Another US shooting..

[Al Swearegen]

Yes, we all know that in history the Soviets trucks tanks and 500 000 men charged into Finland and your descendants (no doubt) stalemated them by thrusting logs into Tank tracks and using the climate and knowledge of the terrain and better camouflage to turn their strengths into weaknesses. The fact that Finland had only a few million people to combat against Russia was negligible. (Even without Simo Hayha)

So you are not even for a moment suggesting the fact that US Government having nukes and tanks and such is tantamount to "game over, hand over your guns because you could not even stand a chance to adequately defend yourself against a more technologically superior force", or are you?

[odeon]

I'm saying that the 2d amendment excuse is bullshit, yes. It's an utterly lame excuse. Your comparing that with Finland only shows your ignorance of both.

[Minister Of Silly Walks]

Odeon, your descendants fought off the Russian invasion of Finland?

Just how fucking old ARE you?

[Al Swearegen]

Odeon, your descendants fought off the Russian invasion of Finland?

Just how fucking old ARE you?

You know those painting you see in caves of stick figures bringing down Mammoths? That was Odeon and his mates catching dinner.

Yes, I did mean ancestors. Great pick up.

[Al Swearegen]

I'm saying that the 2d amendment excuse is bullshit, yes. It's an utterly lame excuse. Your comparing that with Finland only shows your ignorance of both.

It is one that many Americans hold onto dearly. You do not need to convince me though I am not American.

As to what I said about Finland and their fight against the Soviets is far from ignorant and you would know this. What was expected to be a very quick endeavor proved anything but. The Finnish people put up a resistance that was incredible and over many many months. camouflage, Guerilla tactics, knowledge of the terrain, and the terrible Winter all played to The Finnish resistance and against the Soviets. The great numbers and more sophisticated were countered by the above.

[FourAceDeal]

You mentioned Mental Health and Gun violence again on another thread.  Are you about to finally post some sort of source material or research on the subject?

[Al Swearegen]

You mentioned Mental Health and Gun violence again on another thread.  Are you about to finally post some sort of source material or research on the subject?

I did and it is as plain as the nose on one's face.

[Jack]

He seems to be saying people keep suggesting Y, but can't recall seeing anyone suggest Y. It seems nothing at all been suggested, and Y is simply assumed. Of course that's me assuming Y is outright banning guns in the US.

Y would be restricting measures on guns (gun control). It gets instant push back and is bought up again and again with the same result. Insanity is doing the same thing again and again and expecting a different result.

In 1993 the Brady Act was adopted for handguns and extended to long guns in 1997. While this act may not be completely effective, statistics show background checks to have been effective by preventing the legal sale of firearms to convicted criminals, people with warrants, people with known substance abuse issues, perpetrators of domestic violence, and illegal aliens. Since 1993 US homicide rates and gun related crime rates have dropped over 50%. One might argue, the US already has gun control and it's effective because the facts show it's working, so better gun control isn't an insane suggestion.

There was a significant dip in the mid-80s, too, and the rate had started dropping again before the Brady Act.

Don't view the dip in the mid 80's as meaningful; it's sort of like the dip in the mid 70's, in the sense that it's simply a dip within an overall upward trend. Sort of like when violent crime rates occasionally bump up now; the long-term trend is still a downward trend. The slight decrease between the 1990 peak and 1993 seems insignificant for an argument that something else was trending prior to the Brady Act.

Not sure I'd interpret the curve the way you do, but there is no way to know.

My baby boomer theory is my best and most thoughtful interpretation, as it doesn't simply rely on stats. Something has shifted in society, and while guns and laws are related to that, it seems more likely people are most influential factor.

[Jack]

He seems to be saying people keep suggesting Y, but can't recall seeing anyone suggest Y. It seems nothing at all been suggested, and Y is simply assumed. Of course that's me assuming Y is outright banning guns in the US.

Y would be restricting measures on guns (gun control). It gets instant push back and is bought up again and again with the same result. Insanity is doing the same thing again and again and expecting a different result.

In 1993 the Brady Act was adopted for handguns and extended to long guns in 1997. While this act may not be completely effective, statistics show background checks to have been effective by preventing the legal sale of firearms to convicted criminals, people with warrants, people with known substance abuse issues, perpetrators of domestic violence, and illegal aliens. Since 1993 US homicide rates and gun related crime rates have dropped over 50%. One might argue, the US already has gun control and it's effective because the facts show it's working, so better gun control isn't an insane suggestion.

Yes and No.

These 1990's Acts (no doubt there was some pushback on both) were at least viable to those with a "from my cold dead hands" view of any gun control on the basis that it did not affect them. "They were not taking their guns away from decent honest law abiding folks who were not at risk", they were taking it from the people they were at most risk from. The people THEY did not want in possession of guns.

Saying that you will stop mentally ill people or criminals from obtaining guns as a measure of gun control is a much easier sell than "Hey there friend, I know you are a decent person who loves their gun collection and considers it your constitutional right to bear those arms but in case YOU turn into a Psycho or a criminal, I am taking that big one off you there and that one over there too. It is for your own good." That sounds to some Americans as the government trying to disarm or reduce their rights.

It is like the gay marriage thing in Australia. Most of us are ambivalent about gay people getting married because it simply does not affect us. A gay person getting married does not hurt me or anyone else, so why would I care? It is completely reasonable for me to agree to this. However, if that means that for instance, the Church going crowd in Australia HAS to include gay friendly services and change the way they practice their religious doctrine to be more gay friendly, I would strongly object.

Not sure anyone has suggested taking anyone's property. There's several things the US could do to better gun control. Better enforcement of the existing laws is a good one. There's also requiring licensing, safety courses, hands-on and written testing to obtain licensing. Requiring the registration of firearms, and closing the backdoor in background checks via private sales. These are things the public supports.

I think that enforcing existing laws which I have mentioned again and again here is absolutely important.

The registration of Firearms unfortunately runs into a BIG problem. IF we can believe that the Constitution's amendment makes a case for the abstract concept of a possible Tyrannical Government needing to be defended against, then we have to think that 1) IF you want to tax all taxable citizens, you need to know who is earning taxable income and have databases of this, 2) IF you need to know who to target to put in religious/ethnic/racial internment camps, you need to have a database of who those peopel are before you round them up 3) IF you are a Tyranical Government and you wish disarm citizens from their lawful and Constitutional right to bear arms to protect themselves fom you......what do you need?

Safety Courses ARE offered by the NRA. But much like the services that are offered by Planned Parenting do NOT ONLY comprise of Abortion, these safety courses do not get as much publicity with the NRA as the thing the NRA is best known for which is gun Activism and promotion.

Nothing suggested conflicts with the constitution in any way, because the difference is owner vs operator. A good comparison is cars. For a car to be legally operational, it must be registered. For a person to legally operate a car, they are required to take a safety course, and pass a hands on and written exam. This has no relationship to who can legally own a car.

[odeon]

Odeon, your descendants fought off the Russian invasion of Finland?

Just how fucking old ARE you?

Please allow me to introduce myself
I'm a man of wealth and taste
I've been around for a long, long year
Stole many a man's soul and faith
And I was 'round when Jesus Christ
Had his moment of doubt and pain
Made damn sure that Pilate
Washed his hands and sealed his fate

[odeon]

I'm saying that the 2d amendment excuse is bullshit, yes. It's an utterly lame excuse. Your comparing that with Finland only shows your ignorance of both.

It is one that many Americans hold onto dearly. You do not need to convince me though I am not American.

As to what I said about Finland and their fight against the Soviets is far from ignorant and you would know this. What was expected to be a very quick endeavor proved anything but. The Finnish people put up a resistance that was incredible and over many many months. camouflage, Guerilla tactics, knowledge of the terrain, and the terrible Winter all played to The Finnish resistance and against the Soviets. The great numbers and more sophisticated were countered by the above.

You do realise that guns are properly regulated in Finland, right?

The 2d amendment is about a well-regulated militia. That should provide a clue here. You're advocating the individual's supposed right to carry firearms--parroting the NRA, basically--which is very, very different. Do I actually need to spell out that difference?

[odeon]

My baby boomer theory is my best and most thoughtful interpretation, as it doesn't simply rely on stats. Something has shifted in society, and while guns and laws are related to that, it seems more likely people are most influential factor.

It's a perfectly valid interpretation, but unprovable.

[FourAceDeal]

You mentioned Mental Health and Gun violence again on another thread.  Are you about to finally post some sort of source material or research on the subject?

I did and it is as plain as the nose on one's face.

I can't find the post you are referring to.  Could you please repost the evidence you are referring to.

[Minister Of Silly Walks]

You mentioned Mental Health and Gun violence again on another thread.  Are you about to finally post some sort of source material or research on the subject?

I did and it is as plain as the nose on one's face.

I can't find the post you are referring to.  Could you please repost the evidence you are referring to.

You obviously mistook the hard evidence for a circular pile of waffle. I've been known to make the same mistake myself at times.

[Al Swearegen]

I'm saying that the 2d amendment excuse is bullshit, yes. It's an utterly lame excuse. Your comparing that with Finland only shows your ignorance of both.

It is one that many Americans hold onto dearly. You do not need to convince me though I am not American.

As to what I said about Finland and their fight against the Soviets is far from ignorant and you would know this. What was expected to be a very quick endeavor proved anything but. The Finnish people put up a resistance that was incredible and over many many months. camouflage, Guerilla tactics, knowledge of the terrain, and the terrible Winter all played to The Finnish resistance and against the Soviets. The great numbers and more sophisticated were countered by the above.

You do realise that guns are properly regulated in Finland, right?

The 2d amendment is about a well-regulated militia. That should provide a clue here. You're advocating the individual's supposed right to carry firearms--parroting the NRA, basically--which is very, very different. Do I actually need to spell out that difference?

You can certainly try and I understand you line of argument BUT AGAIN, you do not need to convince me. The thing is that IF and I will underline it IF the American Government becomes tyrannical individuals the Government may likely wish to take away guns and they have done that with a number of Tyrannical regimes. Should this happen or be attempted, gun regulations and a list of gun owners will make it easier for a Tyrannical Government to do so.

SHOULD such a thing occur, citizens may wish to organise in a militia to defend their Constitutional Rights AND they will need all the guns to defend their Rights as they can get.

Now. Your argument may be something along the lines of:

* Tyrannical Government in America....pfft like that would ever happen
* A well organised militia doesn't exist and so the point is mute.
* This is just NRA fear-mongering
* Guns are bad
* Other countries don't need these archaic texts
* Considering the amount of death this causes their population maybe regardless of their "rights" maybe it is a decent trade-off

Any or all of these are reasonable counters BUT so is the premise AND it is embedded in the Constitution and in the culture. I am Australian we have guns but we do not have this Constitutional/cultural attachment to guns. So you do not need to convince me. Their culture and their laws and their history are unique to them and part of their National Identity. I am not going to devalue it.