining that they are getting "out of hand" Well......what are we expecting ? We have militarized police because we are a violent country. Period. It is rather simple. If we do not do those things needed to deal with the violence that occurs on our streets on a daily basis...we will have militant police. In fact, wouldn't be surprised, with amount of weapons and the type of weapons we, as a society, are obtaining lately, if we don't call out the National Guard in more situations. Protecting the 2nd Amendment ! Yipee.....freedom !

#314: Never said cops could provide crime prevention......

But that's what the article you posted was addressing, that more cops doesn't translate into less crime. Of course, the real reason you posted it was because you thought it was a pro-cop puff piece.

we are throwing our cops into armed and dangerous situations and complaining that they are getting "out of hand"

Sigh... No one is saying that. No one is taking cases of cops in "dangerous situations" and then accusing them of getting out of hand. That's just the strawman you made up so that you can dismiss anyone who mentions police brutality.

We have militarized police because we are a violent country. Period.

Um, no. I just laid out above how the militarization of police is based upon the undue opportunities created by funding choices made at the top and your reaction is to stick your fingers in your ears. The police don't send in SWAT teams on drug raids because people are violent. They're doing it because they want to find the drugs before they get flushed down the toilet, public safety be damned. Really, your willful ignorance can't get any more transparent that this.

>315
What ever.....

>315
"Oh, but it's good to know how much my freedom of speech irks you."

NO

"Wow, you really have it in for "regular people.""

"Perhaps the next time you expect someone to give up something, you should offer them something more substantial than your own personal satisfaction."

"All sorts of weirdos think they have a "right" to take away others' rights just to satisfy their own neocon paranoia. "

"Wow, you really have it in for "regular people."

"Only because you're happy for the government to have all the weapons they can get their hands on. If it had been Barack Obama shooting up theater patrons, you wouldn't give a shit. And none of your supposed "checks and balances" stops him from killing as we speak. Stop pretending you give a shit in these rare circumstances in which a murder victim wasn't killed by a government."

"You just don't like it when "regular citizens" have them. But the more inequality the better, right?"

"Or maybe you just have a shit definition for "enforce" and you need to open a window."

"Really? 'Cause I thought your references to the military were about how "brave" the police have had to be to shoot people in the back."

"Of course, the real reason you posted it was because you thought it was a pro-cop puff piece."

" That's just the strawman you made up so that you can dismiss anyone who mentions police brutality."

"Really, your willful ignorance can't get any more transparent that this."

Your freedom of speech is yours to do with what you want but you shouldn't be surprised when people don't like the BS you spew. Personal attacks and assuming what others are thinking are the first things to avoid during a discussion.

#317: As personally upsetting as it may be to have your hypocritical bullshit pointed out to you, it doesn't constitute a "personal attack" and is a lot more than just "assuming what others are thinking." But thanks for compiling a "Best of..." list for me.

>318
LOL......What Ever !

~319

Whatever.

And would you two stop it. You are interfering with the time set aside for me to refer to my intuition.

http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/lookout/multiple-people-hit-shooting-near-empire-sta...

A good lawyer just might make the case that this type of thing (seems to be somewhat the norm now) could be classified as freedom of speech. After all the hateful rhetoric has been spewed, all of the "my way or the "highway" attitudes applauded, resulting in a complete disregard for the thoughts and feelings of others, and words tend to fail one.....bullets will not !

My intuition tells me that perhaps, a new defense is needed for this behavior or the arguement for adding MORE guns to this already violent society is somehow losing it's appeal. Unless of course THIS shooter was using his weapon for "self defense" ? Not sure...it gets all muddled up....nothing makes sense and my intuition is in danger of failing me, other than to tell me repeatedly that adding more dangerous weapons to an already dangerous situation is pure folly. But, then, it has been telling me this for quite some time.

Maybe the military and the police forces should just combine ? Can't fix stuff like this with Andy and Barney on the job !

Can you imagine how much this COSTS us ? The FBI, the bomb squad, the cops, the personel who are now involved in this one single incident.

Kind of like us looking the other way as our government and numerous well placed friends/gunrunners send weapons all over Africa for instance--so that ten year olds can play at real soldiers. And again we'll give this same government more control here--heading towards a police state AFAIC. Emptying out the Tampa lockups this week of people charged with real crimes to provide space so as to incarcerate protesters at next week's RNC. First amendment rights be damned. The police salivating about it. They do like their riot control.

I guess you either trust your politicians and authorities or you don't. I fall in the latter category. Their interest in doing the right thing or even upholding the law evenly and fairly and squarely to all and sundry whether rich, poor or in between, whether religious believers or not, whatever the color or political thinking is open to question and is subject to all kinds of whims and types of persuasion. And then there is the all it in together--right or wrong--no matter what attitude.

>323
"I guess you either trust your politicians and authorities or you don't. "

Nope don't trust them at all. However, we elect these people, we hire them and we create the work conditions under which they do their jobs. So, guess I don't trust most anybody !

Trailer park in Menomonee Falls, Wi....full of "VOTE ROMNEY" signs ! Explain this please....cause I can't.

"And then there is the all it in together--right or wrong--no matter what attitude."

We ARE ! We could no more divorce ourselves from the actions of others than we can fly.

Explain to me why the Limbaughs and the Becks are wealthy wealthy individuals ? They spew lies and garbage, the same lies and garbage I hear at our local town meetings....same words...repeated towards those who do not agree with what ever it is that these parrot heads think should be done. How on earth could anyone take Ms Palin seriously ? ANYONE...whether you "liked" her or not, she is not fit to be a President of this country...neither was Bush but he was voted in TWICE !
How I would love to wake up some morning and have never heard of Limbaugh, Beck, Bush or Palin...but this is my country too and they are prominant people in my society.

Gun owner's listen to the rhetoric of the NRA adnauseum.......and we have a dire situation right now....which isn't getting any better. We can't deal with guns going to Africa or Mexico or anywhere...we have lost control of where guns are going WITHIN the country. 2nd Amendment rights after all ! How insane is that ?

No body WANTS militarized police forces....but I can't think of anyone who wants to get shot because they decided to see a movie, or because some guy down the street lost his dang job, OR because they are a kid and make a stupid mistake. As these incidents escalate how do we respond ? NOT by trying to get rid of those things that stand for violence...the hateful rhetoric or the weapons....no we make our police forces stronger so as to handle the situation. The rhetoric gets ever more hateful....based on the fear that something or someone may actually try to do something constructive and gun sales jump at alarming rates.

Police officers are not going to discriminate between "peaceful crowds" and "violent crowds" The violence in this country is not discriminating, why then would the response be ?

It is the old principle of Ying and Yang. Arming a society does make it a peaceful society...that is a stupid thing to say. Especially when half that society emulates mouth pieces who spew hate, distrust and fear.

End of rant.....discouraging....

Well the same day we have these shootings in NYC--we come along this story about the RNC convention in Tampa. They've already decided there is going to be trouble so they need plenty of jail space. A Colonel (Army? Marines? is there any other kind? Colonel Sanders?) Jim Previtera is in charge of the show. The Hillsborough County Sherif Gee is alluding provocatively and darkly to agitators and anarchists. I guess differentiating between peaceful protesting (1st amendment rightists) and those just out to cause 'trouble' or for a night of fun is not always easy. The inmates let out of jail were happy about it though. Brings to mind-'kill them all and let God sort them all out later'. It doesn't seem to me that we have a real history over the last 20-30 years of out of control rioting. Gives me the idea that politicians and law enforcement are sick and tired of people complaining and want to teach them a lesson--maybe have some of their own kind of fun in doing it.

>325
You and I will have to agree to disagree on this. Last Sunday I sat in my yard and listened to one of the usual end of summer sounds in my neighborhood. Daniel Boone Hunting Club is about two miles away....every late summer and early fall the guys go on weekends and site in their hunting rifles.....pretty standard. The pop pop of the rifles as they are shooting at targets.....last Sunday there was a definate ack ack ack of a automatic weapon of somekind. Not just once or twice....the morning was full of this "new" sound coming from Daniel Boone Hunting Club.

"Gives me the idea that politicians and law enforcement are sick and tired of people complaining and want to teach them a lesson"

There was a threat against the life of Sen. Akin. I do not agree with the man but that doesn't mean I think he should die. Guessing that we have turned a corner somewhere that says if you don't agree with me you are then a terrorist, should leave the country or better yet, you don't deserve to live.

We have no clue what it took to keep this President secure during the past 3 1/2 years but given the overall "otherness" of the man, I would bet that it was unprecidented. We don't know if out side agitators will visit the peaceful protestors and start something. Nothing Limbaugh would like more than to report on mass arrests of "crazy moroonic Dem's who were protesting at the RNC Convention" After all the Dem's are all about hate.


I feel that if we do get over reaction on the part of the police, we have done plenty to deserve it. Maybe not you or I personally but there is a reason. This is NOT to say I like it.....but until we stop with the violence and the hateful rhetoric....we are going to get what they think they need to do. OR want to do for that matter. We've opened the door....shown ourselves to be less than sensable.
They have to operate on what they do know and sadly, the incidents of mass violence are on the uptick.

And if there is a hurricane that hits during the convention, will it be taken as a sign of dvine wrath, I wonder?

>327
One wonders :>0

~326

"You and I will have to agree to disagree on this. Last Sunday I sat in my yard and listened to one of the usual end of summer sounds in my neighborhood. Daniel Boone Hunting Club is about two miles away....every late summer and early fall the guys go on weekends and site in their hunting rifles.....pretty standard. The pop pop of the rifles as they are shooting at targets.....last Sunday there was a definate ack ack ack of a automatic weapon of somekind. Not just once or twice....the morning was full of this "new" sound coming from Daniel Boone Hunting Club."

I guess you wouldn't have enjoyed my neighborhood about a decade ago. As you went to sleep every night you'd hear a pop pop and every once in a while a poppoppoppop - all from an intersection with run down shops about three blocks away. Then the police helicopters would fly around for a bit and shine llghts down in the vicinity of the intersection, and, for good measure, in your windows.

Strange thing was that no one on my street or the immediately adjacent streets ever got hurt. Apparently the shooters must have been either really good shots and landed every round in what they aimed at or really bad shots and had the rounds fall back at their feet.

In any case, it was entertaining.

“Army soldiers formed a militia group in Georgia that plotted to overthrow the U.S. government — and they killed a fellow soldier and his girlfriend to keep the plot secret, prosecutors alleged Monday, according to the Associated Press.
Prosecutors in the Long County, Ga., case say that the militia group planned to overtake the nearby Fort Stewart, to bomb a dam in Washington state and poison the state’s apple crop and ultimately overthrow the government and assassinate the president, according to reports.
The group of former and activity duty U.S. service members spent at least $87,000 on guns and bomb components, prosecutors said.
The anarchist allegations emerged Monday during the trial where four soldiers are accused of killing former soldier Michael Roark and his 17-year-old girlfriend Tiffany York, to stop their plan from being revealed.” http://thehill.com/blogs/defcon-hill/army/245747-soldiers-alleged-plot-to-assass...

~330

That didn't work out too well for them, did it?

>329

I grew up in Milwaukee Wi.....I know about gun shots....the point was that Daniel Boone is a "hunting" club. Wondering what they are hunting with automatic weapons ? Also the sound is new to this area...and it is not something that is a pleasant addition.

We didn't typically shoot our neighbor's kids either if they got drunk at a party and wandered into the wrong house. Or made too much noise or what ever.... As parents we shagged the kids home ourselves and dealt with them on our own. If it happened too often in the same home we spoke with the homeowners and warned them that we would call the cops. We dealt with stuff ! We did not shoot kids or make use of law enforcement unless absolutely necessary. A gun and/or legal recourse was not the first thing to come to mind. My kids got into fist fights, not shoot outs. Even gang members had rumbles, rather than drive-bys. Occasionally knives were involved....though death by a knife wound is no less of a death, the chances of a two year old getting killed by a stray knife is a lot less than by a stray bullet.

"Isaac Aguigui, the Army private and alleged ringleader of a plot to assassinate Barack Obama and "take over" Ft. Stewart in Georgia, apparently served as a page at the 2008 Republican National Convention in Minneapolis, Minn." http://gawker.com/5938288/leader-of-army-plot-to-assassinate-obama-apparently-at...

~332

"I grew up in Milwaukee Wi.....I know about gun shots....the point was that Daniel Boone is a "hunting" club. Wondering what they are hunting with automatic weapons ? Also the sound is new to this area...and it is not something that is a pleasant addition."

My goodness, there are changes in the world that are not pleasant for you. I'm sorry.

~333

I am sorry, but could you explain the point of all this? Or are you just posting summaries of news stories that are generally interesting to you?

#330: Another sinister terror plot to keep the government-worshippers in line. While it's possible that this time it was a genuine conspiracy instead of one of those many entrapment operations cooked up by the FBI, the fact that one of the allegations includes "poisoning the apple crop!" does not inspire confidence.

I mean, really. Who can read the line about poisoning the apples and not crack up?

Snow White isn't laughing.

#326--it strikes me that you seem to think that this all stems from a disrespect for authority.

If you want to look at the United States as an ongoing construction of a society--it is constructed like most societies with different levels of authority--from the POTUS down to the policeman/woman on the beat--one can strike off on tangents to schoolteachers and religious leaders as well who effectively create a moral climate for this kind of hierarchical system to thrive and grow and it seems to me again that you think things are breaking down because there is not enough respect for all of that.

It's like you put all of the onus for the 'illness' of society on ordinary people not on a system that is corrupt and/or treats these same ordinary people with arrogance from the top (office of the POTUS) and from all levels on down to the policeman/woman on the beat. And by corruption I mean the people of this country are continually being betrayed by its leaders and the supporting system which enforces that. You don't even have to go very far back in time to find examples of this--the lead up to and the aftermath of 9-11--the Iraqi/Afghani adventures that not only have killed and maimed many of our young (let alone what it has done to the native populations of those countries), the banking collapse in which there is austerity and more outsourcing of jobs for us while those who constructed the collapse get paid off handsomely and are now working other similar schemes which 'our' political leaders are going to support them on. And the police as we have seen over the past year are going to help crack heads for them--if necessary anyway. They get shiny new Darth Vader outfits out of it.

So you want to hand over to these same fuckheads more power? And by fuckheads I mean the same political apparatus of a two party system that closes off real alternatives that actually might improve the lives of ordinary citizens but are really intent only on improving the lives of themselves and a small elite % of the population who control an inordinate amount of its wealth. The truth is they'll take it if they decide to--they don't need your approval or even the mandate of a majority of this country's citizens to do that.

>334
Really lawecon, aren't you the one who is so quick to point out the irrelevence of the posts made by those who engage in chit chat ?

" My goodness, there are changes in the world that are not pleasant for you. I'm sorry."

This seems to have nothing to do with much of anything that is relevent to the conversation but everything to do with saying something snarky and personal, which renders your next post quite amusing.

"I am sorry, but could you explain the point of all this? Or are you just posting summaries of news stories that are generally interesting to you?"

http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2012/08/28/13527104-stinky-shot-texas-woman-aims...

AIRLIFTED ! Who the heck pays for that ? Chances are if you are shooting skunks on your back porch, you are not paying for the airlifting.

>338
No, not even close. I think it all starts with disrespect for each other...from the top on down or from the bottom on up. which ever way you want to look at it.

We don't demand respect from our leaders. We put people on the ticket who have no business being in positions of power and most often we do this for selfish reasons. When most Republican's put the little mark in the box next to Romney it will not be for the benefit of the country...it will be because they are thinking of their personal issues taxes, or abortions, or harboring a "fear" of Obama.....for the most part the reasons will be selfish.

We give the Limbaugh's, Beck's, Trump's and Palin's power....they can not achieve what they have if we don't play our part.

If you ask me why we continue to do this....I will have no answer...I don't know. but I don't think it is the fault of the police departments. They haven't changed any more than any other "business" or "system" in this country. Competative, cut throat, lack of scruples and a desire to satisfy one's immediate wants....kind of describes it all.

We give the "fuck heads" power and then complain that they are acting like "fuck heads"

Small example and it may seem unrelated but it is NOT......We went to war in Iraq for oil...I knew this BEFORE we went about spreading "shock" and "awe" Suppose we can forgive those who were scared shit faced by Bush but to my mind, it is irresponsible to send anyone to die or to cause the death of innocent Iraqis without studing the facts a bit and if you had studied the facts you knew that this mission was a business proposition.
Instead of rationing our use of oil by way of protest, we built a Hummer....we were going to show the world that we had the right to take and use what we wanted. Made me sick to see them on the road and know that people died and we refused to govern our desire for MORE.......BIGGER
Sounds like unrelated rambling but I don't think so....I think we act in reprehensible ways and pick leaders who emulate just exactly how many of us would operate if given the chance.

Still not the fault of the police forces of this country. They are merely chess pieces in the game.

Who after all makes up "the system" ? Any of them ? The banks....the healthcare system.....the legal system....our political system ? They are all made up of Americans and for the most part there seems to be a big shift to the side of not giving a rip about anybody or anything but the bottom line, no matter what it may do to their fellow Americans.

To have a different type of leadership we need a society with different priorities.....Good Luck with that !

#342--a lot of 'we'-s in this.

Anyway it's almost like you've been living under a rock. People don't just happen to become major politicians--at least not anymore. There's a vetting thing that goes on and whether it's local, statewide or national you have to belong to the right clique's just to be able to raise the money necessary to run for any kind of important political office. Certainly you know that. Because without money these days (and lots of it) you're not going to go anywhere. This two party system of ours has locked everything up and down.

Shlumps like Limbaugh and Beck are bought and paid for shills determined upon feeding their listeners the right side of what issues are deemed important enough. The Democrats have their spin doctors as well.

And like most people I don't think you've ever questioned how structured authority is in this country. You're yakking about 'we' being responsible for the bums running this country who are 'selfish' but these are the choices that this structure gives us--and it's not an accident. Has the thought of deconstructing it--even if you later on reconstruct parts of it ever entered your head? I'm thinking not.

The people on top running this carnival for us at the behest of investment bankers etc. are currently making sure that their friends in office use 'their' police departments (thinking of the moderate Michael Bloomberg again) to crack heads when 'we' get out of line. If rank and file policemen said 'screw this' they would be fired but if they said it en masse and meant it then those politicians and Wall St. types would be up shit creek without a paddle. But they're not worried that's going to happen--they've been tightening the controls more and more--Obama's been enhancing on Bush 2's Patriot act and he'll do some more of that in his second term unless Romney pulls the rabbit out of the proverbial hat but then Romney will build on the Patriot act too. Your ordinary cop on the beat is standing in they way--just an opinion. He's not on our side--he's on his boss's side and his boss listens to the mayor--who listens to the state senator who listens to the Governor who listens to the POTUS who listens to his big donors. I don't know how much more plain I can make this for you.

Or maybe I'm just paranoid?

Food for thought: All nine bystanders wounded in the recent Empire State Building shooting were hit by the bullets fired by the police. Of the two dead, one was the shooter, and the other was his coworker. The shooter didn't fire at the police, who loosed sixteen shots between them, killing him and wounding everyone else.

Now, while you contemplate this, think of all those people advocating that armed civilians in a darkened theater would have helped the Aurora, Colorado situation. Two trained officers in New York got in something of a gunfight on a street in broad daylight and shot a bunch of bystanders by accident. How many bystanders would have been shot by gung-ho but mostly untrained civilians in a darkened theater?

>343
"Shlumps like Limbaugh and Beck are bought and paid for shills determined upon feeding their listeners the right side of what issues are deemed important enough. The Democrats have their spin doctors as well. "

Why does it work ? Why do people listen to them ? If there was a bit more critical thinking going on it wouldn't. They appeal to the selfish, the paranoid and those who feel somehow that they got a raw deal. They are popular, rich and actually make a difference in our government as to how they feel about any given public policy and who they choose to endorse.
Not me....not you but enough people to be a powerful force.

"Has the thought of deconstructing it--even if you later on reconstruct parts of it ever entered your head? I'm thinking not."

Of course it has but if there is one thing people hate more than this dysfunctional government, it would be change. Scares the beejesus out of them. Can't even get the health care system under control when it is obvious that it is heading towards a wall. It would mean change....a change in how we viewed our healthcare and what we think we have coming from the system. We would have to be somewhat responsible for ourselves.....who the heck wants that ?
You want to take some control away from the banks....bank at a local bank. It may cost you more, probably can't provide all the "fee free" service of the big banks but if everyone did it....it would make a statement. You want to send a message about mega businesses ? Shop at local stores.....buy six things instead of ten...it is going to cost more but "mega" is not better and pretty soon it won't be any cheaper cause we won't have a choice. Been saying this since WalMart started spreading it's ugly self all over the face of this nation. People do not want to give up convienance and are not willing to pay the price to keep things small and managable...they want big and overwhelming. So this is what we will get.

Don't like programs ? Don't use them. Don't want government harrassing your business...well then maybe you shouldn't be dumping toxic waste into running water ways ! (we ALL pay for this crap) The housing bubble ? Yes a lot of nasty stuff but who the heck buys a $600,000.00 when they make their living driving a bus ? I don't care who told me I could afford it I would tell them that they were nuts.

Not enough critical thinking going on.

Certainly not all of us are a drag on what needs to happen but enough to keep things funtioning as per usual. As long as we do not govern ourselves, someone will be glad to step in and do it. If this society doesn't start to think for itself, there will be plenty of people who will think for them until it is too late......it may be already. Outside of a civil war, what do you suggest ?

>344
Yes...and we don't like the police for becoming militant but heaven forbid we entertain the thought that assault weapons have no place in a civilized society.

Can't have it both ways.

People were up in arms about it as well..."the POLICE shot people". NO....they were in a crowded situation with a lot of buildings and this is what happens. My guess, there are still people out there yammering about the police being irresponsible and shooting innocent bystanders. Just a guess but unless you stop and think about it, unless you use a bit of critical thinking, you will make your mind up based on either the talking heads or your own prejudices and fears.

Seems to me that the preponderence of guns in the USA is simply anachronistic. It made sense when the country was an open frontier, but not now that there are over 300 million people living cheek by jowl. Now it's more a question of indoctrination; the right to bear arms and all that stuff, hard-wired in from an early stage and bypassing logical consideration.

>347
"bypassing logical consideration"

Lots of that going on and it isn't exclusive to guns.

~347

Yept, it is disturbing that those whose consumption habits and interests differ from one's own are so anachronistic, barbaric and just plain irrational, isn't it?

operations cooked up by the FBI

In the J. Edgar Hoover movie with music by Clint Eastwood, I was surprised the _BI wasn't armed in the early days.

>349
What others do will affect you....what you do will affect others, as much as you would never never want to admit this or recognize that this is a fact of life.....it is the truth.
Assualt weapons are barbaric and anachronistic to a peaceful, SAFE society. Not sure this is such a irrational conclusion.

~351

You are absolutely right. The fact that most of the American people can't think, don't want to think, and feel comfortable spouting slogans affects me greatly. They cause one war after another and allow a regime to arise in Washington whose officials can make me or anyone else disappear whenever they feel like it. They should be banned.

>352
That was a totally typical come back. Keep things status quo cause we can not ban people. So what the heck is the difference ! Just let it ride.
Seems to fit with the way we are handling the situation. Given the statistics on violence, in this country, not so sure it working all that well but, heck, we can't TRY anything different...why would we do that ? Won't work anyway ! For all kinds of reasons, senerios and what ever else one can come up with to prove that staying stuck is better than moving forward.
It would seem to me that the Republican's have proven over the past four years that this method of problem solving has not been all that efficient.

#344: You misunderstand. Deterring shooters by arming the public isn't as simplistic as people just shooting back at them. It's also to deter a potential shooter from even trying. The wisdom of having a firefight depends on the situation. And with things to worry about like "liability," the ordinary citizen has a better incentive to consider the wisdom of shooting back than a cop would who's accustomed to shooting first and asking questions later and with plenty of judges to support their recklessness. "Trained," my ass.

>354
You keep assuming that "ordinary" citizen always act in ordinary ways. THAT is not true. Many people do not realize themselves what they may be capable of. By the time someone decides to use a gun, I am pretty sure they don't give a rip if anyone else has one or not. It does NOT make sense in any way shape or form to add more weapons to a violent society to make it less violent. Just doesn't.

" the ordinary citizen has a better incentive to consider the wisdom of shooting back than a cop would who's accustomed to shooting first and asking questions later and with plenty of judges to support their recklessness. "Trained," my ass."

Yep....must be a plot enacted, by the cops, for population control. Sure of it.

As for training.....na...they just throw those guys out on the streets and hope for the best. Right !

No matter what you TELL yourself, much like half this country, and a good portion of our law makers, you can not make your own reality. You can THINK you do but there are those who will be looking at you and wondering how long you are going to keep fooling yourself.

http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2012/08/31/13587962-employee-shoots-2-dead-at-nj...

My sister is a human resource specialist....she "fires" people on occasion. Her comment "We are all well aware that our lives are in danger. The work place has become very volitile. We work in a no gun zone but this means nothing !" Guess not....if you have one in the car and there are no security "guards" at the door.

#355: You keep assuming that "ordinary" citizen always act in ordinary ways. THAT is not true.

Yes, yes. I'm well aware of the depths of your misanthropy. No big help there. In any case, your assumption is that any Dick and Jane without the confidence to carry a gun would be the ones to carry a gun. That's not how people actually behave, however.

Yep....must be a plot enacted, by the cops, for population control. Sure of it.

It's not a "plot." It's the thin blue line. A cop can shoot a guy unprovoked and the judicial system will give him a free pass. It's systematic corruption. If a cop had shot Trayvon Martin, it wouldn't have even made national news because of cop-worshippers like you.

As for training.....na...they just throw those guys out on the streets and hope for the best. Right !

All the training in the world won't stop a corrupt system from giving reckless cops a pass. A system that exists because there are just enough indifferent sickos out there who will openly state that police brutality is deserved.

>357

"In any case, your assumption is that any Dick and Jane without the confidence to carry a gun would be the ones to carry a gun. That's not how people actually behave, however." = This has absolutely nothing to do with the amount of gun violence in the United States. Not a thing !

"because of cop-worshippers like you." = Whatever.

"All the training in the world won't stop a corrupt system from giving reckless cops a pass."

OR a reckless :

doctor
lawyer
judge
investment banker
politician
priest
military

Any and all of the systems that support these professions will protect their own. Why would cops be any different.

#358: This has absolutely nothing to do with the amount of gun violence in the United States. Not a thing !

That was in reply to you saying that an ordinary citizen carrying a gun would flip their lid if they had to use it.

Any and all of the systems that support these professions will protect their own. Why would cops be any different.

That's a non sequitur. Cops can kill people and judges will look the other way. Even George Zimmerman almost got a pass because of his dad being a judge. And yet you keep siding with their ilk against everyone else when academics like James L. Payne and Steven Pinker are telling you that society has been getting less violent.

>359
"That was in reply to you saying that an ordinary citizen carrying a gun would flip their lid if they had to use it."

I said an ordinary citizen carrying a gun MAY flip their lid if they had to use it. Which is NOT the same as saying that they WOULD flip their lid if they had to use it.

Selective hearing going on here...not much different that what is going on nationally. (we BUILT it) Speaks of a mentality that is more about obstruction than any solutions that may be constructive.

Judges, doctors and lawyers may not be able to kill one with one shot of a gun but they have the potential of damaging one's life profoundly. People are people...why would one group be any different than any other ? If I catagorized any one of the three groups I just mentioned as "all bad" because of a negative experience with any one of them, I would never have the desire to be around any one of them again.

#360: I said an ordinary citizen carrying a gun MAY flip their lid if they had to use it. Which is NOT the same as saying that they WOULD flip their lid if they had to use it.

Sure, but the comparison was with cops who can pull out their weapon and fire recklessly without any of the liability an ordinary person would incur and with a judicial system that will let them off the hook if the initial investigators don't let him off the hook first. How can it possibly be rational to be more comfortable with that scenario over ordinary people carrying weapons?

Selective hearing going on here...

I agree. Observe:

If I catagorized any one of the three groups I just mentioned as "all bad" because of a negative experience with any one of them, I would never have the desire to be around any one of them again.

So in this entire conversation the only thing that ever registered in your head was that I'm supposedly saying that all cops are bad. Nevermind that you can't actually find anything like that in my posts. And everything I've mentioned such as drug war funding policies and judicial bias and academics saying that violence is decreasing... all of that is just noise to you because you have made up your mind beforehand that anyone who disagrees would only mention such things because they think cops are "all bad." Forget "selective hearing." You simply haven't heard a thing.

>340

I'd like to see the source for the Casey quote ("we'll know our disinformation program is complete"). While it's internet gold, it shows up only two Google books, neither of them likely to be its original source, neither particularly impressive and neither footnoted. And I want to know what he was specifically referring to.

362: Every source says it is from his "first staff meeting", which is a nicely vague reference. I've seen a few sources that say it is from "internal staff notes", although one wonders where random internet people, or anyone else, got internal CIA documents.

In short, everything about the "quote" points to it being a fabrication.

Tim, I got that from one of the especially avid entities on Facebook, and I can't tell you which one now. It seemed to me more germane to the dialogue here than to reality, but I suppose that I too would like to see a source.

Robert

I would be curious to learn if any of the posters in this thread have ever carried a weapon in the course of their activities, or for other reasons, in civilian life - not to include hunting.

#365

Excluding hunting, target shooting, and moving, I have not carried any form of firearm in the normal course of my activities.

~365

I would like to know the price of certain commodities in a year. But I don't believe that such knowledge would be relevant to anything in this conversation.

366> Thank you for your reply.

367> My intent was to learn more about what others felt as far as responsibility, power, fear, strength or other emotions that were different for them when they carried a firearm, as opposed to when they did not. My question was about the psychology, which can have a bearing on one's feelings regarding the Second Amendment - which is what this post is about. Having carried a firearm for a short time for a project which required that I do so, I was curious to know if anyone else shared some of the feelings that were new to me, during that time.

As an aside, try to look at the positive that might be at the root of a person's post, instead of resorting to the type of response you chose for mine. It will gain you more insight, as well as information.

"As an aside, try to look at the positive that might be at the root of a person's post, instead of resorting to the type of response you chose for mine. It will gain you more insight, as well as information."

As an aside, most of your readers aren't mind readers. If you expressed what you meant to say more clearly and fullly, they wouldn't have to resort to responses you don't like, because they would already have the information you now say that you meant to convey. Otherwise, they are likely to say something like WTF, and become less than amiable.

369> "they would already have the information you now say that you meant to convey."

It was not my desire to 'convey' any information, nor did I suggest in my last communication that I had had such an intent. I was asking a question, which can stand on its own.

I should add, I am no more responsible for someone's reaction than I am for their ability to breathe. How one responds to anything is their choice, and their responsibility. This includes you, of course. For instance, how you respond to 'Bugger off,' is solely your responsibility and not mine.