Do you own any guns

[Mock Turtle]

Claiming un-named "professionals" with
un-linked studies isn't convincing.

The studies have been published - as to the statistics and what to make of them - but I've not delved into them, given it is your country to sort out, but I can still have a view.

 

[Mock Turtle]

Not one example of your thinking is clear or backed by anthing but your fuzzy thinking.
Citing vague somebody's in feference to
Znothing in particular is a good example
of what is NOT clear thinking.

Your claims are not" thinking" at all,
you just say things.

Ta. And goodnight to you. I suppose all the Americans who think the same are not doing any thinking either. Perhaps you are fixated on a belief - because you were attacked?

 

[Revoltingest]

But it still does tend to be the number of weapons in circulation, and the availability that causes them to be used in situations not apparent in other nations.

You're almost there. But it's not the number of weapons
(whatever "in circulation" means), but rather how many
inappropriate people have access to 1 deadly weapon.

The issue really is as to how could you make the weapons to be made safe when there are so many of them and being used by quite a disparate demographic.

There never is "safe". But we can achieve "safer",
& eventually "safe enuf" with better regulation
& services.

It's not as if one needs an IQ test to buy one - if even that had any effect.

IQ is irrelevant.

And the same goes for all the proposals as to health care - such being an enormous undertaking and possibly leading the USA down the police state route. Which would an irony given that Americans seem to place so much on personal freedoms.

I see no need for a police state to limit gun ownership
to those trained, & store guns securely.
As for the cost of better health care, that would have
benefits far in excess of reduced carnage, thereby
making it cost effective. And that is achievable.

 

[Revoltingest]

Ta. And goodnight to you. I suppose all the Americans who think the same are not doing any thinking either. Perhaps you are fixated on a belief - because you were attacked?

When you propose solutions that won't work for
the reasons given, it shows fixation on a belief.
Our populace & government are not going to
confiscate the guns. Thinking would result in
solutions that are possible to implement.

 

[Mock Turtle]

China is where I live.

I spoke of a lesson well learned but ignored by many.

Like you.

Your impression that countries in Europe and elsewhere have" transitioned away" from stupid social engineering,
you live in a dream world.

Ripe for social engineers to pluck.
Yiu are not just unwary, you advocate " drastic change".

One has to advocate drastic change when there is a serious problem often. Some people, like yourself, just can't make sense of it, that is all. That is, they can't envision a different society that could happen in the future and which would be better.

 

[Mock Turtle]

When you propose solutions that won't work for
the reasons given, it shows fixation on a belief.
Our populace & government are not going to
confiscate the guns. Thinking would result in
solutions that are possible to implement.

I know they aren't - because the USA is still too right-wing - and your nation will just carry on with the same amount of carnage until more people do see the lunacy in such widespread gun ownership. Perhaps in a century or two. Nothing else is likely to stop the killing.

 

[Revoltingest]

One has to advocate drastic change when there is a serious problem often. Some people, like yourself, just can't make sense of it, that is all. That is, they can't envision a different society that could happen in the future and which would be better.

We can't just design solutions based upon what we
believe society could or will be. Using bad premises
will have unanticipated deleterious results.

 

[Guitar's Cry]

Well there can't be a move from position A to position B without some drastic changes, and who says one has to get rid of all of the guns?

Why not improve gun regulation & social services?
Go for what's achievable to improve things, instead
of a dream that won't be realized.

Both of these posts make sense to me.

It seems as if something at least needs to be tried, and "getting rid of guns" just doesn't seem likely at all; even if legislature gets passed and the Supreme Court miraculously upholds it, the sheer amount of guns already available will still be a problem.

But something, a move from point A to B needs to be done if we want to minimize gun violence and basic, practical regulation with services to improve community health would be a step.

Also, I think avoiding the argument that I need a gun to defend myself against guns is sensible, but I am not sure it's convincing for anyone who is interested in avoiding gun violence. Getting in a gun fight is a frightening situation to put oneself in, even if it is in defense of life. There are other ways to defend oneself and prevent these situations, and while I agree that a firearm may be more effective than pepper gel or hand-to-hand skills in some situations, it also isn't helpful at all in other defense situations and may increase the danger.

 

[Revoltingest]

I know they aren't - because the USA is still too right-wing - and your nation will just carry on with the same amount of carnage until more people do see the lunacy in such widespread gun ownership. Perhaps in a century or two. Nothing else is likely to stop the killing.

When human beings are improved to the point
where violent crime & war no longer exist, I'd
be happy to become unarmed. But in such an
age, guns wouldn't be mis-used either.

 

[Mock Turtle]

We can't just design solutions based upon what we
believe society could or will be. Using bad premises
will have unanticipated deleterious results.

Why? Why is it that so many seem to think the USA is so unique and that what other nations have done cannot be done in the USA? I know there is a large cultural issue and history to address, but why is it that so many Americans can't live without having such weapons?

 

[Revoltingest]

Both of these posts make sense to me.

It seems as if something at least needs to be tried, and "getting rid of guns" just doesn't seem likely at all; even if legislature gets passed and the Supreme Court miraculously upholds it, the sheer amount of guns already available will still be a problem.

It would be wise to refuse to cooperate with a government
that exercised such great power over us. Guns could be
hidden in case of need.

But something, a move from point A to B needs to be done if we want to minimize gun violence and basic, practical regulation with services to improve community health would be a step.

Also, I think avoiding the argument that I need a gun to defend myself against guns is sensible, but I am not sure it's convincing for anyone who is interested in avoiding gun violence. Getting in a gun fight is a frightening situation to put oneself in, even if it is in defense of life. There are other ways to defend oneself and prevent these situations, and while I agree that a firearm may be more effective than pepper gel or hand-to-hand skills in some situations, it also isn't helpful at all in other defense situations and may increase the danger.

Different people in different situations need different weapons.
I'm a big fan of pepper spray. The efficacy vs wrongful use
balance is useful for a great many people. I prefer it in some
circumstances.

 

[Audie]

When you propose solutions that won't work for
the reasons given, it shows fixation on a belief.
Our populace & government are not going to
confiscate the guns. Thinking would result in
solutions that are possible to implement.

Thinking would be a radical
solution to our friend's confusion.

 

[Mock Turtle]

When human beings are improved to the point
where violent crime & war no longer exist, I'd
be happy to become unarmed. But in such an
age, guns wouldn't be mis-used either.

I can understand this, what with so many others having guns, but would you build a society with this in mind - given the associated problems that are obvious in the USA - or would you want to live in one where even if there still is crime, one can walk about and live without fear? Because that is what I have experienced all my life and in the countries I have visited. All achieved without any necessity for personal weapons. Because the upside is that we and the other nations just don't tend to get the horrors seen in the USA.

And if you wouldn't build a society like this one can at least transition away from one.

 

[Mock Turtle]

Thinking would be a radical
solution to our friend's confusion.

Last resort - ad homs?

 

[Revoltingest]

Why?

Bad assumptions, eg....
- The bad guys (& gals) will turn in their guns.
- The bad guys (& gals) will stop committing assault.
- The good guys (& gals) will turn in all their guns.
- There won't be an increase in victims due to their
being less able to defend themselves.

These assumptions would be necessary
for confiscation to work better than useful
regulation & expanded social services.

Why is it that so many seem to think the USA is so unique and that what other nations have done cannot be done in the USA?

Because USA is unique.
It was born in violent revolution.
The Constitution's 2nd Amendment gives the right to own guns.
We're accustomed to valuing this right highly.

I know there is a large cultural issue and history to address, but why is it that so many Americans can't live without having such weapons?

You say "can't life without", but this smacks of
mere insult that mocks our valuing gun rights.

 

[Father Heathen]

People have been killing eachother for a long time.
Don't underestimate the ability to keep finding
new ways to do it.

The idea is to make it less easy.
We don't remove traffic lights just because someone will periodically run the red.

 

[Audie]

It would be wise to refuse to cooperate with a government
that exercised such great power over us. Guns could be
hidden in case of need.

Different people in different situations need different weapons.
I'm a big fan of pepper spray. The efficacy vs wrongful use
balance is useful for a great many people. I prefer it in some
circumstances.

Always it's this "gun v gun" nonsense.
I doubt that happens much outside of a ghetto.
Nobody needs a gun to overpower
me.
But it would be my only defense.

 

[Audie]

Last resort - ad homs?

You don't know what an ad hom or
circular reasoning is.

 

[Audie]

Bad assumptions, eg....
- The bad guys (& gals) will turn in their guns.
- The bad guys (& gals) will stop committing assault.
- The good guys (& gals) will turn in all their guns.
- There won't be an increase in victims due to their
being less able to defend themselves.

These assumptions would be necessary
for confiscation to work better than useful
regulation & expanded social services.

Because USA is unique.
It was born in violent revolution.
The Constitution's 2nd Amendment gives the right to own guns.
We're accustomed to valuing this right highly.

You say "can't life without", but this smacks of
mere insult that mocks our valuing gun rights.

" can't live without" also smacks of
just saying things.

 

[Mock Turtle]

Bad assumptions, eg....
- The bad guys (& gals) will turn in their guns.
- The bad guys (& gals) will stop committing assault.
- The good guys (& gals) will turn in all their guns.
- There won't be an increase in victims due to their
being less able to defend themselves.

These assumptions would be necessary
for confiscation to work better than useful
regulation & expanded social services.

Because USA is unique.
It was born in violent revolution.
The Constitution's 2nd Amendment gives the right to own guns.
We're accustomed to valuing this right highly.

You say "can't life without", but this smacks of
mere insult that mocks our valuing gun rights.

Like who expects it to be easy or a short process? No doubt it would take decades to achieve any semblance of reducing the overall number of weapons. Just remember a JFK quote - We choose to do this not because it’s easy, but because it’s hard.