@avron , i agree. Perhaps a focus group that would work on potentially violent individuals that taught them to take their anger out on only those who put them in their current situations might help.

Excellent response!

Some years back it was common for terrorist soldiers to sweep into Algerian neighborhoods and order the residents into the streets where they would be gunned down. I thought at the time that such a thing would not happen in the US where people are armed and ready.

@LenHazell53 looking at the statistics that way wouldn't be fair unless you also included those same statistics into the numbers represented above in the same time period.

Otherwise you might as well as be comparing people who died of malpractice by doctors this year to people who died of household acidents during the 1800s.

@WilliamFleming @BD66 You are basically making the argument that if the common folk of the USA don't have guns, then their own government would murder them indiscriminately, it is only the threat of armed civil war that keeps the authorities in check.
If you are so frightened of your own elected government that you feel you need to defend yourself against them with deadly force your society is REALLY fucked up.

@LenHazell53 of course... there's the fact that there are 3X as many people as there was then....

Most of those populations were far from 'unarmed', but that kind of spoils the argument, doesn't it? The government will always have the preponderance of armed force. The options are:

1. Allow private ownership of all armaments up to ICBMs, including RPGs, flamethrowers, warships, artillery, fighter jets, bombers, nuclear weapons etc.
   OR
2. Deprive the government of all of the above.
   OR
3. Take control of the government by separation of the executive and military and by democratic accountability.

Allowing individuals to own pathetic little arsenals of small-arms achieves nothing except high homicide and suicide rates and the necessity of arming police officers. It's a little fig-leaf that solves nothing while creating a host of new problems.

In Afghanistan, there is a PKM or AK47 at every house, and it has been 40 years that people are killing each other by those guns

@Noor92 Yep, but they sure got big government off their backs didn't they? Like those lucky Somalis who don't have hospitals, schools, running water or electricity.

@LenHazell53 I’m not actually saying that but I suppose that at some point government could turn on its citizens. In Algeria, and many other places it hasn’t been the government murdering people but fanatical terrorist groups.

In the early days of settlement firearms were absolutely essential for self-defense in this country, and there have been periods of unrest since then where firearm ownership by lawful citizens has prevented mayhem and anarchy.

@LenHazell53 Amen!

@WilliamFleming you do realize that when a dozen heavily armed men appear in your doorway at 3 am and point the weapons at your family, your AK47 laying in your lap is going to do you absolutely no good. The only time it is going to make a difference is if you are guarding that door, finger on trigger, 24/7. It’s a hell of a way to live but it’s what a man does to protect his family. Right?

@Rob1948 No matter what time of day, it is a duty to defend yourself and your family however you can. Acting alone, your chances would be slim, but if death is in store a person has nothing to lose by fighting.

Under such circumstances there would be loosely organized militias on alert, and there might be advance warning,

Do you advocate just giving up in those circumstances—hoping the police or army might come? Remember, this is not some fantasy—it’s happened over and over.

@WilliamFleming No. I would move. Do you feel threated by roving gangs of terrorists where you live? I know I don’t. Wouldn’t it make more sense to move somewhere safer if you feel threatened or to create a ascertain compound?

@Rob1948 I feel safe enough, but from time to time there are attacks. I like to have a gun handy just in case.

Why don’t you want me to be able to defend my family?

@WilliamFleming I don’t want to take a gun away from you. I simply want better gun laws... quoted from above:

Some of my suggestions.

1. Universal background checks and registration for all purchases and transfers.

2. Universal firearm safety training.

3. Training for first time purchasers or licensees.

4. Buy back programs.

5. Make silencers illegal.

6. Make assault weapons illegal.

7. Make fully automatic weapons illegal.

8. Better enforcement of domestic violence laws.

9. Better mental health care.

10. Stiffer laws associated with use or illegal discharge of firearms.

11. Firearm removal programs for people thought to be dangerous to self and others, conducted via judicial review.

And, for you 2nd Amendment types... no where did I suggest repeal.

@Rob1948 All of your suggestions seem reasonable. Both silencers and fully automatic firearms are so heavily controlled as to be essentially illegal already for most people.

Assault type rifles, machine guns, grenades, etc. might be limited to those who belong to a well regulated militia or rifle club.

I’ll probably get clobbered for this but I think before anyone is prescribed a psychotropic drug there should be an inspection of their homes to ensure that they will not be having access to firearms. Or just outlaw psychotropic drugs.

@WilliamFleming Silencers can be bought for some guns. They are easy to make.

I like your style. I totally agree with this post.

I love it. I disagree, but love it.

"Gun hoarding by the rich"???? Really?? That's rather funny. I'm rich, and I own TWO firearms, a shotgun and a handgun. Maybe I should acquire more to follow your suggestion??

Have you ever contemplated suicide? The method to use is a big decision.
You could throw yourself off a tall building, overdose or slit your wrists. Each of these methods requires actions. A tall building means you have to go out and find one, with all the chances of 2nd thoughts on the way. An overdose means that you have to have all the pills ready to eat. As for cutting? there is a formidable resistance to applying a blade to one's own flesh. How much easier to just swallow a gun barrel and pull. It is open to impulse, the equivalent of internet shopping.
Gang killings are pretty much in the same boat. The UK has a lot of gang violence and quite a few deaths but most are from stabbings. This is a very small fraction of the USA figures. That's because guns are not easy to get hold of here.

What I would like to know as an outsider is, what would it take for guys like you to think that gun control might be a good idea?. If it could save a child's life? 2 children lives?10? 100? 1,000? at what point would you say that it should be harder to own a gun than a car?

@273kelvin "What I would like to know as an outsider is, what would it take for guys like you to think that gun control might be a good idea?. If it could save a child's life? 2 children lives?10? 100? 1,000? at what point would you say that it should be harder to own a gun than a car?" There are more guns in the U.S. than there are people. Therefore, "making them harder to get" is much of an oxymoron. The U.K. never had that many guns in civilian hands to begin with, nor did Australia nor New Zealand. One cannot logically expect to wave a magic wand and have them all disappear. As an "outsider" you may not be aware that in almost all the famous mass shootings in the U.S., nearly all of the shooters had already violated some gun law in the process of obtaining the guns they used in the shootings...so much for more gun laws (The one's already in force did not work.). Therefore, with the ready supply of guns that we have, "attempting to make guns harder to get", is a fool's endeavor...that genie is already out of the bottle. It is notable that the most ambitious of the anti-gun movements does not seek to enact a total ban on civilian ownership. At this point however, I wish to point out that your last paragraph is a logical fallacy of an appeal to emotion.

@kodimerlyn " ONE innocent death is ONE TOO MANY!! " Are gun deaths the majority of untimely deaths in the U.S.? Are there more gun deaths than deaths due to automobile accidents, drug overdoses or medical mistakes? Is it logical to be more concerned with a relatively minor cause of death while seeming unconcerned with the major causes of death? In all, the stype of you posting including the excessive use of exclamation marks indicate that you are an emotional rather than a logical person.

@273kelvin "What I would like to know as an outsider is, what would it take for guys like you to think that gun control might be a good idea?" It always makes me wonder about the hubris it takes for a non-citizen of the U.S. to project themselves into American politics while at the same time, I have never seen a post my an American citizen injecting themselves into U.K. political issues such as Brexit. A U.K. person cannot possibly be aware of the complexity of the American gun situation inasmuch as most Americans themselves are generally ignorant of the aspects of the Constitution and existing laws relative to the issue. The only thing you need to know as an outsider is, STFU and deal with your own issues.

@273kelvin Whoops, hit a raw nerve there with poster Dahermit! Nice one.

People focus on that because it is fixable with effort, more so than other problems you mention. By the way, getting guns off the streets solves guns and gangs.

Now, answer a question for me please. Why is it pro-gun folks aren’t the least bit concerned about any of the deaths that result from gun use?

@dahermit Your wrong about nearly all mass shooters broke a gun law. Not in Virginia Beach, Las Vegas, Parkland, Columbine, and others. Perhaps a large number, or even a majority. But, not nearly all.

As for death by auto... many things have been done to reduce those numbers. See @Benthoven’s response above.

Unnecessary medical deaths ... how about some static’s showing it to be a major issue. There are review boards in place to address those. However, no one points a doctor at you and says “Kill.”

Guns are an addressable issue, doing nothing is insanity. Doing something may not be perfect. But that is no reason to reject it. Saving lives is the point here.

@273kelvin was this post meant for me?

@Geoffrey51 Sorry wrong click

@Rob1948 Okay I don't live there so.... However, I have seen many comments on here from US members on Brexit posts, Also comments from your current and former head of state on the subject.
As for road deaths, etc. from what I have read gun deaths are the most likely cause for young black men. Then we go back to Northern Ireland in the 70s at the height of the troubles. Bombs going off all over (funded largely by US citizens) but still road deaths were the largest cause of death. Yet how many American citizens would have wanted to go there on vacation? If road deaths are always going to be top killers that is not a good reason to start smoking.
The argument that the cat is too far out of the bag is also erroneous. It is not an excuse to do nothing. Nor is the fact that mass shooters had already broken the weak gun laws an excuse not to make them tighter.
If there are already more guns than people in a country? Then to my mind, that's a good reason not to sell any more of them.

@273kelvin not a problem I thought it a bit of an odd response. Nice response either way!

No. That meme assumes idiocy. It assumes that guns will be banned, which is throwing the baby out with the bath water. True, effective gun control takes time and is a multi-faceted approach that should, for example, include such ideas as:

1. Universal background checks and registration for all purchases and transfers.

2. Universal firearm safety training.

3. Training for first time purchasers or licensees.

4. Buy back programs.

5. Make silencers illegal.

6. Make assault weapons illegal.

7. Make fully automatic weapons illegal.

8. Better enforcement of domestic violence laws.

9. Better mental health care.

10. Stiffer laws associated with use or illegal discharge of firearms.

11. Firearm removal programs for people thought to be dangerous to self and others, conducted via judicial review.

And, for you 2nd Amendment types... no where did I suggest repeal.

@Rob1948
What a bunch of nonsense.

@bigpawbullets Why would that be nonsense?

@Rob1948 Here is what I think about these

1. This could be helpful in most situations but it doesn't cover loopholes that allows black market purchase of guns and international acquisition. Background checks can take months due to the bureaucratic inefficiency, so If someone is getting death threats they will be unable to protect themselves right away.
2. This one I could agree with depending on how it is done. Most gun stores have a range where basic use of the firearm can be learned and this should qualify. If it also involves say, monthly or yearly class based training that seem unnecessary.
3. This one I agree with fully because people need to respect the weapons they hold.
4. Buy back programs would have to be done very carefully for it to be effective at all. Assuming this is done through a government program, you have to ask what happens to the weapons when they are bought from people who no longer need them? If they go to some armory and get locked up and forgotten, then you just put a lot of guns no one wants in one place and that opens up the possibility that criminal organizations could obtain them. If they are sold back to gun owners then what happens if the store can not afford to buy the weapon back, even at a much cheaper price? I would need to see specifics to decide if this was a good or a bad idea.
5. Silencers like you see in the movies are not real. They don't do as much as you think to reduce sound or flash and almost nothing in the immediate vicinity.
6. , 7. There really is no reason to ban a gun because it is bigger and scarier. Most active shooters use pistols because they are smaller, therefore lighter and easier to conceal. The data here isn't even contestable, handguns are more dangerous than assault rifles or fully automatic weapons, but they are useless against a trained army because small caliber guns can't penetrate body armor.
7. , 10. Authoritative governing structures are the fastest way to reduce freedoms for everyone. Giving more power to law enforcement can only work to spread violence in the long term as it has done in many inter city areas.
8. I made a thread a while ago proposing mandatory mental health evaluation for everyone that would be a requirement for a number of public services and serve as a licence for things such as public office,CDL, and gun ownership, the idea being to locate people who are mentally unstable early on so they can get help. There was a lot of good discussion but the overwhelming majority ( on here at least ) were strongly opposed.
9. This has a lot of the same issues that people brought up in the thread I mentioned. How do you decide who is thought to be dangerous objectively? There is tons of room for abuse here. What if a southern baptist judge decides that only those who believe in god are worth of gun ownership? Mental health issues are very high among transgender persons, so what if someone just decides to make that ruling based on that inherent bias? Creating a bill like this that is both fair and effective is extremely difficult.

You may not be suggesting repealing the second amendment, but their are some who do, even in this thread.

@Happy_Killbot

1. Background checks for firearms purchases do not take months now.

2. Training should include more than just how to shoot.

3. Buy backs? You either crush them or melt them.

4. I know what they look like. They were used recently, in Virginia Beach and suppressed the sound enough that people did not realize what was happening quickly enough.

5. People don’t need assault rifles. Deer don’t shoot back. And, by some counts, hand guns comprise 60-70% of the weapon of choice. The remainder use rifles and shotguns.

6. Again, deer don’t shoot back and if your aim is that bad, maybe you should not even be hunting.

7. I didn’t suggest that. I suggested better domestic violence law enforcement.

8. This is about better healthcare. You are talking about a removal program. They actually exist now. [google.com]

@Rob1948 Your numbers get mixed up so I'm going to keep them relevant to the original set to eliminate confusion. For some reason the numbers from mine are not the same as what I typed in the comment and editing it changes nothing.

1. Background checks take 1-3 business days where required but that does not include acceptance or denial of that processing request. The weapon can be purchased regardless of the background check results. Typically they will make a phone call to the district office and they look for anything criminal, if there is nothing that is it. The thing is, anything can get you denied and basically everything is a felony in this country, including clearing your browsing history or looking at someone else's facebook page. [techdirt.com]
2. I have no idea what else you would cover besides safety and gun operation. If you want tactical training you should join a militia or the army. I don't see any reason that should be necessary.
3. n/a
4. destroying the weapons holds the same opportunity for criminals to hijack the process to obtain the weapons illegally, and if they were destroyed then there is no way to prove that they were stolen. Lets be honest, if the government is in charge of this they will just take the firing pins out and call it a day. [armytimes.com]
5. If you ever use a suppressor you will quickly realize they don't do much. Most also decrease range and accuracy. Honestly they are not worth it unless you like burning your fingers. They reduce the noise by 14-43 decibels, with the louder weapons receiving the largest decrease, because that scale is logarithmic.
6. , 7. These weapons are not for shooting deer, they are for protecting yourself from a hostile government. They could be used to hunt deer if you want target practice. [mises.org]
   8., 10. You could abuse this to declare anyone mentally unstable for any reason. You can't keep it stable and equitable long term. That is basically the strategy of all authoritarian regimes and the reason we need to keep our guns so we don't become fascist or something.
7. Part of the goal of mandatory psychological assessment would be healthcare. You can't treat people with mental health issues unless you first know who to treat, the idea is that simple. Gun control advocates such as yourself want mental health care but for some reason don't want to know who needs it. It seems to me that you actually want something else entirely, such as the right to declare political opponents insane.

@Happy_Killbot

I followed your numbering. Keep up. OK?

1. You said background checks take months. I didn’t. You accused me of not being grounded in reality? But say clearing your browser history is a felony??? Really? Hint: the only time it is is if you know you are being actively investigated for a specific crime and you clear it, assuming that it’s relevant to evidence of a crime.

2. Gun laws, gun safety, use etc. not tactical training.

3. Cleveland had an active buy back program. They melt them down. Don’t be so cynical and dismissive without knowing what you are talking about. [clevelandpolicefoundation.org]

4. So what? I acknowledged your points earlier. They still tilt the table a bit.

5. No. Assault weapons are not designed to kill deer. But, for many, hunting is a stated reason why they need assault weapons. Keep up with the program.

6. We aren’t talking about nor ever suggested mandatory mental health assessments. You are projecting your insecurities into what you think I am saying. That’s a stupid way to think. It leads to misunderstandings. My words mean what they say. There are no hidden meanings.

@Rob1948 The numbers are glitched somehow, I can't change them.

If you get an actual background check, meaning the one you need to get a security clearance they take months, especially if there is some discrepancy. A top secret security clearance can take years if you had so much as a parking ticket on record. I'm talking from personal experience here.

I can agree with your assessment on requiring gun safety and law courses for first time buyers, and proper handling storage and use training for new weapon purchases.

This is a privately funded program, and so it is not subject to the same bureaucratic scrutiny that a government funded program would be and this changes the game significantly. All I need to ask is this: How do we know that those weapons actually ended up being recycled? Is there documentation to prove that all the weapons were successfully destroyed? What action was taken to ensure that the weapons were properly handled and did not leave the custody of those responsible for them post buyback? I'm not about to subpoena them but if you wanted that to be a federal program you still need to take the things I mentioned in addition to many other considerations.

If people want to use their assault weapon to hunt that isn't a problem. They can go hunting with whatever they want. The fact that they say they want to use it to hunt should have no bearing if they decide they need to use it for protection in the future. If you buy a cast iron skillet and say you are using it to cook, does that mean you can't use it to kill an insect?

Ok, so about the mandatory psychological evaluation, the logic goes something like this:
-We should not allow mentally deranged people to own weapons
-To know if someone is mentally deranged, they need to be psychologically evaluated.
-If anyone buys a gun who is not psychologically evaluated, you do not know if you have sold a mentally deranged person a gun.
-therefore we should mentally evaluate people before they can buy guns.

I take it a step farther because the overwhelming majority of people in prison have some type of mental condition, and we could have kept them out of jail if we knew they were mentally ill and got them help. This type of social program could end up saving the US billions of dollars a year that would otherwise be wasted on inmates. Therapy is cheaper than prison.

This would also be an effective way to combat the mass shootings in this country by preventing them without the need to give up our weapons.

@Happy_Killbot Again, im not talking about that level of background check.

As open about it as Cleveland is, I would bet it on the up and up, that they do what they say. Most in government are honest.

We’ll have to disagree about assault weapons.

If we implement your mental health evaluation process, we may as well have the full background check you discussed too. That’s how long the evil will take.

The way to keep many out of prison is education and jobs, and attempting to keep families together so kids don’t grow up, unsupervised, in the streets.

And, providing better mental health care would help as well.

@Rob1948 I guess you have never worked for the government. Plausible deniability is your best friend. The idea is to never admit that you are in the wrong and sooner or latter you are right.

Education and jobs isn't going to turn hard criminals into good people or make mentally deranged individuals healthy alone. Keeping every family together just isn't going to happen either. Divorce is so common in our society that marriage doesn't have any meaning like it used to. Thinking you can make this universal is a pipe dream at this point.

@Happy_Killbot yes. I have. I know a good many people. Almost all of them good and well intentioned. And, one thing I have found out about them is that they are pretty much the same as most other people.

You really are cynical. Your do nothing attitude on so much we’ve said is really counterproductive. If we did as you suggest, we would wallow in anarchy. The class and economic divides would be way worse tha they are now.

@Shouldbefishing As a firearm owner as well, I agree. It should be harder to obtain guns. I know this won’t help in situations where guns are obtained illegally. I also know this may endanger people that need a firearm for protection.

Some of my suggestions.

1. Universal background checks and registration for all purchases and transfers.

2. Universal firearm safety training.

3. Training for first time purchasers or licensees.

4. Buy back programs.

5. Make silencers illegal.

6. Make assault weapons illegal.

7. Make fully automatic weapons illegal.

8. Better enforcement of domestic violence laws.

9. Better mental health care.

10. Stiffer laws associated with use or illegal discharge of firearms.

11. Firearm removal programs for people thought to be dangerous to self and others, conducted via judicial review.

And, for you 2nd Amendment types... no where did I suggest repeal.

@Ms_McSteven References are easy to get, time consuming and I would not serve as anyone’s reference because of potential liability issues if they shoot someone. People change. People behave differently in front of different people, etc.

@Ms_McSteven As a specific person I would not be a reference. But, try this. I work for myself, have never been married, and as a manufacturer ‘s rep don't have co-workers and my nearest neighbor is 300 yards away. I have no logical references. Now what?

@Ms_McSteven your idea of identifying specific references such as an ex wife is not workable. It would also be prohibitively expensive if done properly. However, that does suggest a valid criticism of a complete background check.

well if you could just keep those guns in your own country and keep shooting each other the rest of the world will feel a whole lot safer

i completely disagree.
Do you really think that goinig to keep gun out of people hand of course not. What will happen is the criminals will have gun and to law obeying citizen will be left unprotected

@Rdurham Recent history shows that countries that outlaw firearms have fewer murders.

while your at it look at how many people are killed in car crashes
comparing the world with the us is like comparing apple to oranges.
well live very diiferent lifestyles and have some of the highest crime rate.
So taking awat people right to bear are is only the beginning of a worst problem.

That sounds like almost all the Central and South American right-wing dictatorships.

You are 100% correct. Either repeal the 2nd Amendment, or stop infringing on the 2nd Amendment.

@irascible, @BestWithoutGods "Recent history shows that countries that outlaw firearms have fewer murders." None of those countries had 315,000,000 guns in civilian hands, nor a Constitutional Right to own guns nor a segment of population that will likely use armed violence to maintain the right to own firearms. Do you really think that U.S. gun owners would peacefully surrender their arms?

"Once the Second Amendment is repealed, we should allow guns only for the police and the military." Just like those South American military dictatorships...countries by the way that have stricter gun control laws than in the U.S. but way more gun murders...they must not be one of those "other industrialized nations".

@dahermit If they don't peacefully surrender their firearms, we'll pry them out of their cold, dead hands.

@Bobby9 You’re wrong on a number of points. But, let me offer this: why do gun proponents seem to think that if what we do is not 100% successful, we can’t do it? It’s about saving lives. It’s better to save some than to save none.

@Bobby9

1. A constitutional amendment also required a 2/3 vote in the House.
2. While repeal of the 2nd Amendment is remote at best, it is is not absolutely zero, as you stated.
3. This US is a democracy and specifically takes the form of a Representative democracy.

@kodimerlyn . First just because i disagree with a ban doesnt make me part of the problem. Now yes canda has a much slow population that the us 350 million USA to canda 37 million at best.
Almost none of the ban on gun either federal or state level hasnt stopped gun from getting into the crimminal hands. I just make it hard for law obeying people to protect there families.

Now what is the first thing a dictator does when taking over a country unarm them so they can protect themself...
Now The us doesnt have mass shooting 3 times a week... I not sure where your getting your infor from

There are State in the US that do have tough gun laws, This hasnt stop people from getting guns

@Bobby9 that is a democratic form of government. And, I already pointed out that you forgot to include the House in your amendment process.

“The United States is not a direct democracy, in the sense of a country in which laws (and other government decisions) are made predominantly by majority vote. Some lawmaking is done this way, on the state and local levels, but it’s only a tiny fraction of all lawmaking. But we are a representative democracy, which is a form of democracy.

And indeed the American form of government has been called a “democracy” by leading American statesmen and legal commentators from the Framing on. ” — [washingtonpost.com]

As for the chance of repeal... that’s your opinion. You were already wrong in saying that US isn’t and has never been a democracy, so I’ll defer to the idea that it is highly unlikely.

@BestWithoutGods not really guns are not the only way to kill someone...

@Rdurham Sure, a person can be killed with a knife, but knives have other purposes, such as cooking. A person can be killed with a car, but that is not the purpose for having a car. Firearms have no other purpose than killing or injuring. That's the difference.

Are you kidding? Why the hell do you think so many people are being killed in this country from shootings? People pull the triggers of guns, that's why. I'm not saying all guns need to be banned, but it is common sense that we don't need assault weapons, automatic weapons, and a police force armed to the hilt looking like they're ready to take out an army of terrorists.

@JesseThompson Eliminate the standing army? That would leave this country defenseless. I doubt you will find many who would agree with you.

A false positive reply. The two are not conflatable.

Motor vehicles are regulated. Seat-belts are mandatory, they come with airbags, reinforced carriages, enhanced safety features. You have to have insurance, a license to drive, you're not allowed to operate a vehicle under certain conditions. You can be ticketed and even have your license revoked for failing to obey these rules.

Cars are a necessity. They were designed and built to get us from one side of town to the other as quickly as possible, with bucket seats, air-conditioning, power windows, power steering, tinted glass, kick-ass stereo systems, digital music players, a sun roof and as much ease and comfort as the buyer can afford.

Basically you're comparing apples to orangutans.

That would be sensible. /sarcasm

By the way, the number dead from auto accidents in the US peaked at 54,589 in 1972. Since then, it has ranged between 32,999 and 37,806 between 2010 and 2017 with several years under 35,000. (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motor_vehicle_fatality_rate_in_U.S._by_year)

As you can see, the US has worked to bring the numbers down.

That dog in your picture is at least twice as smart as you, and probably more. GEEZ!

Guns don't kill people, people kill people, but guns make it a hell of a lot easier, freely available gun make it so much easier still.

@LenHazell53 tell that to LONDON.... it has more murders with knives than New York does with guns... stop believing your damn news

@avron By maintaining our own nukes we have a strategic advantage over them, of who we share no trade agreements, alliances, and nor strategic location. We can nuke them, they can't nuke us, we have leverage they do not.

If they were a country with strategic advantage, trade agreements, or alliances maybe we would be willing to give them nuclear technology. In fact we have done this in the past. How do you think Israel acquired its nuclear technology?

@avron This is all really far off topic now. I chose to arm myself because the same institutions that will fight for oil may turn against its own people.

To get this back on topic, supose someone creates swarms of drones that use facial recignition to find political activists and assassinate them based on what they said on social media. Wouldn't you want to be armed to defend yourself?

Defense is anything acept short sighted. Not preparing for such eventuality is perhaps the worst thing you could do.

@Happy_Killbot "To get this back on topic, supose someone creates swarms of drones that use facial recignition to find political activists and assassinate them based on what they said on social media. Wouldn't you want to be armed to defend yourself?"

And how likely do you consider this fanciful scenario to be? Give us a percentage: 36%, 54%, 72%? Like all gun goons you justify your firearms fetish with paranoid ideas of dangers that exist only in your fevered imagination. The scenario you describe is even less likely than being struck by lightning. Stop watching the Mission Impossible movies as if they were current events.

@Sgt_Spanky 100% because it has arguably already happened or is set to be feasible within the next decade.

10th century Olga of Kiev supposedly gathered birds, attached burning tinder to their legs and released them at night so that they would return to their nests and burn down cities. Provided that wasn't specifically targeted to individuals.

As far as drone assassination goes, the technology is about 60-70% of the way there, I suppose a savvy robotics engineer could make something lethal with existing technology, although it would not be autonomous. Imagine a package delivery drone that delivered bombs to specific peoples doors, or sprayed napalm onto their roof in the middle of the night. This is all technologically feasible. In fact, the technology that is the farthest behind is facial recognition and drone to drone coordination, although DARPA, the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency is working on offensive capabilities.

[darpa.mil]

@Happy_Killbot Good luck with all that.

@kodimerlyn Drones have no defense against EMP you can make a powerful handheld one using the instructions in this video.

You can also buy shotgun shells specifically for taking down drones here:

[budk.com]

You might also consider training an eagle to take out drones.

@Sgt_Spanky Maybe you don't spend your time building things like this, but I know I could make something like that work, probably for less than $1000 using commercial products and various instructions found online for this type of thing.

Banning guns will do nothing to stop violent people from being violent, and it will not stop the government from taking advantage of you.

@Happy_Killbot Think logically for 5 seconds; banning guns won't eliminate all gun violence but will greatly impact the number of gun deaths in the form of frequency of mass shootings, school shootings, accidental kills, and misc acts of homocide. If the guns aren't nearly so ubiquitous, neither are the gun related incidents. Of course it won't stop all violence but it will make for a significanrt reduction -- enough to fully support the measure. The problem with bulletheads like you is you're fine with all the carnage so long as it means you get to keep your precious piece for all the terrorist sleeper cells and killer drones out to get ya.

@Sgt_Spanky Ok, think logically for a second. What is the objective here? If the objective is to make people as safe as possible and society as productive as possible, then banning guns doesn't accomplish anything. People choose to use guns for violence because it is an easy weapon to obtain and equally easy to use.The murder rate form bombs isn't very high, because it is harder to use, acquire and isn't directed the same way guns are, plus there is higher collateral damage.

The problem with this argument is that it treats the symptoms without treating the underlying problem. Look at the rates of knife violence in London. Taking guns away from honest citizens allows criminals to use those weapons against people.

If there is a radical shift in our politics, how can you guarantee that you will not be a target? How many times do we have to see authoritative governments take advantage of its own citizens to learn that disarming the public is the fastest way to concentrate power at the top?

@Happy_Killbot Your thinking isn't based on logic, it's based on fear and paranoia. You see danger and cosnpiracy everywhere: from terrorists, from technology, from the government -- it's all around you! Thank GOD you have your guns to keep all these predatory hordes from murdering you on your way to get the mail -- unless they try to kill you with a mail bonb! Seriously, take a pill. Better yet, smoke some weed and calm down.

@Sgt_Spanky Your thinking is based on wishful thinking and is very naive. There is tons of evidence proving it is dangerous. Maybe you were to busy getting high to pay attention in history class.

I don't see conspiracy everywhere, I arm myself so I don't have to worry about conspiracy against me, by removing weapons you make everyone vulnerable to influence from those who choose to conspire. When armed that is not likely to happen.

@Happy_Killbot Like all gun nuts, you're hopeless. I'm done with you. Peace.

Don’t act dense. Complaining about “guns” is shorthand for all the problems one attributes to their inappropriate use. The only real purpose for a statement like yours is to drag the discussion away from substance and shove it into a discussion about semantics.

@Rob1948 I'm trying to drag it into a discussion about autonomous weapons, maybe you haven't read my bio and missed the context.

@Happy_Killbot Oh! I didn’t realize that reading your bio was a requirement. I’ll get right on that.

@Rob1948 It isn't a requirement, but reading my screen name should provide adequate clues about how I feel about guns in general. At no point was I complaining about guns, quite the opposite actually. You also could have read the other comments before making a reactionary statement instead of adding white noise to an otherwise serious discussion.

If you don't want to read stuff, then why bother responding at all? You can keep all your own beliefs and never have to hear anything you don't want to know.

@backwardsman "Screw logic." This was an appropriate way to begin your reply given that everything that followed was pulled straight outta your ass.

@Happy_Killbot Let me see if I have the rules right... I read your comment and, then, instead of responding to that, I have to read however many responses there are to that comment, follow all the shifts, ebbs and flows that occur and then frame my comment based on those other comments for you to consider it appropriate.

Ummmmm, no. I directed my comment at what you said originally. To have to figure out what your avatar name means is to make an assumption, is risky at best. And, to frame my response to your original comment based on all the responsive comments (including yours) would require that I answer the whole thread rather to address a comment, which when you made it, reflected your state of mind at the time you made the comment rather than your state of mind as it evolved in relation to other comments.

No. I was addressing your original comment. Not the entire thread. If you can’t deal with that, then write everything out in excruciating detail to begin with.

By the way... it’s probable that some of the comments you want me to reflect on appeared while I was responding to you. Unfortunately, I can’t see those until I finish my comment because the computer page does not continuously refresh.

@Rob1948 I think there is a reason you get stuck arguing semantics.

You have yet to add any substance to this discussion. Your response to my comment doesn't have any meaning because you ignored the context of the statement.

It is like someone making a quip about football being an all american sport and someone responding that they call what we call soccer football in other countries.

@Happy_Killbot I commented on your original remark. You blew it off, suggested I should have read your bio, blew me off again and suggested that I should have read the entire thread before commenting. Your responses were ludicrous. I responded to that with a lot of words telling you politely to go pound sound. How ironic it is that you claim I have made no substantive comment (the post is much more than your thread bud) and all I have done is deal in semantics.

The irony? Your original comment was “Guns don’t kill people, people kill people.” That, as I noted, is the ultimate semantic statement in a discussion about gun regulation.

Then, you followed it up by saying something totally ludicrous, “We need to give our guns currency before we can complain about how bad they are.” Uh, no. We don’t.

Then, you followed that up by saying you were trying to drag the conversation to drones, etc. and away from a direct discussion of gun control. Go start your own thread.

As for getting stuck with semantics, that’s only a problem when I get replies like yours. In fact, you original comment (guns don’t kill people, people do) and desire to talk about drones as weapons are both a whole lot like Your example, commenting on soccer while people discuss American football.

@Rob1948 Alright, I'm just going to make this obvious because clearly, my subtle remarks are to much for you to comprehend.

The first statement: "Guns don't kill people people kill people" is simple but rather insightful commentary on technology and human nature. Guns in and of themselves are not bad or evil, it is just a gun. The way it is used it what makes it good or evil. The point is that banning guns doesn't solve the problem of people being evil. Not rocket science, but not a very good argument by itself because it reaches no conclusion. I remedy this by flipping the question on its head with the second statement.

The second statement: "We need to give our guns agency before we can complain about how bad they are." is more ambiguous. Without knowing the context of my stance on LAWs ( lethal autonomous weapons ) it has almost the same meaning as the first part, again pointing out that humans are the ones using the weapons, and the weapons are otherwise inanimate objects. That is why I directed you to see the LAWs context, because once you realize this the objective of the statement shifts to have a secondary meaning.

I am talking about weapons that kill without any human action or intervention. Those are the kind of weapons that you should be protesting if any. In fact, my support of them is only razor thin, because I see them as an inevitability rather than something that we can stop by voting or protesting. These sorts of weapons already exist in some forms, for example there is a South Korean company that has developed a turret that can kill without a human operator.

[gizmodo.com]

@Happy_Killbot
First, your “subtle” remarks were quite clear. You failed to indicate that they could not be taken at face value. That’s the first mistake.

Second, you failed to provide information necessary to discern what your remarks meant. Since this is not a test of interpretive skills, it is not my responsibility to have to figure out what you meant. That it is your responsibility to ensure I understand you (Communications 101), you failed on that point. Mistake # 2 and 3.

Virtually everyone understand that it’s people kill people, sometime by using guns. To think that it is insightful to make the statement that guns don’t kill but people do is not insightful. It only goes to the talking points of people arguig we don’t need gun control. And, it’s a lame argument.

“Gun control” is about placing restrictions on the availability and use of firearms. After all, we really can’t make laws affecting the availability and use of people, can we? However, we can make laws about what people do, and that is part about what gun control is meant to address. This would be mistake 4, on your part, in the sense you would even suggest that we don’t understand the distinction.

Third, why are you assuming/discussing banning guns? I’ve never mentioned that. The article I posted doesn’t discuss that. And, no intelligent person even believes that is possible. So, the assumption that this is about banning guns, if that is your assumption, is also a mistake.

Thank you for admitting your second statement is “ambiguous.” I would not have been so kind but at least you recognize that you failed to communicate what you meant.

Why would I need to know your stance on LAWS? I wasn’t talking about them and you certainly did not mention them. Nor is there any reason for me to read an entire thread or your bio or anything else about LAWS without you having mentioned them... and if you had, well, that is the football/soccer thing you mentioned. And, quite frankly, while you may think it intuitively obvious, it isn’t without your having giving a bit more of a hint than an admittedly ambiguous statement in a topic having nothing to do with autonomous lethal weapons systems. The fact that you knew what you were talking about does not tell me anything.

Further, the existence and arguments about LAWS and their use have zero relationship to the questions about the availability, use and control of firearms in the United States. And, until individuals actually use them domestically, they still won’t have any currency in a discussion about firearms use and control in the US. It’s a football/soccer argument, you know, in this discussion. And, that sir represents your next two or three mistakes.

In summary, it’s very arrogant on your part to discuss “soccer” in a “football” thread and then take umbrage at the fact people don’t have any idea what you were talking about.

@Rob1948 There are laws restricting the availability and use of people, its called the legal system. That is literally the purpose of it, to restrict what people can do.

The connection between LAWs and gun control is that it is a system that is capable of killing without human intervention. The point is that the gun control argument misses the point that people kill when they want, with or without guns, and hints at more advanced methods they may use.

I create a unique argument because I know that almost nobody can refute a perspective they have never heard before, and the fact that you are more preoccupied with avoiding it rather than confronting it confirms this.

Why be reactive when you can be proactive? The fact that LAWs are not currently being used domestically is not something we should wait to discuss until they exist, provided all the profound moral, ethical, legal, and political concerns.

This is relevant to the debate because it gives increased credibility to the necessity of citizens to defend themselves from a tyrannical government.

@Happy_Killbot

Prisons are not what I was referring to, but I suspect you know that.

You may have a point about LAWS. But, as we have both noted, they are not in use domestically. Your concern is noted. However, the American public — hell, the American political system — has yet to figure out how to (begin to) address the problems associated with firearms in this country. It will confuse and further complicate the whole discussion (and would effectively distract from discussions) to include the subject of LAWS.

Address the base issue first. Once you find common ground and actually begin to write acceptable law, nuanced issues such as LAWS can be introduced into the law-making process. (That may not be necessary actually. LAWS are owned and set in use and/or controlled by individuals if they become domestically available. In much the same way a person owns the bullet they fire and are responsible for any consequences, the same legal theory should apply to anyone setting LAWS in motion. That argument could be extended to its programmer if that is not the same person.)

@Rob1948 The point that I am making is that there should be fewer or no restrictions on firearms, specifically because LAWs are starting to come into existence. The average person isn't going to be able to afford such systems, only very wealthy individuals, industrial leaders, and governments can feasibly acquire them. These entities may choose to use them to obtain power in a violent manner, therefore it is in our best interest to either:

A) Prevent them from being developed anywhere in the world
B) Allow their production but heavily regulate it through international treaty
C) Allow their production but invest heavily into their safety and ethical use
D) Allow their production and use completely unrestricted.

Keep in mind these options do not apply to individuals, but only to state actors such as countries and city states. We are currently choosing option D for all intents and purposes, however there is a push by organizations such as the Campaign to stop killer robots [stopkillerrobots.org] and the future of life institute [futureoflife.org] both are highly respected academic organizations.

You might say this argument is ridiculous because state actors can afford tanks, planes, warships, and nukes that give them an unfair advantage should a tyrannical dictatorship emerge. The key difference between LAWs and tanks is that they don't require large standing armies to use, they are a more effective force multiplier than conventional arms because they require people who often refuse to harm their fellow man. If an insurgency broke out to combat a tyrannical government the military may not want to harm their fellow citizens. Robots don't care, they will kill indiscriminately if they are told to. That is why safety research is not only justified but absolutely necessary.

It is crucial that citizens be able to arm themselves against a government that is no longer acting in the best interest of the people, and therefore firearms should be in the hands of all citizens so that this happening becomes highly improbable.

@Happy_Killbot First the idea that, because of the existence of LAWS, we should do away, of minimize firearms laws is stupid. One, they are not even an issue at this point. Allowing individuals to own and use guns, without restriction is premature at this point, even if I agreed with your premise. Two, that calls for total anarchy and create havoc in society. And, three, your suggestion is just as senseless as getting rid of all traffic laws because self-driving cars will soon be common.

Second, quit reading the Dune series about the Atreides. It’s warping your mind.

Third, it won’t happen anyway. Human civilization is going to cease to exist if we continue to operate as we have. The change in climate will end life as a part of the next big extinction cycle.

@Rob1948 LAWs do currently exist in primitive forms and they are an issue that is, imho 10x worse than nuclear proliferation. I'm going to ignore your straw man argument about self driving cars.

Stop watching all that climate change propaganda, its warping your mind. We can survive underwater, underground and in space. Climate change isn't going to kill everyone, that's ridiculous fear- mongering that is irrelevant to this conversation.

An extremist government is dangerous, and frankly I think our own has gone much to far with both extreme right and left entities existing in both major parties, the rise of nationalism, and authoritarian individuals. We need more central policies not more extreme ones.

@Happy_Killbot

1. The argument about self driving cars makes as much sense as yours about LAWS and eliminating gun laws. It is not a straw man argument. It’s an analogy.

2. Climate change is occurring. If you can’t see that it’s willful blindness.

3. I said it would end civilization and life, much in the way of previous mass extinctions. And,, you are delusional if you think that, in the near-term, we can house and feed the population of this planet underground and in space. Ain’t gonna happen. And, space. We haven’t yet figured out how to house a dozen people in space and keep them healthy and physically fit yet. Much less an entire population.

Yeah, extreme government is a threat but centralized policies make them more likely. The ideas I suggested about gun control are not extreme. And, I’m not the one that needs a reality check.

@Rob1948 I'm not saying that climate change isn't happening, I'm saying that our climate models are terribly inaccurate, and in fact it is a ma thematic impossibility that we can ever predict the weather accurately. We do not know what the weather will be like a week from now let alone in a decade, and the farther you go into the future the harder it gets to predict. Our models are based on historic data, basically we give it information from the past and see if it predicts what actually happened. The problem with this method is that it is specific to atmospheric conditions, meaning we can't compensate for still unknown future variables, so you just have to guess. The end result is that models tend to overestimate some predictions and underestimate others.

Humans are more robust than that, I mean we are making plans to colonize mars and the moon, place that are inherently lifeless and significantly more hostile, I think we can figure out how to live here where it is much easier.
I'm not arguing that we can live in space or underground, I'm arguing that because we can and do live in these environments that we can figure it out.
The idiots who are panicking about the climate change seem to believe in an almost religious way that the world is just going to end one day. If CO2 levels get high enough, someone will make it into a commodity for profit. I can think of a lot of way to do this, for example you could seed the oceans with plankton then turn that plankton into biofuel, thus creating a nearly permanent renewable source of green energy. There are companies that turn atmospheric CO2 into plastic and carbon fibers.
[greenbiz.com]

The ideas you provide are extreme in the hands of extreme rulers. We should divide power among the people as evenly as possible, not give one particular group or individual all the power, that is why liberal democracies don't suck to live in. If we take guns away from people but not the military we are putting ourselves on the fast track to serfdom.

@Happy_Killbot Weather prediction is much more accurate both in the short and near term than ever and is improving in its accuracy as e speak. That will continue. And yes, you may as well said climate change is not happening when you said I should stop watching all that “climate change propaganda.”

Yeah we are robust but space colonization is decades away. Hell, plans to send a manned mission to just visit Mars are a decade away.

I have doubts we can figure it out, quite frankly. We haven’t figured out how to stop bees from dying. Or why song birds are disappearing in parts of Europe. Or why we see fewer insects now. We still have a government denying that the oceans will rise. We haven’t figured out how to stop polluting our oceans much less clean up all the plastic we’ve dumped there. The list goes on and on. As long as we have people denying that the climate is changing, and have those people push more use of fossils fuels, defund research into alternative energy, we will be hamstrung. As long as those same morons relax environmental laws to allow more pollution, we will not figure it out.

Your idea about biofuel is valid if we are allowed to research it now. Same with CO2... and there is promising research there as well but here it’s politically incorrect. The problem with increasing CO2 is that the resulting increase in heat is driving extreme weather, affecting crop growth patterns and rainfall, changing reproductive cycles of insects and animals, etc. we have to get ahead of that now. Not later.

The suggestions I made about gun control are not extreme. But, any law, even what you propose, can be extreme in the hands of an extreme government intent on subjugating it’s citizenry. If that is your standard? I would suggest abolishing all governments except some ass will come along, build a castle, develop a serfdom, get power crazed, align with another ass, develop a coalition, subjugate their neighbors, and eventually, we will be right back where we are now.

I’ll just stick with what we have and try to improve it.

@Rob1948

We have all the technology to live on mars or the moon, we are waiting on funding and costs to come down.

Bee populations have actually gone up, farmers breed more to make up for the ones dying and the problem is largely under control.

As far as I'm concerned, the planet and all its resources are ours to do what we want with. If we want to turn the oceans into lemonade, we should do that. If we decide that planets are completely over rated, we should take them apart for their iron cores to build space habitats. Do I think we should forsake the environment in its entirety? No, but we should be in charge of the environment, not the other way around.

Politicians have yet to solve a single problem in all of history. It is always cultural and societal changes that take the reigns and solves the problem before the politicians react.

We already more or less have the technology to perform this type of biotech operation. What is that technology? Just dump iron into the ocean. That's it. If done in a controlled way we could also collect the plankton and convert it into bio fuel and recycle most of the mass. What this would do to they environment if not carefully controlled is beyond me, although we do know from ice cores that decreased CO2 caused ice ages in the past, so you could cause the opposite issue.

I am not saying we should abolish the government all together, just put limits on the amount of power they have. The reasons for this have more to do with corporations gaining corrupt control of the government, which is basically where we are now with lobbyists who pay for politicians office in exchange for favorable policies.

Our system doesn't need improved, it needs overhauled.

@Happy_Killbot Honey bees maybe in better shape than they were but, the same cannot be said for other pollinators.
[fws.gov]

Mars, now? Nope. Not even close. [google.com]

Politicians... I would not go so far as to say they have never solved a problem.., however, in our case –now– in this country, they are a major impediment to any progress concerning pollution, climate, energy and related. And, that is a damn shame given that that is willful.

Increased CO2 is a climate warmer. Decreased, cooler. I doubt man could, by himself, cause another ice age. Man’s activities have been contributing to increasing CO2 for a long time. And, our impact is causing more rapid change now. Increasing biomass, photosynthetic biomass, will reduce CO2. Will it be enough to cool Earth and her seas, air? I don’t know.

Overhaul? Replaced, or just put back into balance.., that depends on those governing. And, those in power in the US have really screwed it up. Let’s see what happens in 2020 before we try to jettison what we have.

@Rob1948 The link about the bees is broken.

The article about mars is from 2015. Technology has made significant strides since then, mostly in the private sector. We may not be ready to establish a permanent colony, but we can definitely survive their long enough to find out what we would need to do to survive long term.

the more CO2 = warmer climate less = cooler is based on ice samples and in reality it isn't that simple. In some cases it can have the opposite effects. Other things have a drastic effect, such as albedo, the reflectiveness of earth's surface. One suggested way to cool the earth's surface is to paint every roof white. Some studies suggest this could actually boost global warming by heating up the atmosphere.

Also another aspect of increasing biomass is that if it dies and rots, that it would suck up as much O2 as it produced in its life. No large scales studies have been done on the net effects that I know of.

@Happy_Killbot Mars: [google.com]

A different “bee” link. [blogs.discovermagazine.com]

@avron You're a stand out, a beacon of hope in this thread of mind-boggling madness.

@Rob1948 When you said we were not ready for mars I assumed you meant technologically. This is just some Luddite spiritual nonsense about humans spoiling the world for our own use that. Frankly, I find this all to be exactly backwards and delightfully short sighted. If what we needed to fix earth's problems was here, we would have found it and fixed the problem. There is this concept in thermodynamics you may have heard of, a little thing called entropy that basically nullifies everything in this article.

"Bee" link is still broken, goes to a blank page that says we are having technical difficulties. Is this either a paid service or an internal page? They don't use https so I woudn't trust them anyways.

@Happy_Killbot

Yes. I meant technologically.

“If what we needed to fix earth’s problems was here, we would have found it and fixed the problem.” Really? We, as a people, apparently can’t even agree on what the problem is. Some, like the conservatives in this country, are happy to continue to pollute as if there is no consequence at all. And, hey if a few die, it’s not their problem. Those people should pay for better medical care.

Yeah, we can’t fix stupid.

[forbes.com]

Google “are pollinators endangered” to find links you can read.

@Rob1948 Why did you send a link that doesn't discuss current technology?

Fortune favors the bold. We explore so that we can find new ideas, new ways of thinking, new resources, and new technologies. Only by developing ourselves can we overcome our challenges, so that is why going to mars may be the best way to combat climate change on earth. It just so happens that mars's atmosphere is 95% CO2. Learning to live there is a good strategy for developing methods to convert CO2 in earths atmosphere to breathable oxygen.

This article is about the transit isues between earth and mars, which is the biggest hurtle and has little to nothing to do with actually surviving on mars's surface.

Some polinators being endangered is not the same as all pollinators being endangered.

@Happy_Killbot

Sent wrong link. My mistake.

If we can’t get there, survival there is a moot point. And, to make it a viable idea for addressing issues here, you need to move large numbers. Anything else is not enough.

Bees... there are more types than just honey bees. No some is not all. But, can we really afford to lose any if it’s preventable? No. We can’t.

@Rob1948 Wow, this is really far off topic now. I think you miss the points I'm trying to make about how technological changes occur, and can't think of any reasons why we should worry about a few pollinators going extinct unless there is some kind of serious repercussion for that particular species, for example figs rely on fig wasps to survive so it is in our best interest to keep both alive, but for more general non-self pollinating crops it doesn't matter what type of pollinator so long as there is one, so an extinction of a species would be absorbed by other species.

I don't see any need to continue this discussion in this thread, it's too far removed from what the discussion was supposed to be about.

@Happy_Killbot True enough about far afield.

I understand your points. I just disagree.

"When nothing happened after Sandy Hook I knew nothing ever would." What new law would have prevented Sandy Hook?

Not helpful.

Oh, are you suggesting that Tide poss are the problem we should address? Or that we should not worry about guns because we have so many other problems?

@Rob1948 guns are not the problem. Guns do not kill people. The problem is irresponsible gun ownership. By your way of thinking, cars and semi trucks kill and injure people every day, shall we go ahead and remove all motor vehicles?

@RobertMartin I asked you a question, trying to understand what you meant. Instead, I get rude attitude and a bunch of wrong assumptions about what I think and a stupid as hell comment about people kill people from you. Well, fucking la di dah.. We all know that. The problem is about what to do about irresponsible gun ownership, availability and use. Duh.

As to my way of thinking... which you don’t have a clue about what I think because you have your head stuck so far up your assumptions, that your last question is beyond stupid. But, to answer it, 1) cars and trucks don’t kill people, people kill people and 2) it’s about irresponsible ownership and use. Also, motor vehicles are, for many of us, a necessity; guns aren’t, unless you hunt for food.

If you ask politely, I will be glad to have a polite discussion and tell you what I think should be done about firearms. Do you think you can ask politely?

@Rob1948 personally, I've never known of a gun that decided to kill a person.
There are people who live out in the country or countryside that need guns and firearms for protection. It's a sad fact that criminals will break into a home while the people who live there are at home. Calling law enforcement is a great idea, however, it may take time for the sherriff to arrive. There is a constitutional amendment regarding ones right to bear arms. It was written to protect all citizens from a tyrannical government.

@RobertMartin there are people that live in cities that think they need protection. They have guns, too. Living in close quarters can be problematic when a gun is fired.

I may have heard of this thing you call a “constitution.” And, the “amendment” too. (By the way, both are capitalized words in that context.) Did you know that? And, until the last 3 years, I did not think we could have a tyrannical government. But, in most cases, having or choosing to use a gun ends badly. For someone. And, when more than one party has a gun, it often ends badly for others as well... including people who were not involved.

Did you know that American civilians own some 393 million firearms (4% of the world population but 46% of its firearms.) that’s more than 1 for each man, woman, child, infant, invalid, etc. in the country. Did you know that Americans are buying more guns everyday. That some individuals own dozens of firearms. Do you think we need that many firearms to defend our homes?

Do you think that our current laws are adequate? Too restrictive? Too loose? Rather than carping, why don’t you contribute something positive to the discussion instead.

@Rob1948 I own 3 guns, no problems here. If the government takes away guns the only people who have them are law enforcement and criminals. There will be a huge black market for weapons if guns should be outlawed.

@RobertMartin

Again... NO ONE WHO IS REALISTIC IS LOOKING TO OUTLAW GUNS! You are creating a false argument.

@Rob1948 I didn't create the argument, it just seems like there's a certain segment of the population that wants to get rid of guns. The government takes away one of our rights , what's next, freedom of speech, unlawful search and seizure. In regards to free speech there's a certain segment of the population that is already trying to do that under the guise of political correctness. Put another way, we cannot as citizens and patriots allow the government to take away our Constitutional rights.

@RobertMartin getting better control of guns is not taking away rights any more than having mandatory seat belt laws does. But people argue about that as well. The whole purpose of both is to save the lives that can be saved.

Doing nothing, for any reason you can name, is insanity, just as it is insane to think we can ban all guns. Those are the extremes. Surely, we can find middle ground that will help save lives. We just need the people who demand we do nothing (i.e., the NRA) to agree and admit doing nothing is wrong; to admit that something must be done. Instead, all r get is foot dragging knee jerk reactions, saying that they will never give up their guns even though they have not been asked to.

Bump stocks... a good example. Before they were banned, the NRA response was no, don’t pass that law. We want bump stocks even though their only purpose is to circumvent the law about fully automatic weapons. And, their only realistic use is to increase the kill rate. But, the NRA had to have them. Why? The 2nd Amendment. Their standard knee jerk reaction to every gun law proposal.

@Rob1948 I agree, we have to find a way keep guns out of the hands of criminals. One way is attempt to investigate and shut down illegal gun runners. As long as guns can be obtained through the underground, laws like the Brady bill won't work. It's also up to parents to teach their children about gun responsibility, protecting one's property is one thing, but using guns to commit mass murder, that's a problem.

@RobertMartin two questions. 1. What is the purpose of a gun? 2. What is the purpose of car?

@MsDemeanour a gun for protection of home and property
A car for transportation.

@RobertMartin A fence or dog is for protection. A gun is for shooting things. It has no other purpose.

@MsDemeanour except as an equalizer against criminals.

are you a psychic? how would you know? did you come up with facts like this, made it up on the spot or pulled from the depth of your ass?

That is a sad indictment of US culture. Welcome back to Dodge City!

Which Americans?

@Mofo1953 He is talking about those who landed on D-Day. They all would be dead if they did not have guns.

@indirect76 I don't think he's talking about the soldiers, that would be ridiculous, D Day was an invasion in a war, and they died anyway with their guns.

@Mofo1953 Both interpretations are not excellent statements. The D-Day one is probably true, but not a great point. The American population one is a better point, but not shown to be true.

@indirect76 totally irrelevant, the point and issue is: America should enforce stricter gun control.

You get more stupid with each reply. That is fucking amazing. Practice, practice, practice!

@Mofo1953 Well I did say they were not excellent statements.

@Sticks48 I keep reading this thread just to read your funny comments.

@MsDemeanour Thanks, sometimes they make it so easy. The gun problem in this country is unconscionable.

@Sticks48 well to be fair the USA isn't the only country I'm too scared to visit. There's Iraq Syria and Afghanistan too

@MsDemeanour At least the folks in those three countries know they are fucked up. We accept this shit as normal. Insanity.

@Sticks48 it's the kids growing up thinking school drills for lock downs that upsets me. No child should have to go through that kind of stuff during peace time

@MsDemeanour It reminds me of the drills we ran for nuclear war. That may be the generation who make the big changes when they get older. You guys did it and you are probably a more macho country than here. At least that is the perception. One mass shooting and both you and New Zealand do something.When those elementary school children were shot at Sandy Hook, I thought that would be the one. How could it not be? Nothing! Indefensible.

@Sticks48 Emigrate! I'm thinking of emigrating to New Zealand because the Prime Minister just turned down a $12,000 pay rise. She is amazing.

@MsDemeanour She does seem to be something else. Wish there were more like her.

Apparently, you and I did not read the same words or the same article. So, kindly point out (quote) where the article says it manipulated data.

By the way, the article isn’t from CNN. nor is it a video, TV or anything of that nature. So, the only way to “turn off” would be to shut down one’s brain. Turning off one’s brain is how I imagine knee-jerk 2md Amendment defenders and Trumpers act. So, nope, not turning off my brain.

Like you turned off your fucking brain.

Three quarters!

@kodimerlyn I would answer your question if I thought there would be a calm and rational discussion.

You already have the highest percentage of incarcerated people than any othe country in the world. Room for many more?

@dahermit I have always thought that public works by convicted felons is far more beneficial than jail time ... weeding public gardens, litter clearing, sweeping roads, painting public buildings, etc

@ShadowAmicus Seriously?! You want to have persons convicted of owning an illegal gun do public service? Yeah, right...that should work.

@dahermit That's how our prison system works. They are basically publicly owned sla- ... I mean community service actors to repay their debt to society.

"There is no need to ban guns - simply apply an ever increasing tax burden on armaments sales to the pblic and stricter controls on legal ownership - then introduce stricter penalties for illegal ownership" But then again, MY guns have never been used to harm anyone in the 55 or so years I have had guns.

@kodimerlyn Don't you Canadians have your own problems to solve? Why do you feel you must interject yourself in the issues native to the U.S.A.?

@dahermit you may be in the majority, but there is a clear and present danger from some who own guns

Correct me if I am wrong, but I believe they repealed that policy. The problem is they will face economic hardship in 70-80 years when the larger population retires, same as the issue we have in the US with the baby boomers but 10X worse because their problem is more severe.